Eve, here. SNAP was only suspended for a short period of time thanks to a court order. From The Hill:
A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from discontinuing the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) starting this weekend due to the government shutdown, ordering the agency to first disburse emergency funds.
The approximately $5.25 billion fund is not enough to fully cover the food assistance program’s November payments, which will cost the government more than $9 billion.
Plaintiffs claim more cash is available, but there are competing claims and it’s not entirely clear how much more will be available beyond $5.25 billion. From the Guardian:
The plaintiffs in the civil suit, which is being heard in Rhode Island, are represented by the liberal legal advocacy group Democracy Forward. The group argued that the federal government’s decision to suspend nutrition subsidies was wrong and illegal because the USDA still had funds to meet its funding obligations for the SNAP program.
These available funds include $5.25 billion in emergency funds that Congress previously made available to the USDA “as necessary to carry out program operations,” the plaintiffs said.
Plaintiffs argued that apart from the reserve fund, another fund with about $23 billion is also available to avert the unprecedented suspension of SNAP benefits.
In the Massachusetts case, District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston gave the administration until Monday to decide whether to pay for part of November’s benefits in contingency funds or to cover them entirely with additional funds.
Therefore, the issues raised in the post below still have an impact. That’s because it’s not clear (at least for now) that those who were dug deep in the Trump administration will make the kind of concessions that Democrats similarly dig into and demand.
Written by Katherine Houghton, Samantha Rhys, and Renuka Rayasam. The original article was published in KFF Health News.
The Trump administration’s overhaul of the nation’s largest food assistance program is likely to cause millions of people to lose benefits, strain the national budget and strain the nation’s food supply chain, all of which will undermine the administration’s goal of Making America Healthy Again, researchers and former federal officials say.
The permanent changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program will be made regardless of the outcome of at least two federal lawsuits seeking to prevent the government from canceling SNAP benefits in November. The lawsuits challenge the Trump administration’s refusal to release emergency funds to keep programs operating during the government shutdown.
A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the government to use these funds to continue SNAP. In a separate case, a Massachusetts judge also said the government must use food assistance reserves to pay for SNAP payments, but gave the Trump administration until Nov. 3 to come up with a plan.
Amid this uncertainty, food banks across the country braced for a surge in demand that could potentially cut off millions of people from food programs that help them buy groceries.
On October 28, a vanload of spaghetti, tuna, and other food items arrived at the Gateway Food Pantry in Arnold, Missouri. This may be the last shipment of Gateway for some time. The south St. Louis food pantry primarily serves families with school-age children, but the surge in demand has already exhausted its annual food budget, said executive director Patrick McKelvey.
New Disabled South, a Georgia-based nonprofit that advocates for people with disabilities, announced it will provide one-time payments of $100 to $250 to individuals and families who expect to lose SNAP benefits in the 14 states it serves.
In less than 48 hours, the nonprofit received more than 16,000 requests, mostly from families, worth $3.6 million. This far exceeded the funds the organization had available.
“It’s unreal,” co-founder Dom Kelly said.
The threat of SNAP funding lapses is a preview of what will happen when changes to the program enshrined in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump in July, go into effect.
The nation’s tax and spending law would cut $187 billion from SNAP over the next 10 years. That would be a nearly 20% decrease from current funding levels, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The new rules will put more food and administrative costs on states, so some may consider withdrawing from the program that helped about 42 million people buy groceries last year. Separately from the new law, the administration is asking states to limit SNAP purchases by banning things like candy and soda.
All of this “puts us in uncharted territory for SNAP,” said Cindy Long, a former deputy assistant secretary at the Department of Agriculture and now national counsel at the law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.
The first food stamps in this country were issued at the end of the Great Depression, when impoverished people could not afford farmers’ products. Recipients now use debit cards instead of stamps. But the program still boosts farmers and food retailers and prevents hunger during economic downturns.
CBO estimates that about 3 million people will lose food assistance as a result of several provisions in the budget law, including applying work requirements to more people and shifting more costs to states. Trump administration leaders have supported the changes as a way to cut waste, get more people to work and improve health.
