States across the United States are grappling with uncertainty over whether they can continue to provide full monthly benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a federal food aid initiative that serves approximately 42 million Americans. This uncertainty stems from an ongoing legal and political conflict linked to the partial federal government shutdown and a series of conflicting court rulings.
The controversy began when the Trump administration announced that SNAP benefits would not be available for November due to the government shutdown. This decision sparked immediate challenges from several states and nonprofit organizations, which argued that denying benefits to millions of vulnerable Americans would cause severe hardship. In response, federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island issued rulings blocking the administration from completely withholding November’s SNAP payments.
Following these court rulings, the Trump administration attempted a compromise by stating it would use an emergency reserve fund to provide 65% of the maximum monthly benefit amount. However, this partial funding was met with further legal objections. On November 14, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell of Rhode Island ruled that the 65% payment was insufficient and ordered that full SNAP benefits be disbursed by the following Friday.
Reacting swiftly to Judge McConnell’s order, several states moved to distribute the full monthly benefits to SNAP recipients. Millions of Americans in these states received their funds early, allowing them to purchase groceries amid the government shutdown. However, the legal saga was far from over. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily paused Judge McConnell’s order on Friday night, pending further appeal, leaving many states unsure whether they could continue distributing full benefits.
During this period, some states hesitated to release payments, awaiting clarification from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the federal agency responsible for administering SNAP. Consequently, millions of SNAP recipients in certain states have yet to receive their November benefits, exacerbating the hardships faced by low-income families, seniors, and children reliant on food assistance.
Amid this turmoil, the Trump administration demanded that states “undo” the distribution of full benefits that occurred during the brief window when full funding was ordered by the courts but before the Supreme Court’s temporary pause. Patrick Penn, deputy undersecretary of Agriculture, warned state SNAP directors that they must immediately retract any full benefits issued for November 2025 and indicated that states could face penalties for noncompliance.
This directive has created significant tension between federal and state governments. For example, Wisconsin, which had promptly loaded full benefits into Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards following Judge McConnell’s order, had its federal reimbursements frozen. According to court filings from plaintiffs suing the administration, Wisconsin’s SNAP account could be depleted as early as Monday, potentially leaving grocery stores unpaid for SNAP transactions and threatening the stability of the program within the state.
At the same time, several Democratic governors have pledged to resist any federal attempts to claw back the benefits already distributed. Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont issued a strong statement assuring SNAP recipients that their benefits would not be taken away. He emphasized that the 360,000 people in Connecticut who depend on SNAP should not be caught in the middle of political disputes and declared, “We have their back.”
The legal battle over SNAP benefits highlights broader constitutional and political questions. The Trump administration has argued that the judicial orders requiring full benefits infringe on the constitutional spending powers of the legislative and executive branches. By compelling the administration to disburse funds during a government shutdown, the courts, in the administration’s view, are overstepping their authority.
On the other hand, judges overseeing the cases have pointed to the human impact of withholding SNAP benefits. Judge Julie Rikelman of the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals criticized the government’s delay in making partial payments, noting that people reliant on SNAP had gone without benefits for a week into November. She emphasized the urgency of ensuring food security for vulnerable populations during the shutdown.
Nonprofit organizations involved in the lawsuits have underscored the devastating consequences of the funding delays. Diane Yentel, President and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, highlighted how continued disruptions deepen suffering for children, seniors, and working families, and increase pressure on nonprofits that provide food assistance. She called on the administration to prioritize basic decency and humanity by guaranteeing food security for all Americans.
Congress is also weighing in on the issue, considering proposals to fund SNAP as part of broader efforts to end the government shutdown. The uncertainty around SNAP funding adds pressure on lawmakers to reach a