It looks like US President Donald Trump is fast approaching the deadline set forth by federal judges to continue funding SNAP. Reportedly, Trump’s administration faces deadlines on Monday to tell two federal judges whether it will comply with court orders that it continue to fund SNAP, the nation’s biggest food aid program, using contingency funds during the government shutdown.
Since October 1, 2025, the U.S. federal government has been partially shut down because Congress failed to pass the required appropriations. One of the most immediate and visible impacts has been on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the nation’s largest food‑assistance program, which supports roughly 42 million Americans each month. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that, due to the lapse in appropriations, it [stated it lacked clear legal authority and available funding to issue full November SNAP benefits, though contingency funds existed], leaving millions of low-income families uncertain about their ability to purchase food. Some states attempted short-term fixes, [such as emergency food bank support or temporary state funding, which could not fully cover all households], but the scale of the program made delays unavoidable.
READ: US states sue Trump administration over stoppage of SNAP (
In response to the stoppage, a coalition of more than 25 states filed lawsuits against the federal government, arguing that halting SNAP payments violated federal law. The states contended that Congress had already allocated contingency funds for SNAP that could sustain benefits even during a shutdown [estimated at roughly $5 billion, with additional reserves of ~$23 billion available, though accessing them required court orders]. The lawsuits emphasized that suspending payments was not only unlawful under the Food and Nutrition Act but also arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. Attorneys general and governors urged the USDA to utilize these reserves immediately to prevent harm to vulnerable populations.
On October 31, 2025, federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island issued rulings ordering the Trump administration to continue funding SNAP benefits. The courts instructed the USDA to access contingency funds or otherwise ensure uninterrupted distribution, highlighting that suspending payments would be illegal [and criticized the agency’s prior interpretation of funding authority as overly restrictive]. The rulings were framed as necessary to protect the health and welfare of millions of Americans who rely on SNAP for essential nutrition. While the orders prevented an outright freeze, some states warned that administrative and logistical challenges could still lead to delays in the actual delivery of benefits [meaning some households may not receive funds on the typical schedule].
READ: Federal Judge signals possible intervention to protect SNAP benefits (
The ongoing situation illustrates the vulnerability of safety-net programs to federal budget disputes. Even with court interventions, the uncertainty and administrative delays caused by the shutdown have real-life consequences for low-income households. SNAP’s suspension and subsequent legal battles underscore the importance of contingency planning and the critical role of courts in enforcing statutory protections during government shutdowns. [While court rulings ensure benefits continue, state-level implementation and logistical delays may still affect some recipients]. As the standoff continues, millions of Americans remain reliant on timely government action to secure basic necessities, while policymakers grapple with the broader implications of prolonged funding lapses.
Ultimately, this episode emphasizes the need for contingency planning, transparent governance, and proactive safeguards to ensure that vital programs like SNAP remain reliable, even amid political deadlocks. The situation serves as a reminder of the human consequences behind policy disputes and the importance of maintaining basic protections for vulnerable populations.