As the sun crested over the U.S. Capitol on October 2, 2025, Americans awoke to the second day of a federal government shutdown—a standoff with far-reaching consequences for millions across the country. While the drama played out in Washington, D.C., the impact was felt most acutely by those relying on vital nutrition and health programs, and by states scrambling to fill the gaps left by federal inaction.
At the center of the storm is the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), a $7.6 billion initiative providing food and support to about 6.7 million low-income Americans. Unlike Social Security or Medicare, WIC requires Congress to reauthorize its funding every year. The timing of this year’s shutdown—coinciding with the end of the fiscal year—has left the program critically low on funds. According to Reuters, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has pledged to keep WIC running as long as possible, but the clock is ticking.
Georgia Machell, president and CEO of the National WIC Association, issued a stark warning: "A prolonged federal shutdown that lasts longer than one week is going to start to put babies and young children at risk." The USDA, she noted, could try to extend WIC funding by drawing on unspent funds from the prior fiscal year or by reimbursing states that front the money themselves. But with no votes scheduled in Congress on October 2, the uncertainty only deepened.
Across the country, governors stepped up to reassure worried families. Montana’s Republican administration announced WIC funding would be available for at least the next month, while Connecticut’s Democratic Governor Ned Lamont promised, via a pre-shutdown video, that his state would keep WIC services running for new mothers in the near term. Yet, as Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota, who oversees agriculture funding, revealed, the USDA had briefed lawmakers that WIC funding could run out by October 15, 2025.
Meanwhile, the blame game in Washington reached a fever pitch. The Trump administration pointed fingers at Democrats, with Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins posting on X, "The Democrat shutdown is hitting rural America HARD. WIC and other key nutrition programs (are) at risk of running out of funding." Democrats countered by highlighting a $300 million cut to WIC proposed in the Trump administration’s 2026 budget request—an idea the Senate had already rejected by approving full funding in its agriculture bill, though that bill remains stalled.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat overseeing WIC, expressed deep concern: "I’m worried about long-term impacts to WIC and short term. We have lots of women and children who are dependent on that, and without that funding they’re not going to be able to eat." Katie Bergh, a WIC expert with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told Reuters, "We are in uncharted territory at this point."
While the federal deadlock persisted, some states took matters into their own hands. New Mexico’s Democratic-led Legislature convened a special session on October 1 and 2, racing to shore up funding for food assistance and rural health care in response to President Donald Trump’s recent federal spending cuts. According to the Associated Press, lawmakers approved more than $16 million to sustain food assistance under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), with additional funds for food banks and pantries. Nearly a quarter of New Mexico residents rely on SNAP, making it a critical bulwark against hunger.
"We need to act to make sure that New Mexicans don’t go hungry with SNAP changes at the federal level," said Democratic state Senator George Muñoz of Gallup. The bills also earmarked $8 million for food banks and $2 million to restock food pantries at universities and public schools.
But the challenges extend beyond food. The Legislature allocated $50 million to bolster rural health clinics and hospitals, which depend heavily on Medicaid. Trump’s recent legislation, dubbed "Trump’s big bill," ends SNAP eligibility for many noncitizens, expands work and reporting requirements, alters benefit calculations, and sets aside $50 billion over five years for rural healthcare—though state lawmakers worry that won’t offset the cuts. In New Mexico, about 38% of residents are on Medicaid, and the stakes for rural healthcare are high.
State Senator Pat Woods, a Republican from the state’s sparsely populated eastern plains, co-sponsored changes to rural health care grants. He told a legislative panel, "We’re trying to figure out a way to fund and keep some of these clinics open. What’s going to happen in the future? Who the hell knows. What I worry about is keeping these clinics and hospitals open until the dust settles." The House passed the bill 64-3, sending it to Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham for her signature.
Insurance coverage was another flashpoint. Lawmakers set aside $17 million to ensure subsidies don’t lapse on New Mexico’s Affordable Care Act exchange, extending support even to middle-income residents. Democratic state Senator Carrie Hamblen of Las Cruces warned that without action, rising insurance rates could unleash a "perfect storm of unaffordability."
Republicans in the Legislature, while voting unanimously against the spending provisions, argued that the biggest Medicaid changes are still years away and that the state should focus on reducing errors in benefit distributions rather than rushing to spend. But Democrats, joined by some GOP legislators on certain measures, insisted that urgent action was needed to avoid immediate harm.
The special session’s legislative flurry also included $6 million for public broadcasting stations, with $430,000 specifically for five tribal stations hit hard by the loss of federal support. Another bill would give the New Mexico Health Department greater authority over immunizations and vaccine purchases.
In a news release, Governor Lujan Grisham said she would sign the bills to "protect families from being priced out of insurance and ensure health care services are provided in small communities." Still, House Speaker Javier Martínez described the measures as "temporary fixes" to what he called "insurmountable holes for any state to plug." State Rep. Nathan Small, lead sponsor of the main spending bill, cautioned, "Some of the most significant (federal) cuts are delayed a few years, and these are deeply significant. I want to make sure that we’re all thinking of, not hundreds of millions, but billions of dollars of reduced Medicaid support to our state."
Back in Washington, the impasse dragged on. President Trump’s administration continued to lay off federal workers and implement threatened cuts. Senate Democrats, meanwhile, withheld their votes to push for broader healthcare fixes and a presidential promise to halt cuts to federal services. Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, who broke with his party to support a short-term funding extension, explained, "That’s one of the reasons why I voted not to shut the government down. Thankfully, our family isn’t on WIC, but I know there are people... and they depend on these things." Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut added, "At some point we need to take a stand, and hopefully the states will have those reserves to cover the most vulnerable."
With Congress at a standstill and states like New Mexico racing to patch together solutions, the fate of millions who depend on nutrition and health programs hangs in the balance. For now, the only certainty is uncertainty—and the hope that the nation’s leaders will find common ground before the most vulnerable pay the highest price.
