Yves here. SNAP has gotten only a short-term stay from execution, thanks to a court order. From The Hill:
A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from cutting off the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) beginning this weekend because of the government shutdown, ordering officials to first spend an emergency fund.
The roughly $5.25 billion fund is not enough to fully cover November benefits for the food assistance program, which will cost the government upward of $9 billion.
The plaintiffs contend more money caches can be tapped, but there are competing demands, so it is not at all clear how much beyong the $5.25 billion could be tapped. From the Guardian:
The plaintiffs in the civil case 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 the nutritional benefits was wrong and unlawful, as the USDA still had funds available to fulfill its obligation to fund the Snap program.
Such available funding includes $5.25bn in contingency funds that Congress has previously provided for the USDA to use when “necessary to carry out program operations”, the plaintiffs said.
Aside from the contingency funds, the plaintiffs argued that a separate fund with about $23bn in it could also be utilized to avoid what would be an unprecedented suspension of Snap benefits.
In the Massachusetts case, the US district judge Indira Talwani in Boston gave the administration until Monday to say whether it would partly pay for the benefits for November with contingency money or fund them fully with additional funds.
So the issues raised in the post below are still in play, since it is not clear that the very much dug in Trump Administration will make concessions that the (at least as of now) similarly dug in Democrats demand.
By Katheryn Houghton and Samantha Liss and Renuka Rayasam. Originally published at KFF Health News
The Trump administration’s overhaul of the nation’s largest food assistance program will cause millions of people to lose benefits, strain state budgets, and pressure the nation’s food supply chain, all while likely hindering the goals of the administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” platform, according to researchers and former federal officials.
Permanent changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are coming regardless of the outcome of at least two federal lawsuits that seek to prevent the government from cutting off November SNAP benefits. The lawsuits challenge the Trump administration’s refusal to release emergency funds to keep the program operating during the government shutdown.
A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the government to use those funds to keep SNAP going. A Massachusetts judge in a separate lawsuit also said the government must use its food aid contingency funds to pay for SNAP, but gave the Trump administration until Nov. 3 to come up with a plan.
Amid that uncertainty, food banks across the U.S. braced for a surge in demand, with the possibility that millions of people will be cut off from the food program that helps them buy groceries.
On Oct. 28, a vanload of SpaghettiOs, tuna, and other groceries arrived at Gateway Food Pantry in Arnold, Missouri. It may be Gateway’s last shipment for a while. The food pantry south of St. Louis largely serves families with school-age children, but it has already exhausted its yearly food budget because of the surge in demand, said Executive Director Patrick McKelvey.
New Disabled South, a Georgia-based nonprofit that advocates for people with disabilities, announced that it was offering one-time payments of $100 to $250 to individuals and families who were expected to lose SNAP benefits in the 14 states it serves.
Less than 48 hours later, the nonprofit had received more than 16,000 requests totaling $3.6 million, largely from families, far more than the organization had funding for.
“It’s unreal,” co-founder Dom Kelly said.
The threat of a SNAP funding lapse is a preview of what’s to come when changes to the program that were included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that President Donald Trump signed in July take effect.
The domestic tax-and-spending law cuts $187 billion within the next decade from SNAP. That’s a nearly 20% decrease from current funding levels, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The new rules shift many food and administrative costs to states, which may lead some to consider withdrawing from the program, which helped about 42 million people buy groceries last year. Separate from the new law, the administration is also pushing states to limit SNAP purchases by barring such things as candy and soda.
All that “puts us in uncharted territory for SNAP,” said Cindy Long, a former deputy undersecretary at the Department of Agriculture who is now a national adviser at the law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.
The country’s first food stamps were issued at the end of the Great Depression, when the poverty-stricken population couldn’t afford farmers’ products. Today, instead of stamps, recipients use debit cards. But the program still buoys farmers and food retailers and prevents hunger during economic downturns.
The 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 backed the changes as a way to limit waste, to put more people to work, and to improve health.
This is the biggest cut to SNAP in its history, and it is coming against the backdrop of rising food prices and a fragile labor market.
The exact toll of the cuts will be difficult to measure, because the Trump administration ended an annual report that measures food insecurity.
Here are five big changes that are coming to SNAP and what they mean for Americans’ health:
1. Want food benefits? They will be harder to get.
Under the new law, people will have to file more paperwork to access SNAP benefits.
Many recipients are already required to work, volunteer, or participate in other eligible activities for 80 hours a month to get money on their benefit cards. The new law extends those requirements to previously exempted groups, including homeless people, veterans, and young people who were in foster care when they turned 18. The expanded work requirements also apply to parents with children 14 or older and adults ages 55 to 64.
