On October 28, 2025, a political and humanitarian storm erupted as a coalition of 25 states and the District of Columbia filed suit against the Trump administration, seeking to block what they describe as “illegal and cruel” cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) during the ongoing government shutdown. The lawsuit, announced by officials in Illinois, California, and several other states, centers on the administration’s refusal to use billions in contingency funds to keep SNAP benefits flowing to the more than 42 million Americans—roughly one in eight—who rely on the program for basic food security.
The crisis began to crystallize after the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which oversees SNAP, sent letters to state agencies on October 10 and October 24, 2025, warning that if the federal government shutdown persisted, there would be insufficient funds to pay full SNAP benefits for November. The USDA then confirmed it would suspend benefits starting November 1, leaving millions of families facing empty EBT cards and empty pantries as the shutdown, now the second-longest in U.S. history, stretched past its 27th day.
“At a time of increased costs for families, the Trump administration is making a deliberate, illegal and cruel decision to cut off access to food for nearly 2 million Illinoisans,” Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul declared in a statement, as reported by WTTW News. He was joined by California Governor Gavin Newsom, who didn’t mince words: “While Donald Trump parades around the world trying to repair the economic damage he's done with his incompetence, he's denying food to millions of Americans who will go hungry next month. It's cruel and speaks to his basic lack of humanity. He doesn't care about the people of this country, only himself,” Newsom said, according to KCRA.
The legal complaint, filed in Massachusetts federal court and assigned to District Judge Indira Talwani, argues that the USDA is unlawfully refusing to use approximately $6 billion in SNAP-specific contingency funds appropriated by Congress for precisely this kind of emergency. As CNN noted, the lawsuit claims the USDA “cannot simply suspend all benefits indefinitely, while refusing to spend funds from available appropriations for SNAP benefits for eligible households.” Congress had approved the contingency fund in a spending bill earlier that year, earmarking it for use through September 2026.
The USDA, for its part, contends that the contingency fund is not available to cover regular SNAP benefits for November because the regular appropriation has lapsed during the shutdown. “The contingency fund is not available to support FY 2026 regular benefits, because the appropriation for regular benefits no longer exists,” USDA officials wrote in a memo last week, as cited by CNN. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins told CNN News Central that the available contingency funds were far short of the $9.2 billion needed for the month, stating, “As of today, that $9.2 billion, we don’t even have close to that in contingency funding. We’ve got to get this government open.”
The administration’s stance has triggered outrage among Democratic leaders and advocates for the poor, who argue that the refusal to use the contingency fund is a political maneuver designed to increase pressure on congressional Democrats. “The truth is the department has the money,” North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson said at a news conference, as reported by CNN. “They are looking to ratchet up the pain in an already painful moment. This is wrong, and it’s against the law.”
Meanwhile, the White House and Republican leaders have placed the blame squarely on Democrats, claiming they are using families in need as “pawns” in the shutdown standoff. An Office of Management and Budget spokesperson told KCRA, “Democrats chose to shut down the government knowing full well that SNAP would soon run out of funds. It doesn’t have to be this way, and it’s sad they are using the families who rely on it as pawns.” The impasse centers on a broader political dispute, with Senate Democrats repeatedly blocking a GOP funding bill that lacks provisions to extend health care subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. Republicans, in turn, have refused to negotiate on these subsidies until the government reopens.
The human impact of the looming SNAP cuts is staggering. According to the BBC, the average family of four on SNAP receives about $715 per month, or a little less than $6 per day per person. In California alone, 5.5 million people—including two million children—are set to lose access to food assistance through CalFresh, the state’s SNAP program. Sacramento County will see 270,000 residents affected, and Massachusetts estimates that one million people could lose benefits. Many states, including California, have pledged to use their own funds to try to cover any shortfall, but as state officials and food banks have warned, these efforts are unlikely to fully compensate for the federal gap.
“Food banks were not meant to be able to replace CalFresh,” Kevin Buffalino of the Sacramento Food Bank & Family Services told KCRA. “For every one meal that a food bank provides, CalFresh provides nine. So those loss of benefits are really going to impact food banks.” The Greater Chicago Food Depository echoed this concern, warning that a disruption to SNAP would create a crisis “unlike anything the organization has seen in its 46-year history.” The group urged federal leaders to “change course and use any available resources to keep SNAP benefits flowing in November,” emphasizing that the federal government has both a legal and moral obligation to fund the program.
States are scrambling to prepare for the fallout. Many are working with SNAP recipients to connect them with charity food pantries and alternative meal sources. California has even announced the deployment of its National Guard to assist with emergency food distribution. Still, the scale of the crisis means that local and state efforts will likely fall short if federal benefits are not restored.
The stakes are especially high for children. As the lawsuit notes, “The loss of SNAP benefits leads to food insecurity, hunger, and malnutrition, which are associated with numerous negative health outcomes in children, such as poor concentration, decreased cognitive function, fatigue, depression, and behavioral problems.” Public health officials warn that the suspension of benefits could have ripple effects on educational outcomes, workforce productivity, and community stability.
As the shutdown grinds on, with Republicans and Democrats trading blame and no clear resolution in sight, millions of Americans are left in limbo—wondering how they’ll put food on the table come November. The legal battle over SNAP funding now stands as the most consequential front in a wider political war, one with real and immediate consequences for families across the country. The courts, and perhaps public pressure, may soon determine whether the nation’s most vulnerable will receive the support they need—or be left to fend for themselves during one of the longest government shutdowns in U.S. history.
