Half of all U.S. states and the District of Columbia are suing to force the Trump administration to continue food stamp funding currently scheduled to end Nov. 1 due to the government shutdown.
The administration blamed its decision to suspend the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program on congressional Democrats and the U.S. Senate’s failure to adopt provisional spending plans passed by the Republican-controlled House.
“Bottom line, the well has run dry,” the U.S. Department of Agriculture said in announcing the discontinuation of SNAP benefits for the program’s 42 million recipients. “We are approaching an inflection point for Senate Democrats. They can continue to hold out for health care for illegal aliens and gender mutilation procedures or reopen the government so mothers, babies and the most vulnerable among us can receive critical nutrition assistance.”
Claims that Democrats support genital mutilation and health care for undocumented immigrants are unproved and likely based on the party’s support for gender-affirming care and health care eligibility for taxpaying immigrants living and working in the U.S. legally.
The SNAP suspension could be averted if the administration authorized use of a $6 billion contingency fund.
But the SNAP suspension could be averted if the administration authorized use of a $6 billion contingency fund established to maintain funding for the program in critical moments, according to the lawsuit filed Oct. 28 by Washington, D.C. and the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.
The action argues contingency funds kept SNAP benefits flowing during previous shutdowns — including in 2018 during Trump’s first term in office — and that states will be harmed by the requirement to continue administrative tasks related to the program.
“States are required by law to continue operating their state SNAP programs even when benefits are suspended or reduced,” the suit says. “They must, for example, continue promptly accepting and processing SNAP applications even though ‘no benefits shall be issued to the applicant until issuance is again authorized by’ USDA.”
The litigation adds the administration is “repurposing certain appropriations in order to ‘distribute billions in aid for farmers and reopen some activities of the U.S. Department of Agriculture amid the ongoing federal shutdown.’”
Funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC, also will be continued in November.
The administration’s suspension of food stamps comes on the heels of other major hits to hunger-fighting programs in the U.S. In March, USDA cut $500 million in funding for food banks, and Trump’s comprehensive spending bill passed in July slashed about $186 billion from SNAP over the next decade.
The legislation also increased states’ share for SNAP from 50% to 75% beginning in 2027, according to the lawsuit. Altogether, Trump’s policies are causing harm to the states and their food-insecure residents, according to the lawsuit.
“California, for example, has deployed its National Guard to assist food banks that will be facing a dramatic increase in needy families seeking assistance in the absence of SNAP benefits. California is also fast-tracking $80 million in state funds for food banks that would normally be used to fund food bank operations throughout the rest of the year. Similarly, Colorado’s governor, Jared Polis, is seeking $10 million in funds from the Colorado Legislature to support food banks as they fill increased demand due to suspension of SNAP benefits.”
Meanwhile, the administration recently announced USDA no longer will collect data on trends in American hunger, a move activists said is designed to obscure the actual needs for federal and state hunger assistance.