Millions of Americans who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are facing an unprecedented crisis as the federal government shutdown stretches into its second month, leaving the future of the nation’s largest food aid program hanging in the balance. The situation, which reached a boiling point over the weekend, has forced courts, state leaders, and advocacy groups into a high-stakes confrontation with the Trump administration over the fate of crucial benefits for nearly 42 million people.
On Friday, October 31, 2025, two federal judges—one in Rhode Island and one in Massachusetts—issued separate rulings ordering the Trump administration to continue funding SNAP, either partially or in full, for the month of November. These orders came after the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced plans to freeze SNAP payments starting November 1, citing the inability to fund the program due to the ongoing shutdown. SNAP, which serves about one in eight Americans and costs approximately $8 billion per month, had officially run out of money by Saturday, November 1, according to NPR.
The urgency of the situation cannot be overstated. As delays in benefit distribution loom, many recipients are left in limbo, unsure of how they will secure their next meal. The process of reloading SNAP cards, which typically occurs early in the month, can take a week or more in many states, meaning that even if funding resumes, benefits will be delayed in November. For families already living on the edge, this uncertainty is more than an inconvenience—it’s a potential catastrophe.
In response to the administration’s move, Democratic state attorneys general and governors from 25 states, along with the District of Columbia, launched legal challenges, arguing that the federal government has a legal obligation to keep SNAP running in their jurisdictions. Cities and nonprofit organizations also joined the fight, filing lawsuits to prevent the suspension of food aid. Their central argument is clear: halting SNAP benefits would force millions to choose between buying groceries and paying other essential bills, thereby worsening food insecurity across the nation.
U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell in Providence, Rhode Island, ordered that SNAP must be funded using at least the USDA’s $5 billion contingency fund and demanded progress updates from the administration by Monday, November 3. He further ruled that all previous waivers exempting older adults, veterans, and others from work requirements must continue to be honored—a direct rebuke to the USDA’s decision to terminate those waivers during the shutdown.
Meanwhile, in Boston, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani declared the suspension of SNAP unlawful and ordered the administration to advise by Monday whether it would use emergency reserve funds to provide reduced or full benefits for November. As NPR reported, the administration has argued that these contingency funds are intended for emergencies such as natural disasters, not for regular SNAP benefits. However, Democratic officials have pointed out that the administration could tap into an additional $23 billion fund to keep the program running.
The legal wrangling comes against a backdrop of mounting political tension in Washington. President Trump, who has shown little inclination to negotiate with Democrats to end the shutdown, spent the weekend at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, marking the fifth trip he’s taken since the shutdown began on October 1. According to NPR’s Tamara Keith, Trump has traveled for 15 days during this shutdown—double the travel undertaken during the longest previous government shutdown. On Air Force One, Trump told reporters that it was up to the Democrats to end the impasse, underscoring the deep partisan divide that has left millions in jeopardy.
The GOP-led House of Representatives passed a short-term funding bill in September, aiming to pressure Senate Democrats into supporting the measure. But with neither side budging, the standoff has left SNAP recipients in a state of anxiety. As Democratic state officials involved in the lawsuits have warned, stopping benefits will only deepen food insecurity—a concern echoed by food banks and pantries nationwide that are scrambling to fill the gap. NPR’s Joe Hernandez described the lapse as “unprecedented for the program.”
Food banks and community organizations across the country have responded with a surge of support, offering more or expedited funding and devising new ways to load at least some benefits onto SNAP debit cards. But these efforts, while vital, are no substitute for the scale of federal assistance provided by SNAP. As one food bank director told NPR, "We’re doing everything we can, but we simply can’t replace the billions of dollars that SNAP provides each month."
The stakes are particularly high for families with children, who make up about two-thirds of SNAP recipients. To qualify for the program in 2025, a family of four’s net income after certain expenses cannot exceed the federal poverty line—roughly $32,000 per year. For these households, even a brief interruption in benefits can mean going without meals or falling behind on rent and utilities.
While the legal battle plays out, the broader cost-of-living crisis continues to squeeze American families. NPR’s ongoing series, "Cost of Living: The Price We Pay," has highlighted how inflation and rising expenses—from car insurance premiums to home goods—are forcing people to make tough choices. In this context, the threat to SNAP is not just a bureaucratic snafu; it’s a direct assault on the economic security of millions.
Election Day on Tuesday, November 4, adds another layer of complexity to the situation. With voters in Virginia and New Jersey selecting new governors and several major cities, including New York, choosing new leaders, the political fallout from the shutdown and its impact on SNAP could reverberate far beyond the courtroom. Early voting has surged, and the issue of food security is likely to weigh heavily on the minds of many as they head to the polls.
As the Monday deadline for the Trump administration to respond to the court orders arrives, the fate of SNAP—and the well-being of 42 million Americans—hangs in the balance. The coming days will test not only the legal arguments put forth by both sides but also the nation’s commitment to protecting its most vulnerable citizens during a time of crisis.
For now, families wait, advocates press their case in court, and food banks brace for a surge in demand. The outcome will shape the lives of millions and serve as a stark reminder of just how fragile the nation’s social safety net can be when politics and policy collide.