Starting Nov. 1, if recipients fail to document each month that they meet the requirements, they will be limited to three months of SNAP benefits in a three-year period.
“That is draconian,” said Elaine Waxman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, a nonprofit research group. About 1 in 8 adults reported having lost SNAP benefits because they had problems filing their paperwork, according to a December Urban Institute survey.
Certain refugees, asylum-seekers, and other lawful immigrants are cut out of SNAP entirely under the new law.
2. States will have to chip in more money and resources.
The federal law drastically increases what each state will have to pay to keep the program.
Until now, states have needed to pay for only half the administrative costs and none of the food costs, with the rest covered by the federal government.
Under the new law, states are on the hook for 75% of the administrative costs and must cover a portion of the food costs. That amounts to an estimated median cost increase for states of more than 200%, according to a report by the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality.
A KFF Health News analysis shows that a single funding shift related to the cost of food could put states on the hook for an additional $11 billion.
All states participate in the SNAP program, but they could opt out. In June, nearly two dozen Democratic governorswrote to congressional leaders warning that some states wouldn’t be able to come up with the money to continue the program.
“If states are forced to end their SNAP programs, hunger and poverty will increase, children and adults will get sicker, grocery stores in rural areas will struggle to stay open, people in agriculture and the food industry will lose jobs, and state and local economies will suffer,” the governors wrote.
3. Will the changes lead to more healthy eating?
The Trump administration, through its “Make America Healthy Again” platform, has made healthy eating a priority.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has championed the restrictions on soda and candy purchases within the food aid program. To date, 12 states have received approval to limit what people can buy with SNAP dollars.
Federal officials previously blocked such restrictions, because they were difficult for states and stores to implement and they boost stigma around SNAP, according to a 2007 USDA report. In 2018, the first Trump administration rejected an effort from Maine to ban sugar-sweetened drinks and candy.
A store may decide that hassle isn’t worth participating in the program and drop out of it, leaving SNAP recipients fewer places to shop.
People who receive SNAP are no more likely to buy sweets or salty snacks than people who shop without the benefits, according to the USDA. Research shows that encouraging healthy food choices is more effective than regulating purchases.
When people have less money to spend on food, they often resort to cheaper, unhealthier alternatives that keep them sated longer rather than paying for more expensive food that is healthy and fresh but quick to perish.
4. How will SNAP cuts affect health?
Advocacy organizations working to end hunger in the nation say the cuts will have long-term health effects.
Research has found that kids in households with limited access to food are more likely to have a mental disorder. Similarly, food insecurity is linked to lower math and reading skills.
Working-age people with food insecurity are more likely to experience chronic disease. That long list includes high blood pressure, arthritis, diabetes, asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Those health issues come with costs for individuals. Low-income adults who aren’t on SNAP spend on average $1,400more a year on health care than those who are.
About 47 million people lived in households with limited or uncertain access to food in 2023.
5. What does this mean for the nation’s food supply chain?
SNAP spending directly boosts grocery stores, their suppliers, and the transportation and farming industries. Additionally, when low-income households have help accessing food, they’re more likely to spend money on other needs, such as prescriptions or car repairs. All that means that every dollar spent through SNAP generates at least $1.50 in economic activity, according to the USDA.
A report by associations representing convenience stores, grocers, and the food industry estimated it could cost grocers $1.6 billion to comply with the new SNAP restrictions.
Advocates warn stores may pass the costs on to shoppers, or they may close.
When I read this, I kept thinking that the nanny-state which ended most direct welfare payment to the poor and poorly paid of us is certainly to blame for this terrible situation in which “administration” costs and non-profits that “connect” the potential recipients with assistance are taking so much of the actual dollars. And perhaps I am misremebering the order of events, but wasn’t it Third-Wayers who pushed for this, as the lesser of some imagined evils while retaining Democratic political ascendancy?
At any rate, no matter how it came about, now here we are, with a government that refuses to disburse funds already made available, in the name of “health” and “values”. It seems to me that whatever genuine opposition is to arise against this horrible bunch of grifters and pseudo-moralizers, it needs to be able to articulate a coherent anti-corporate government structure, to be able to talk about riches as acquisitiveness and greed, to be clear about what sharing the risks of our common mortality and morbidity means.
There is no one “fix” out there, just waiting for everyone to say Yeah, that’s it! Living with ourselves and our fellow beings has never been easy and our preferred solution of finding the group we can blame for the seeming problems of the moment has never done much beyond kick the can of worms down the road.
I do find it remarkable that the stalemate over the budget has devolved into lamentations about poor folks losing health coverage and food assistance. This budget bill will crush people, no matter what fiddling is done to Medicaid or ACA subsidies. And obviously, this administration just does not give a shit about that or much else involving the actual people of this country. It’s full of people who believe their wealth and positions are threatened by the populace. And too many of the status quo opposition feel similar frissons of dethronement.
Yes, the top 10% hate the bottom 50%. And those in the middle wonder if they’re next. Life, in the City on the Hill.
I’ll second that observation.
BTW – the Links page has no Leave a Reply button.
Support for the low income is Keynesian economics as found in the New Deal. It spends money into the general economy. The political cretins we find today do not understand that. They imagine an economy only of those who have more than enough, with no reference to the human need of those only seeking subsistence.
As woeful as many of us are, flying only inches above ground, do not forget the Palestinians, the Gazans, the Sudanese, or the many others who have no food, no water, no sanitation, no hope except in the pulverized earth of their homeland. Were the peoples of this wealthy land to experience such ignominy, they would revolt.
I will not forget them, or their oppressors.
While all this was going on, Trump jumped aboard his jet to fly down to Mar a Lago. But before he did, he posted images on his Truth Social account images of the newly finished renovations of the Lincoln bathroom. It was all black and white polished Statuary marble from floor to ceiling and there was gold trim everywhere. When you think that there could be 46 million people going hungry soon, there was a definite Versailles vibe about it all-
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-renovated-white-house-lincoln-bathroom/story?id=127067413
In passing, where he has his dunny, I hope somebody gives thought to hanging some curtains in that window. Some things once seen can never be unseen.
Many may not know the story about how Truman had the entire insides of the White House gutted and rebuilt after a leg of his piano fell through a rotten spot in the upstairs floor. The Roosevelts had done little to fix up their home–having other priorities.
Trump has probably spent a more time thinking about how to create that deluxe bathroom than on seeking peace in Gaza and Ukraine. But what’s a banana republic without a presidential palace?
Somehow I’m good with “Bowling At The White House With Nixon.” YMMV
That Versailles vibe, has a nice ring to it.
Gold plated dunny, tacky and garish decor – yes I do hope it is curtained.
The emperor loves his people!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0iAcQVIokg
Invisible curtains! Nothing is too good for our Fearless Leader!
Tell him it is a new, DARPA discovered one way curtain material. “You can see out Excellency, but they cannot see in.”
That’s apropos…Lincoln shat in an outhouse but this orange turd needs a gold-plated throne. Reminds of the Sam Kinison line about Jesus having only sandals but he wants the preacher to have a 2nd Lear jet.
Trump’s tastes are straight out of a third-world dictator’s playbook. Mobutu or Bokassa would have loved his marble-clad bathroom.
I love the new bathroom! So much easier to slip on that marble and maybe suffer a fatal fall …
SNAP has always had provisions about what can and cannot be bought with the cards.
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items
So it’s unclear to me why adding candy and soda to the list would be more burdensome to a system that already exists.
As for “refugees,” at my nearby Lidl it’s not uncommon to see those clearly middle European in language and clothing filling up their baskets. So who does or does not get to be a refugee adds a political angle to the humanitarian question–especially when Trump and Rubio are threatening to create more of them in South America.
But then it’s all a political question given how much we spend on pointless wars that may not even be our fight. In a country where welfare for the rich is now the norm being cheesy about welfare for the poor is villainous indeed.
Perhaps the government could tap the billions in extra tariff revenues being generated each month to support SNAP.
By the way, does anyone know how that revenue is being spent?
Twenty billion + to Argentina? Good question.
HOW it is being spent is indeed a good question, since only the House of Representatives can appropriate monies from the Treasury for spending. And so, with the House in recess, how is money being spent on new programs?
This is actually not correct even though all the actions around the shutdown would lead you to think it is. No one ever worried about where the money was coming from for the next bombing run in the Iraq War. The Pentagon has a large official black budget and some unofficial ones too. The CIA is effectively on a black budget (I have not independently verified, but this is what John Kirakou has said) and does not have limits on its spending either. How that is cooked up in official budgeting is way over my pay grade (and clearances).
But but the constitution says…oh silly me.
The normalized hypocrisy is that they accuse others of running guns and drugs, when federal agencies have been involved in black budgets for decades. Larry Wilkerson recently mentioned the opium in SE Asia during the Vietnam era, and the Iran Contra cocaine scandal has been well documented (journalists Gary Webb, Robert Parry and others broke these stories). I would not be surprised if the CIA were working with the “cartels” in Mexico
You get the overall breakdown in the Monthly Treasury Statement
For last year Customs Duties totaled $194,866 million. Revenues mainly matter to Treasury as it determines what borrowing is required.
