...
By Robert Alexander
Senior Crime & Court Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is facing a multistate legal challenge after halting November payments under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), citing the ongoing federal government shutdown.
The unprecedented suspension—affecting roughly 42 million Americans—has drawn lawsuits from 25 states and Washington, D.C., which argue that the agency acted unlawfully in withholding food benefits.
Why It Matters
At the center of the dispute over the White House’s suspension of November SNAP payments is more than a budget standoff—it’s a test of how far the federal government’s authority extends when Congress fails to fund essential programs.
Read More on News
For the first time in the program’s history, benefits that help feed more than 42 million Americans are being withheld, prompting the lawsuits and igniting a debate over whether the U.S. Department of Agriculture is obeying fiscal law or weaponizing hunger.
The outcome could redefine how future administrations handle safety-net programs during shutdowns—and determine whether millions of low-income families can rely on food assistance when politics bring Washington to a halt.
...
What To Know
States Sue USDA Over Snap Suspension
Filed October 28 in the District of Massachusetts, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, contends that the USDA and the Office of Management and Budget violated federal law by ordering states to delay the transmission of SNAP benefit files for November.
The complaint, led by Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, asserts the USDA “suspended SNAP benefits even though, on information and belief, it has funds available…sufficient to fund all, or at least a substantial portion, of November SNAP benefits.”
The filing calls the suspension “arbitrary and capricious” and seeks emergency injunctive relief to restore the payments.
In a Saturday email to Newsweek, Campbell's office said: “Today, as millions of Americans go into this weekend unsure of how they will buy food, the Court has affirmed that USDA is legally required to utilize the SNAP contingency fund to pay for benefits during the government shutdown.”
The statement continued: “It is unacceptable that our federal government has put us in the position of having to fight to help feed our residents. While today’s decision marks a much-needed step in the right direction, our residents will still feel the devastating impacts of the federal government’s disregard for their health and wellbeing as they wait for the Court’s order to be implemented. I will continue standing up against this Administration’s cruel and unlawful actions and work to ensure every Massachusetts resident who needs food assistance receives it—because hunger is not political; it is a human crisis.”
In a coordinated October 24 letter to Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, attorneys general from several states, including Arizona, California, and Illinois, questioned the legal basis for USDA’s directive.
They cited statutory provisions requiring the agency to provide assistance to all eligible households and noted the existence of contingency and Section 32 reserve funds that, they argued, could be lawfully used to continue benefits during a shutdown.
“It is unclear how USDA determined this action was necessary,” the letter stated, adding that “our agencies have yet to receive any update from USDA” on a contingency plan.
USDA Defends Halt Citing Federal Spending Law
In its response filed October 29, USDA defended the suspension, saying it was compelled by the Anti-Deficiency Act, which bars federal agencies from spending funds not appropriated by Congress.
“The ongoing lapse in appropriations has left SNAP with no appropriated funds,” government lawyers wrote, arguing that ordering the release of benefits “would be a blatant violation” of federal law.
The filing said USDA had considered but rejected using its $5.25-billion contingency reserve, emphasizing that those funds were intended for disaster relief and were insufficient to cover the approximately $9 billion required for a full month of SNAP benefits.
“Defendants reasonably and correctly concluded that wiping out the long-term emergency fund, or depleting the Child Nutrition Programs, would be both legally dubious and practically disastrous,” it read.
The agency warned that depleting the reserve could cripple the Disaster SNAP (D-SNAP) program, which provides emergency food assistance after natural disasters.
“It maintains the long-term emergency fund for disasters that may arise, rather than expending them all at once on partial payments,” the filing stated.
Officials also cautioned that reprogramming state systems for partial payments “would take weeks, if it can be done at all,” potentially disrupting benefit delivery for months.
...
Political Fallout and Efforts To Restore Benefits
Political divisions have deepened around the issue.
A USDA memorandum distributed to states blamed “Congressional Democrats’ refusal to pass a clean continuing resolution” for the lapse, asserting that “contingency funds are not legally available to cover regular benefits.”
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson echoed that position as previously reported by Newsweek, saying that “the contingency funds are not legally available to cover the benefits right now,” citing a legal analysis from the administration.
“It’s a finite source of funds,” Johnson said, “and if they transfer funds from these other sources, it pulls it away immediately from school meals and infant formula.”
Democrats, meanwhile, accused the administration of weaponizing hunger to exert political pressure during the shutdown.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called the move “a disgusting dereliction of duty…knowingly [ripping] food out of the mouths of 42 million children, seniors and veterans.”
Several Democratic governors, including Tony Evers of Wisconsin, have urged USDA to “use every legal administrative option available” to prevent families from going hungry.
In Congress, lawmakers from both parties have introduced measures to avert future disruptions.
Republican lawmakers, Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri and Iowa Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks, introduced the Keep SNAP Funded Act of 2025, which would automatically appropriate funds to maintain uninterrupted benefits during lapses in government funding.
As the case proceeds, both sides agree on one point: the consequences are immediate and far-reaching.
According to USDA data cited in the complaint, more than 25 million individuals in the plaintiff states rely on SNAP for food each month.
Unless Congress reaches a spending agreement or the court intervenes, millions of households could see their food assistance delayed for the first time in the program’s six-decade history.
What People Are Saying
New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a press release earlier this week: “Millions of Americans are about to go hungry because the federal government has chosen to withhold food assistance it is legally obligated to provide.”
Claire Babineaux-Fontenot, CEO, Feeding America, said last week in a statement: “We implore Secretary Rollins and federal leaders to use all available avenues to protect families impacted by the ongoing shutdown, without delay.”
Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat, recently said: “The Trump administration is weaponizing hunger as a political bargaining chip. When it comes down to it, this is a choice.”
What Happens Next
The federal court in Massachusetts will decide whether to grant an emergency order forcing USDA to release November SNAP benefits, a ruling that could arrive within days.
If denied, millions may see food aid delayed until Congress ends the shutdown or passes new legislation such as the bipartisan Keep SNAP Funded Act, which would guarantee uninterrupted benefits.
Meanwhile, states and food banks are preparing for a surge in need, as governors explore temporary stopgaps that USDA says it cannot reimburse.
Politically, both parties are trading blame—Republicans citing fiscal law, Democrats accusing the administration of cruelty—while the court’s decision could set a lasting precedent for how federal agencies manage safety-net programs during funding lapses.
Update 11/01/25, 12:16 p.m. ET: This article has been updated with comment from Campbell's office.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines