The Trump administration has escalated a contentious legal battle over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), demanding that states reverse full benefit payments issued under recent court orders. This latest development comes after the U.S. Supreme Court stayed rulings requiring the administration to maintain full SNAP benefits, which provide food assistance to more than 42 million Americans.
The conflict centers around the administration’s response to court decisions made in the past week that compelled the release of full SNAP benefits despite the ongoing federal government shutdown. Nonprofits and Democratic attorneys general had sued to ensure that the anti-hunger program remained fully funded during the shutdown. Courts ruled in their favor, prompting many states to quickly distribute benefits to millions of eligible residents. Initially, the Trump administration indicated it would comply with these rulings while simultaneously appealing them.
However, late Friday night, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily paused the lower court orders mandating full SNAP payments. This stay means that the administration is no longer legally required to disburse the increased benefits as previously ordered. Following this, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) instructed states on Saturday to “undo” any full SNAP payments made under the prior court rulings, declaring such payments “unauthorized.”
Patrick Penn, deputy undersecretary of Agriculture, sent a letter to state SNAP directors warning that states must immediately reverse any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for the month of November 2025. He further cautioned that states could face penalties if they failed to comply. It remains unclear how the directive applies to states that used their own funds to maintain SNAP benefits versus those relying entirely on federal funding. The USDA did not provide further comment on the situation.
In a court filing on Sunday, the USDA argued that states released full SNAP benefits prematurely and without authorization after last week’s rulings. This sudden reversal has caused confusion and alarm among states, many of which had already moved to comply with the court orders and distribute benefits to vulnerable populations.
The administration’s demand sparked condemnation from both Democratic and Republican officials. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, called the directive “shocking” if it penalizes states like hers that used their own resources to keep the program afloat. “States that have said this is a significant enough issue in our state, we’re going to find resources to help our people,” she said. “Those states should not be penalized.”
Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey, a Democrat, also denounced the administration’s move. She noted that SNAP benefits had already been processed and loaded onto Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards before the Supreme Court’s stay was issued, in accordance with previous USDA guidance. Healey vowed legal action if the administration attempts to reclaim those funds. “Massachusetts residents with funds on their cards should continue to spend it on food,” she said. “President Trump should be focusing on reopening the government instead of repeatedly fighting to take away food from American families.”
Democrats have criticized the Trump administration for targeting SNAP during the government shutdown, arguing that the program could have been maintained even as other government functions were halted. Over the weekend, senators engaged in bipartisan negotiations to end the shutdown, which included provisions to fully fund SNAP and ensure states would be reimbursed for any expenses incurred during the impasse.
More than two dozen states, represented by Democratic attorneys general and elected officials, filed a court motion on Saturday warning that the Trump administration was refusing to reimburse them for SNAP payments made under court orders, even before the Supreme Court’s stay. The states cautioned that this refusal could lead to “catastrophic operational disruptions,” including the inability to pay vendors and escalating legal claims.
Wisconsin serves as a stark example of the financial strain caused by the administration’s stance. After a Rhode Island judge ordered the restoration of benefits, Wisconsin loaded SNAP funds onto cards for nearly 700,000 residents. However, the U.S. Treasury subsequently froze reimbursements to the state, forcing Wisconsin’s government to warn it could run out of money by Monday. Democratic Governor Tony Evers rejected the administration’s demand to reverse the payments, stating, “No.” He emphasized that the state acted in compliance with an active court order and that the administration had previously assured states it was working to implement full SNAP benefits for November.
Governor Wes Moore of Maryland echoed the frustration felt by many state leaders. Speaking on CBS, Moore described the administration’s guidance as chaotic and inconsistent, noting that his state received four different directives in