Any revenue can be “tapped”. Appropriations don’t specify where money comes from; only provide the authority to obligate the Treasury to disburse funds. (This is different from other spending that specifies a source such as trust funds.)
As far as SNAP contingency fund, I don’t find the admin argument reasonable. If Congress appropriates two-year money for contingencies, it seems obvious the intent is for a contingency in either the year appropriated or the following year.
As far as other unobligated funds that didn’t expire on 30 Sep, the admin obviously figured out a way to do that for the military pay accounts, so it’s a case of if there is a will there is a way (in theory Congress could object to this “reprogramming”). Though I don’t think it is in the purview of judges to make that decision for the admin.
I find work requirements infuriating.
Where are the people going to work? Who is going to hire them? How are these people caring for their families while they are at work?
Some people can’t work due to physical or mental issues and circumstances- are these people expected to follow Lambert’s second rule of neoliberalism? And why isn’t family care considered work?
My conservative to reactionary friends and family (which includes both D and R parties) have the mantra that people that receive “handouts” are too lazy and need to work. My response to this comment is “since they are so lazy, would you want them to work for you? work with you? Would you want to be their customer? If the answer is no to these 3 questions, then paying them to stay out of workforce is the best outcome.”
I have yet to receive pushback using this argument, which I have now used for several decades. It sounds cold, and it is, but i find that people using the “lazy” argument to eliminate “handouts” lack compassion and empathy.
Volunteering counts. Where I volunteer there was one person in the past who was homeless, and there is currently one person who is homeless (that I know of; of course there could be more). As it happens, neither of them were/are on food stamps. They both were/are excellent volunteers; very well educated and well read, and a huge help to the organization. The volunteering option is very important in areas where there are hardly any jobs (especially rural areas).
We also have volunteers whom a regular employer would definitely not hire due to their personal challenges (they are not on food stamps either, but they volunteer enough hours so that they could be).
We also have “mystery” volunteers who show up for a few months and then go away (we regulars don’t inquire since it’s not our business). Some are doing community service, but probably some are getting food stamp hours.
USDA Food and Nutrition Service (.gov)
https://www.fns.usda.gov › snap › work-requirements
Aug 29, 2025 — Work at least 80 hours a month. Work can be for pay, for goods or services (for something other than money), unpaid, or as a volunteer; …
Of course even volunteering is not a real option for many people; that is true.
Yes. It’s only a short step from their arguments to extermination camps.
Somewhere along the way we have lost institutional memory that food subsidies for the poor were also, and perhaps just as importantly, intended to support farmers and the local production of food so that in times of war (including trade wars) the country might be more agriculturally self-sufficient.
The subsidization of food production and distribution was considered necessary for national security purposes.
Maybe we could resurrect that argument, or at least remember it out loud from time to time.
Perhaps it is no longer considered relevant to the discussion, since big ag has taken over and we get our food from ‘supply chains’ abroad — like it or not — and U.S. small farmers have been mostly economically eliminated. But it is part of the history of the U.S. supplying food for the poor.
I remember in my childhood when my state’s land grant ‘A&M’ school used to run a dairy and produce extra cheese to be distributed among the poor. Students learned how to run a dairy and make dairy-based products, then went on to become dairy farmers. Everyone benefited.
This summer my husband and I got together with a Vietnam helicopter pilot buddy he grew up with in a poor part of Minneapolis. They are both in their 80’s. His friends’ father had passed away from tuberculosis when he was about 4 years old. There were at least 4 children for his mother to support. They got housing and food stamps after his father’s death. Every month an inspector would come into their home and open all the cabinets searching for food products and other things they should not have. He recalled a school friend gave them popsicles one day. They ate them in the yard, and a neighbor reported them for having a prohibited food and the case worker arrived to investigate. His mother could have kept them in the house for free and eventually it would have been given to her permanently, but the harassment by the local officials pushed her to return to work as soon as he became old enough to go to school. This, I think is a sad tale that he remembers it so vividly 79 years later.
Looks like we might be returning to the old days.
Schumer and the Senate Dems have politically miscalculated, imo. From Real Clear Politics on the latest CNN poll:
CNN’s Enten: Shutdown Not Helping Democrats In Polls
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/10/28/cnns_enten_shutdown_not_helping_democrats_in_polls.html
They want the poor to either:
1. Become soldiers and die fighting for US capital abroad
2. Fulfill the shrinking number of jobs that are beneath them
Or 3. Die, preferably in a way that doesn’t draw much attention.
(3. seems to be becoming more a lot more popular, policy-wise. We’re moving from “they don’t care about you” to “they actively want you to die”.)