Listen to the article
State Attorneys General Challenge Trump Administration Over SNAP Benefit Cuts
Lawyers representing approximately two dozen states headed to court Monday to block the Trump administration’s attempt to penalize them for making full payments to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients. The legal action marks the latest development in an increasingly contentious battle over the nation’s largest anti-hunger program, which supports 42 million low-income Americans and has been disrupted by the ongoing government shutdown.
“Food assistance is not a political issue,” New York Attorney General Letitia James told reporters. “It is a moral imperative, and no one should go hungry because their own government is refusing to feed them.”
The states’ request for emergency intervention follows the Trump administration’s Saturday threat to impose severe economic penalties on states that provided full SNAP benefits. This threat came despite U.S. District Judge John McConnell’s order directing the administration to make 100% of SNAP payments available, rather than the 65% previously outlined by federal officials.
In a parallel move, Trump officials urged the Supreme Court on Monday afternoon to maintain an emergency stay issued by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson last week. In their filing, administration lawyers cited Congress’s progress toward resolving the shutdown and argued that “the answer to this crisis is not for federal courts to reallocate resources without lawful authority.”
“The only way to end this crisis — which the Executive is adamant to end — is for Congress to reopen the government,” they added.
The affected states have until Tuesday morning to file their response to the Supreme Court.
Judge McConnell had previously reprimanded the Trump administration for agreeing to fund only 65% of SNAP benefits. “It’s likely that SNAP recipients are hungry as we sit here,” McConnell remarked Thursday before issuing his order, which gave the USDA less than 24 hours to comply.
In their appeal, the Trump administration’s legal team argued that the judge’s order “makes a mockery of the separation of powers” and accused McConnell of judicial overreach. “There is no lawful basis for an order that directs USDA to somehow find $4 billion in the metaphorical couch cushions,” Department of Justice lawyers contended, describing the directive as an “unprecedented injunction.”
The U.S. Department of Agriculture intensified tensions on Saturday by informing states that those failing to comply with the administration’s reduced benefit plan could face cancellation of federal cost-sharing benefits for SNAP and would be “responsible for the consequences” of their actions.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined New York’s James and New Jersey’s Matt Platkin in seeking emergency court intervention. “We’re asking the courts to block Saturday night’s guidance and immediately make full SNAP benefits available,” Bonta explained.
The state officials accused the administration of politicizing a vital nutrition program that serves approximately one in eight Americans during an already challenging government shutdown that has lasted more than 40 days.
Platkin characterized the USDA’s effort to halt full SNAP payments and shift costs to states as the “most heinous thing” he had witnessed during his tenure. “There are more children in New Jersey on SNAP than consists of the entire population of our state’s largest city,” he noted, emphasizing the program’s extensive reach.
Bonta added that the new USDA guidance “claimed that the steps we’ve taken to follow its earlier guidance and a court order were ‘unauthorized,’ and that we must immediately undo the actions, or we would face steep penalties.”
Meanwhile, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer informed the Supreme Court that the administration “still intends to pursue a stay” of another federal judge’s order requiring full SNAP funding during the shutdown, barring any last-minute congressional action to reopen the government.
The dispute highlights the far-reaching impacts of the government shutdown, which has now stretched beyond 40 days with no immediate resolution in sight. SNAP’s importance as a safety net for millions of vulnerable Americans has turned the program into a central battleground in the larger political conflict over government funding and operations.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
11 Comments
It’s alarming to see the administration threatening to penalize states for providing full SNAP benefits, especially during a government shutdown when people need this assistance the most. This seems like a blatant attempt to score political points at the expense of the poor.
Absolutely, SNAP is not a bargaining chip to be used in political power struggles. The administration should be focused on ensuring no one goes hungry, not creating more barriers to accessing this vital aid.
It’s concerning to see the administration attempting to undermine SNAP benefits during a government shutdown, when families are already struggling. This program is a lifeline for millions, and should not be used as a political bargaining chip.
I’m concerned to see the administration threatening to penalize states for providing full SNAP benefits, especially during a government shutdown when these funds are so desperately needed. This seems like a misguided and politically-motivated attempt to score points rather than address food insecurity.
While I understand the administration’s desire to rein in government spending, SNAP is a crucial anti-poverty program that helps millions put food on the table. Threatening to penalize states for providing full benefits seems like an overly punitive and misguided approach.
Agreed, there are more constructive ways to address program costs and efficiency without jeopardizing food assistance for low-income Americans. This heavy-handed tactic is likely to do more harm than good.
This is a concerning situation where politics is interfering with vital food assistance programs. SNAP benefits are a lifeline for millions of vulnerable Americans, and the government should be working to strengthen this safety net, not undermine it.
I agree, this is a highly charged political issue but the basic human need for food should transcend partisan divides. The courts will hopefully intervene to protect low-income families from being caught in the crossfire.
This legal battle over SNAP benefits is concerning, as it highlights the politicization of a program that should be focused solely on addressing food insecurity. I hope the courts can provide some clarity and stability for these vulnerable families.
This legal battle over SNAP benefits is deeply troubling. Food assistance should not be a partisan issue – it’s a moral imperative to ensure no one goes hungry, regardless of political affiliation. I hope the courts side with the states and protect this vital safety net.
Absolutely, SNAP is a critical anti-hunger program that transcends politics. The administration should be focused on strengthening, not undermining, this assistance for low-income families in need.