Lead: The Trump administration announced it will provide only partial Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for November as the federal shutdown stretches into its sixth week, a move revealed in court filings on Monday. The decision follows recent court orders that pushed the government to explain its funding plan after advocacy groups and states sued. Separately, the administration shifted $450 million in customs revenue to keep WIC running for now, but officials and advocates warn widespread hardship and delays remain likely.
Key Takeaways
- About 42 million Americans receive SNAP; the administration said its partial funding will cover roughly 50% of eligible households’ current allotments per a court filing.
- The White House transferred $450 million in customs revenue to sustain the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), which serves about 6.7 million women and small children.
- Two federal judges recently found fault with the administration’s initial refusal to fund nutrition benefits and ordered the government to report a plan for payments by Monday.
- The Agriculture Department argued in court that the Section 32 customs account used for WIC cannot legally or practically be tapped to fully fund SNAP, citing congressional intent and program differences.
- Advocacy groups, cities and states have sued to secure full SNAP funding; some plaintiffs and legal advocates say they are considering further action after the partial-payment announcement.
- Officials warned that technical and administrative hurdles could delay even partial SNAP distributions for weeks, leaving some families abruptly short on food.
Background
The federal government shutdown began on October 1 after Congress failed to pass appropriations, leaving many federal programs unfunded and millions of workers furloughed or working without pay. SNAP, the nation’s largest anti-hunger program, funds monthly electronic benefits for low-income households; payments are routed through state agencies and require timely federal transfers to maintain normal distributions.
Earlier in the shutdown, the Agriculture Department used a Section 32 customs-revenue account—an authority historically deployed for child nutrition—to support WIC through October. That precedent prompted cities, states and anti-hunger groups to press courts and the administration to deploy similar funds for SNAP, arguing ample reserves existed to prevent hunger while the political standoff continued.
Main Event
On Monday the administration filed a sworn declaration saying it would provision SNAP on a reduced basis, estimating that available emergency funds would cover about 50% of eligible households’ allotments. Judges in at least two cases had given the government specific deadlines to explain how it would ensure benefits after plaintiffs challenged the decision to stop funding SNAP entirely.
The Agriculture Department’s declaration—filed by Patrick A. Penn, the deputy under secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services—noted legal and programmatic differences between SNAP and WIC and said the agency did not believe the same funding route used for WIC was legally available for full SNAP disbursements. That filing framed the partial-payment approach as a constrained alternative while litigation proceeds.
Advocates and municipal plaintiffs responded swiftly. Democracy Forward, which represented some cities and nonprofits in court, said it was reviewing options to compel full payments. Anti-hunger organizations warned that even a partial payment could be chaotic for state administrators and leave many families unable to meet immediate food needs.
Analysis & Implications
Short-term: Partial payments and delayed distributions risk immediate food insecurity for millions. Many SNAP households budget tightly around monthly allotments; a sudden halving or weeks-long delay can force families to skip meals, rely on emergency food banks, or miss rent and other essentials.
Operationally: State agencies must reprogram benefits systems and communicate new schedules to caseworkers and retailers. Technical constraints cited by the administration—older payment infrastructures and staggered state issuance calendars—help explain administrators’ warnings that provisioning partial benefits could take weeks in some areas.
Legal and political effects: The saga underscores a broader tug-of-war between the executive branch’s funding choices and judicial oversight during a shutdown. Courts have already intervened to press the administration for an immediate plan; further rulings or appeals could compel full funding or produce narrower remedies, deepening uncertainty for recipients.
Political optics: For the White House, choosing partial rather than full payments shifts near-term blame to procedural limits and legal risk while exposing the administration to criticism that it prioritized bargaining leverage over preventing hunger. For Congress, the episode revives pressure to reach a short-term funding deal or pass targeted relief that restores benefits.
Comparison & Data
| Program | Estimated Beneficiaries | Recent Action |
|---|---|---|
| SNAP | ~42 million people | Administration plans partial payments (~50% per filing) |
| WIC | ~6.7 million women and children | $450 million transferred from customs revenue to continue benefits |
| Typical WIC cost | ~$150 million per week | Section 32 funds used to bridge October and part of November |
These figures illustrate scale differences: SNAP serves far more households and carries higher aggregate costs, complicating attempts to transfer smaller dedicated accounts into full program funding without legal or political pushback.
Reactions & Quotes
Public officials, advocacy groups and legal representatives responded quickly, framing the partial-payment announcement as either insufficient or a stopgap while legal battles continue.
“It is not enough to do the bare minimum — the administration should stop playing politics with hunger and use all available resources to ensure Americans can put food on the table.”
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D), ranking member on Senate agriculture matters
Legal advocates emphasized continuing litigation options.
“We are considering all legal options to secure payment of full funds.”
Skye Perryman, President, Democracy Forward (legal advocacy group)
Administration and agency statements stressed legal constraints and operational limits.
“The agency does not believe the same [Section 32] is true for SNAP due to the significant differences between the amounts at issue.”
Patrick A. Penn, USDA deputy under secretary (official declaration)
Unconfirmed
- Exact timing: Whether partial SNAP payments will begin within days in all states remains unclear; administration filings warned some states could face weeks-long delays.
- Full funding via Section 32: It is unresolved whether a legal path exists that would let the administration immediately divert sufficient Section 32 funds to fully cover SNAP without congressional action or successful court orders.
Bottom Line
The administration’s decision to deliver only partial SNAP payments underscores how a prolonged shutdown rapidly translates into material harms for low-income families and strains state benefit systems. Even with a temporary WIC infusion, millions face immediate uncertainty about when and how much assistance they will receive.
Watch for unfolding legal developments and congressional responses: court rulings could force fuller payments, states may take emergency measures, and anti-hunger groups are likely to press both the courts and lawmakers for durable solutions. For millions of households, the difference between partial and full benefits will be measured in meals and short-term financial stability.