Up to 42 million Americans could face hunger as SNAP benefits teeter on the edge of suspension this weekend. This looming crisis, tied to the ongoing government shutdown, has sparked a fierce legal battle.
Democratic leaders from 25 states, including attorneys general from 22 states, the District of Columbia, and governors from Kansas, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit Tuesday in Massachusetts district court against the USDA, NBC News reported. They argue the agency must use available contingency funds to keep the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps, running despite the shutdown.
The lawsuit claims the USDA is legally bound by the Food and Nutrition Act to maintain SNAP benefits as long as funding exists. Plaintiffs also assert the department’s refusal to allocate contingency funds violates the Administrative Procedure Act by being arbitrary and capricious. This unprecedented situation could mark the first time in 60 years that SNAP benefits are halted during a shutdown.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a plaintiff, declared, “Millions of Americans are about to go hungry because the federal government has chosen to withhold food assistance it is legally obligated to provide.” Such a statement lays bare the frustration of state leaders, though it sidesteps the messy reality of a stalled federal budget process where both sides share blame. The USDA’s choice to sit on potential funds while families brace for empty tables feels like a bureaucratic misstep at best.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta echoed the sentiment, alleging at a news conference that the USDA holds up to $6 billion in contingency funds, enough for November’s SNAP needs. “They are doing this on purpose. It is deliberate,” he said, pointing to past shutdowns like 2019 when the agency admitted such funds could be tapped. Yet, holding out for political leverage while stomachs growl seems a dangerous game, no matter who’s at fault.
The USDA, for its part, has shifted course, removing a September planning document from its website that suggested multiyear contingency funds could cover SNAP. Now, a follow-up memo claims these funds are reserved for disasters, not regular benefits, and transferring money risks cuts to school meals and infant formula. This explanation raises eyebrows when state leaders insist the legal mandate to feed the vulnerable should take precedence.
A USDA spokesperson fired back, stating, “We are approaching an inflection point for Senate Democrats. Continue to hold out for the Far-Left wing of the party or reopen the government so mothers, babies, and the most vulnerable among us can receive timely WIC and SNAP allotments.” This jab at Democratic priorities stings, but it glosses over why contingency funds aren’t being unlocked now to ease immediate suffering.
The USDA website doubles down, blaming Senate Democrats for voting 12 times against funding SNAP amid the 2026 budget standoff, and warning that “the well has run dry.” Such rhetoric heats up the partisan clash, yet it dodges the question of why available dollars aren’t bridging the gap for November. Families don’t eat on political talking points.
Meanwhile, California Gov. Gavin Newsom criticized Republican governors for not joining the lawsuit, noting, “The impacts in their states, ironically, are disproportionate.” His point carries weight, as many conservative-leaning states have high SNAP enrollment, yet their leaders’ silence suggests a reluctance to challenge federal strategy. This divide only deepens the gridlock while real people pay the price.
With October SNAP funding allocated before the shutdown, benefits have continued so far. But most states have already warned recipients that access will vanish come November 1, pushing many toward food banks or to stockpile shelf-stable goods with whatever remains on their EBT cards.
The potential suspension would hit hard, affecting up to 42 million who rely on this lifeline for basic nutrition. State leaders are scrambling for a temporary restraining order to force the USDA’s hand, but time is running out as the weekend approaches.
If benefits halt, it would be a historic failure for a program designed as a safety net during tough times. The idea that a shutdown could strip food from tables while funds allegedly sit idle is a gut punch to trust in government competence.
This lawsuit isn’t just about legal technicalities; it’s about whether the federal government honors its duty to the most vulnerable when the chips are down. Both sides need to cut through the posturing and prioritize the 42 million who aren’t pawns in a budget chess game.
The USDA’s stance that contingency funds are off-limits feels like a convenient dodge when past precedent suggests otherwise. State leaders, while right to push back, must also reckon with a shutdown they’ve helped sustain through partisan brinkmanship.
Ultimately, the clock is ticking toward a hunger crisis that no amount of courtroom wins or political spin can feed. Let’s hope cooler heads prevail before millions face empty plates, because governing should mean solving problems, not creating them.
