In a whirlwind of legal battles, government shutdowns, and political finger-pointing, millions of Americans relying on food assistance are now caught in an unprecedented crisis. On November 9, 2025, the Trump administration, through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), ordered states to "immediately undo" any steps they had taken to provide full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for November. This directive, which came via a late-night USDA memo, labeled such actions as "unauthorized" and threatened financial penalties for states that did not comply.
This latest move is part of a rapidly evolving legal saga that has thrown the nation's largest anti-hunger program into chaos. According to Axios, the Supreme Court had just paused a federal judge's order to fully fund SNAP benefits for the month, leaving states—many of which had already begun processing full payments—in a state of limbo. The USDA memo instructed, "States must not transmit full benefit issuance files to EBT processors," and instead continue with partial payments as previously guided. Any disbursement of "full SNAP payment files," the memo warned, was "unauthorized." Noncompliance, it added, could result in the cancellation of the federal share of state administrative costs and possible liability for any overissuances.
The stakes are enormous. SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, supports about one in eight Americans—over 42 million people—costing nearly $9 billion each month, reported BBC. The average family of four receives $715 per month, which breaks down to less than $6 per day per person. For many, these benefits are a lifeline. Yet, due to the ongoing government shutdown—the longest in U.S. history—recipients began receiving only 65% of their typical benefits this month, after the Supreme Court allowed the administration to withhold some funding pending further hearings.
States have responded in dramatically different ways. Some, including New York, Massachusetts, California, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, began issuing full benefits after a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to fully fund the program. As CBS News detailed, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey confirmed, "SNAP benefits were processed and placed on EBT cards before the U.S. Supreme Court order Friday night, in line with the previous guidance from the USDA." She vowed that if the Trump administration attempts to claw back the money, "we will see him in court." Her advice to residents was clear: "Massachusetts residents with funds on their cards should continue to spend it on food."
Other governors have been equally defiant. Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, a Democrat, posted a simple "No" in response to the clawback request and added, "Our administration is actively in court fighting against the Trump Administration's efforts to yank food assistance away from Wisconsin's kids, families, and seniors." Oregon Governor Tina Kotek said she was "disgusted that President Trump has the audacity to take taxpayers' money away from them when they are in crisis." Rhode Island's Governor Dan McKee accused the administration of "intentionally creating chaos for states across the country—playing games with people's ability to feed their families, weaponizing hunger, and gaslighting the American people. It's inhumane."
The Trump administration, however, has framed the issue as a matter of legality and fiscal responsibility. National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett told Axios that distributing additional funds beyond the partial allotment would be "really pushing the boundaries of the law." Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, speaking to Fox News, blamed Democrats and "activist judges" for the chaos, saying, "It's interesting, the 'No Kings' rally, where they said 'we don't want a King in America.' Except now they want a king who can create money out of the clear blue sky."
Yet legal scholars and state officials argue that the administration itself may be running afoul of the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from spending more than Congress authorizes. The conflicting court orders and shifting federal directives have left states scrambling to comply, even as they try to ensure needy families are not left hungry. As reported by NPR, two dozen states filed a brief in federal court fearing that the federal government "may attempt to recoup funds from the States that the States' residents have used to feed themselves and their families." Such a move, they warned, could "risk catastrophic operational disruptions for the States, with a consequent cascade of harms for their residents."
Meanwhile, the impact on ordinary Americans is severe. The uncertainty and reduction in benefits have led to surging demand at food banks and pantries nationwide. Cynthia Kirkhart, CEO of the Facing Hunger Foodbank in Huntington, West Virginia, told NPR, "The news comes out that we are going to get SNAP benefits. Then, we aren't going to get SNAP benefits. This is much worse. Folks get their hopes built up and then they crash. It's a lot. We can do better." Some states have provided emergency funding to food banks and even used their own dollars to fund direct payments while federal benefits were in limbo.
On the national stage, political leaders are trading blame. Maryland Governor Wes Moore accused the administration of "intentional chaos," saying on CBS's "Face the Nation," "They got money to fight wars. They got money for ballrooms. They got money for everything but when it's to supporting the people, that's now when they are crying, well, we are broke and that's not what the law requires us to do." Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a Republican, called the directive "shocking" if it penalizes states that used their own money to help residents. "Those states should not be penalized," she said.
At the heart of the dispute is a fundamental question: Who bears responsibility when a government shutdown collides with the basic needs of millions? As the legal battle continues, with the Supreme Court having temporarily allowed the Trump administration to withhold $4 billion in SNAP funding while appeals proceed, the future for SNAP recipients remains uncertain. The crisis has laid bare the fragility of America's social safety net—and the profound consequences of political stalemate for those who can least afford it.
For now, families across the country wait anxiously, their grocery budgets slashed, as governors, courts, and federal agencies wage a battle over the most basic of needs: the right to put food on the table.