This is the largest reduction in SNAP history and comes against a backdrop of rising food prices and a weak labor market.
The exact cost of the cuts will be difficult to measure because the Trump administration discontinued annual reports assessing food insecurity.
Here are five big changes coming to SNAP and what they mean for Americans’ health.
1. Want dietary benefits? They’re harder to come by.
Under the new law, people will have to submit more documentation to access SNAP benefits.
Many recipients must already work 80 hours a month, volunteer, or participate in other eligible activities to receive money on their benefit card. The new law expands these requirements to previously exempt groups, including the homeless, veterans, and youth who were placed in foster care when they turned 18. The expanded work requirements also apply to parents of children age 14 and older and adults ages 55 to 64.
Starting Nov. 1, if recipients do not document monthly that they meet the requirements, SNAP benefits will be limited to three months over three years.
“It’s rigorous,” said Elaine Waxman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, a nonprofit research group. About 1 in 8 adults reported losing SNAP benefits due to documentation issues, according to a December Urban Institute survey.
Under the new law, certain refugees, asylum seekers, and other legal immigrants will be completely excluded from SNAP.
2. Countries need to invest more money and resources.
Federal law significantly increases the amount states must pay to maintain the program.
Previously, each state had to pay only half of the administrative costs and no food costs, with the federal government covering the rest.
Under the new law, the state will have to cover 75% of administrative costs and cover a portion of food costs. This corresponds to an estimated median cost increase of more than 200% for each state, according to a report from the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality.
According to a KFF Health News analysis, just one change in funding related to food costs could put states at risk for an additional $11 billion.
All states participate in the SNAP program, but you can opt out. In June, nearly 20 Democratic governors sent a letter to legislative leaders warning that some states would not be able to find the funding to continue the program.
“If states are forced to end the SNAP program, hunger and poverty will increase, children and adults will get sick, local grocery stores will struggle to stay open, people in agriculture and food industries will lose jobs, and state and local economies will suffer,” the governors wrote.
3. Will this change lead to healthier eating?
The Trump administration has made healthy eating a priority through its “Make America Healthy Again” platform.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. defended limits on soda and candy purchases in food assistance programs. To date, 12 states have received approval to limit what SNAP dollars can buy.
Federal officials had previously blocked such restrictions, saying they would be difficult for states and merchants to enforce and would increase stigma against SNAP, according to a 2007 USDA report. In 2018, the first Trump administration rejected Maine’s efforts to ban sugary drinks and candy.
Stores may decide that the hassle isn’t worth participating in the program and opt out, leaving SNAP recipients with fewer places to shop.
According to the USDA, people who receive SNAP benefits are less likely to buy sweet and salty snacks than those who shop without benefits. Research shows that encouraging healthy food choices is more effective than regulating purchases.
When people have less money to spend on food, they often turn to cheaper, unhealthy alternatives that keep them satisfied longer, rather than buying expensive food that is healthy and fresh but spoils quickly.
4. How will SNAP cuts affect my health?
Aid groups working to end hunger in the country say the cuts will have long-term health effects.
Research shows that children in families with limited access to food are more likely to suffer from mental disorders. Similarly, food insecurity is associated with poorer math and reading skills.
Working-age people who are food insecure are more likely to experience chronic disease. That long list includes high blood pressure, arthritis, diabetes, asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
These health issues come at a personal cost. Low-income adults without SNAP spend an average of $1,400 more annually on health care than those with SNAP.
In 2023, approximately 47 million people lived in households with limited or uncertain access to food.
5. What does this mean for the country’s food supply chain?
SNAP spending directly boosts grocery stores, their suppliers, the transportation industry, and the agriculture industry. Additionally, when low-income households receive help accessing food, they are more likely to spend money on other needs, such as prescriptions or car repairs. All of this means that every dollar spent through SNAP generates at least $1.50 in economic activity, according to the USDA.
A report by groups representing convenience stores, grocers and the food industry estimates it could cost grocery stores $1.6 billion to comply with new SNAP regulations.
Supporters warn that stores could pass the costs on to shoppers or close their doors.
