Greetings from Yves. Recently, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) received a temporary reprieve from potential cuts, thanks to a court ruling. As reported by The Hill:
A federal judge intervened on Friday, halting the Trump administration’s plans to terminate SNAP amidst the imminent government shutdown. The order compels officials to utilize an emergency fund before making any cuts.
The $5.25 billion allocated in this fund falls short of covering the anticipated expenses for November, which are projected to exceed $9 billion for the food assistance initiative.
Plaintiffs argue that there are additional funding sources available, but with competing priorities, it remains uncertain how much more than the initial $5.25 billion can be accessed. As noted by The Guardian:
A group of plaintiffs in a civil case currently before the Rhode Island court, represented by the democratic advocacy organization Democracy Forward, assert that the federal decision to suspend nutritional benefits is both misguided and illegal, especially given that the USDA still has funds available to support the SNAP program.
This includes the $5.25 billion in contingency funds previously allocated by Congress for the USDA’s use in essential program operations, as per the plaintiffs’ claims.
Aside from these contingency funds, they also suggest that an additional fund with around $23 billion could potentially be used to avert an unprecedented halt in SNAP benefits.
In a separate case in Massachusetts, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani has given the administration until Monday to clarify whether it will partially utilize the contingency funds or seek additional resources to cover November’s SNAP benefits.
As highlighted in the discussion below, the pressing issues remain unresolved. It’s unclear whether the steadfast Trump Administration will yield to the demands posed by similarly committed Democrats.
By Katheryn Houghton, Samantha Liss, and Renuka Rayasam, originally published at KFF Health News
The Trump administration’s modifications to the nation’s largest food assistance initiative threaten to strip millions of individuals of benefits, exert pressure on state budgets, and strain the national food supply chain, potentially undermining the administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” campaign, as indicated by researchers and former officials.
Regardless of the outcomes in at least two federal lawsuits aimed at preventing November’s SNAP cuts, significant alterations to the program are set to unfold. These lawsuits challenge the administration’s choice to withhold emergency funds necessary for the program’s continued operation during the government shutdown.
A federal judge in Rhode Island mandated that the government tap into these funds to sustain SNAP, while another judge in Massachusetts, in a distinct lawsuit, ordered the government to leverage its food aid contingency resources. However, the administration is required to submit a funding plan by November 3.
As uncertainty looms, food banks across the nation are preparing for a likely increase in demand, anticipating that millions may be cut off from the assistance that helps them purchase groceries.
On October 28, a delivery of items including SpaghettiOs and tuna arrived at the Gateway Food Pantry in Arnold, Missouri. This might be Gateway’s final shipment for an indefinite period, as the pantry, which primarily serves families with school-aged children, has already depleted its annual food budget due to heightened demand, according to Executive Director Patrick McKelvey.
The Georgia-based nonprofit, New Disabled South, which advocates for individuals with disabilities, recently announced a one-time financial aid of $100 to $250 for families facing SNAP cuts in the 14 states it serves.
Within less than 48 hours, the organization received over 16,000 requests, amounting to $3.6 million—far exceeding its available funding.
“It’s unreal,” remarked co-founder Dom Kelly.
The looming threat of interrupted SNAP funding is an indicator of what lies ahead with modifications outlined in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Donald Trump in July.
This new tax and spending legislation is projected to cut $187 billion from SNAP over the next decade, representing nearly a 20% reduction from current funding levels, as per the Congressional Budget Office.
The revised regulations will transfer many food and administrative costs to the states, potentially prompting some to consider withdrawing from a program that assisted approximately 42 million individuals with grocery purchases last year. Additionally, the administration is advocating for states to restrict SNAP purchases of certain items, including sugary snacks and sodas.
“This puts us in uncharted territory regarding SNAP,” expressed Cindy Long, a former deputy undersecretary at the Department of Agriculture and now a national advisor at the law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.
The original food stamps were introduced at the close of the Great Depression when many could not afford to buy food from farmers. Nowadays, recipients utilize debit cards instead, but the program continues to support farmers and food retailers while preventing hunger during economic downturns.
According to the CBO, around 3 million individuals are expected to lose food assistance due to various provisions in the budget law, which includes applying work requirements to a broader population and increasing state cost burdens. Leaders within the Trump administration claim that these changes are aimed at reducing waste and boosting employment and enhancing health.
This marks the most significant reduction to SNAP in its history, coinciding with escalating food prices and a precarious labor market.
