The Trump administration may be in trouble amid the government shutdown, which is potentially costing the nation a shocking $14 billion, according to Reuters. A coalition of Democratic-led states sued the Trump administration on Tuesday, seeking to avert what would be a historic lapse in food aid for millions of Americans that is set to begin Nov. 1 amid an ongoing government shutdown.
“The federal government has the money to continue funding SNAP benefits — they’re choosing to harm millions of families across the country already struggling to make ends meet,” Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said in a social media post about the lawsuit filed in Boston federal court by attorneys general and governors from 25 states and the District of Columbia.
The lawsuit represents a critical challenge, opens new tab to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s decision not to use $6 billion in contingency funds to pay for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps, which costs about $8 billion monthly.
READ: US air traffic controller staffing worsens amid government shutdown (
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides monthly food aid to around 41 million Americans, relies entirely on federal funding. With Congress failing to pass a budget by Oct. 1, the Department of Agriculture announced that no SNAP payments would be issued beginning Nov. 1, citing exhaustion of emergency contingency funds.
The pause in benefits disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, including children, seniors, and disabled individuals, as well as low-income households that depend on SNAP to meet basic nutritional needs. States such as Illinois and Texas have warned residents of potential shortfalls, while food banks are bracing for increased demand.
The lawsuit argues the suspension of benefits is arbitrary and being carried out in violation of the law and regulations governing the program, which requires that “assistance under this program shall be furnished to all eligible households.”
“Millions of Americans are about to go hungry because the federal government has chosen to withhold food assistance it is legally obligated to provide,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement.
This lawsuit comes amid a government shutdown that may not end anytime soon. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said on Tuesday the 28-day U.S. government shutdown could stretch into November, when millions face soaring health insurance costs from expiring Affordable Care Act tax credits — raising pressure on lawmakers to resolve the impasse as enrollment begins.
“On November 1, people in more than 30 states are going to be aghast – aghast – when they see their bills, and they’re going to cry out. And I believe there will be increased pressure on Republicans to negotiate with us,” Schumer told reporters when asked about his strategy to end the shutdown.
The lawsuit, led by the attorneys general of Massachusetts, California, Arizona and Minnesota, says the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 makes clear that the contingency funds should be used when necessary to carry out program operations.
If successful, the lawsuit could compel the federal government to resume funding, ensuring low-income families, seniors, and children continue to receive critical nutritional support. Beyond the immediate impact on food security, the legal action underscores broader tensions between federal agencies and state governments when essential services are disrupted. It also illustrates how political impasses can have direct human costs, prompting states to take legal measures to protect residents.
The lawsuit also highlights the broader implications of federal budgetary gridlock on essential social programs. It underscores how political disputes at the national level can ripple down to affect millions of vulnerable Americans, including children, seniors, and low-income families who rely on SNAP for basic nutrition. The case sets a potential precedent for state intervention when federal agencies fail to fulfill statutory obligations, emphasizing the legal and moral responsibilities of the government in safeguarding public welfare.