Determining the precise impact of these cuts will be challenging, especially since the Trump administration discontinued an annual report that monitored food insecurity.
Here are five significant changes coming to SNAP and their implications for Americans’ health:
1. Access to food benefits will become more difficult.
Under the new legislation, individuals will face increased paperwork to qualify for SNAP benefits.
Current recipients must already fulfill work, volunteer, or other eligible activities for 80 hours every month to maintain their benefits. The new regulations extend these requirements to formerly exempt groups, including homeless individuals, veterans, and young adults who were in foster care until they turned 18. Additionally, parents of children aged 14 and older and adults aged 55 to 64 will also be affected by these expanded work requirements.
Starting November 1, recipients who fail to demonstrate compliance with the requirements will face limitations of only three months of SNAP benefits in a three-year span.
“This is draconian,” stated Elaine Waxman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, a nonprofit research entity. Approximately 1 in 8 adults have reported losing SNAP benefits due to difficulties with paperwork, according to a survey by the Urban Institute.
Furthermore, certain groups, including refugees and asylum-seekers, will be entirely excluded from SNAP under the new policy.
2. Increased financial contributions and resources from states.
This federal law significantly raises the financial commitment required from each state to maintain the program.
Previously, states covered only half of administrative costs and none of the food-related expenses, with the federal government handling the rest.
Now, states will be responsible for 75% of administrative costs and will need to cover a portion of food costs too. This adjustment equates to an estimated median cost increase for states of over 200%, as reported by the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality.
A KFF Health News analysis suggests that just one funding shift associated with food costs could impose an additional liability of $11 billion on the states.
While all states participate in SNAP, opting out remains a possibility. In June, around two dozen Democratic governors expressed concerns that certain states might lack the funds necessary to continue program participation.
These governors warned, “If states are compelled to cease their SNAP programs, hunger and poverty will escalate, with both children and adults facing increased health challenges, rural grocery stores struggling to survive, job losses in agriculture and food sectors, and a detrimental impact on local economies.”
3. Will the alterations promote healthier eating habits?
The Trump administration has emphasized healthy eating within its “Make America Healthy Again” initiative.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has advocated for restrictions on purchasing sodas and candies using food aid funds. Currently, 12 states have gained approval to impose such purchasing limitations.
Prior federal administrations prevented similar restrictions, citing difficulties in implementation and concerns over increasing stigma surrounding SNAP, as highlighted in a 2007 USDA report. The initial Trump administration had blocked Maine’s 2018 attempt to prohibit the purchase of sugar-sweetened beverages and candies.
To avoid the complications, some stores might choose to withdraw from the program altogether, leaving SNAP recipients with fewer shopping options.
Interestingly, recipients of SNAP exhibit no greater tendency to purchase sweets or salty snacks compared to non-recipients, as reported by the USDA
.
Research indicates that incentivizing healthy eating choices proves more effective than imposing purchasing restrictions.
When individuals have limited funds for food, they often choose cheaper, unhealthy options that provide long-lasting satiety rather than investing in fresher, healthier options that tend to spoil quickly.
4. Impact of SNAP cuts on health outcomes.
Organizations dedicated to combating hunger assert that these reductions will have substantial long-term health implications.
Research indicates children living in food-insecure households are at a higher risk of developing mental disorders. Similarly, food insecurity correlates with reduced math and reading proficiency.
Working-age individuals facing food insecurity display a higher likelihood of suffering from chronic illnesses, including a range of conditions such as hypertension, arthritis, diabetes, asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
The health complications come at a cost—low-income adults who do not participate in SNAP incur an average of $1,400 more yearly in healthcare expenses than their SNAP-participating counterparts.
In 2023, approximately 47 million individuals lived in households facing limited or uncertain access to food.
5. How will these changes affect the food supply chain?
SNAP expenditures directly aid grocery stores, their suppliers, and the agricultural transportation sector. Furthermore, when low-income families access food resources, they are in a better position to allocate funds to other necessities, like medication or vehicle repairs. This means that every dollar spent through SNAP generates at least $1.50 in economic activity, according to the USDA.
Reports from industry associations representing convenience stores, grocers, and food distributors indicate that compliance with the new SNAP restrictions could cost retailers as much as $1.6 billion.
Advocates express concern that stores might pass these costs down to consumers or, in a worst-case scenario, shut their doors permanently.
