USDA Deletes Plan Confirming SNAP Benefits Could Continue During Shutdown
On October 10, 2025, President Trump sent a letter to every state agency that administers SNAP, the program that ensures groceries for roughly 42 million people nationwide. His message was urgent and intimidating: if the government shutdown continued, he claimed, there would not be enough money to provide full November food benefits.
The letter ordered states to halt their November SNAP files — the electronic records that tell EBT systems how much families can spend at the start of the month. It instructed them to delay sending those files “until further notice,” stopping not only the bulk November payments but also ongoing daily authorizations.
To state agencies, this was more than unusual — it was in conflict with the law. SNAP is an entitlement. Congress has already mandated that all eligible households must receive assistance. And Congress had already provided billions in contingency funds precisely to keep SNAP running even in a shutdown. Yet the USDA letter never cited a statute allowing suspension of benefits. It did not claim that the legal criteria under 7 U.S.C. § 2027 had been met — criteria that would require a measured benefit reduction, not a blanket freeze. Instead of instructing states to recalculate lower November amounts based on statutory formulas, the letter essentially ordered a full stop.
That meant real delays. Many states must transmit files days ahead of issuance, and some of those deadlines had already passed. Families in those states were suddenly guaranteed to receive their November benefits late, not because funds were exhausted but because USDA told states to stand still.
Meanwhile, the money exists. The statute gives USDA the ability to use contingency reserves appropriated by Congress — more than $6 billion, and additional funds set aside through September 2027 under the most recent appropriations law. Historically, both Democratic and Republican administrations have used available funds to avoid any lapse in SNAP benefits during shutdowns. During the 2018–2019 shutdown, the Trump administration itself acknowledged that contingency reserves could support regular SNAP benefits. The Government Accountability Office later confirmed that understanding.
Then comes a revealing detail. Days before the October 10 letter, USDA had publicly posted a contingency plan explaining that OMB’s general counsel authorized obligating benefits ahead of a shutdown specifically to guarantee uninterrupted operations. It acknowledged Congress’ intent for SNAP to continue. It noted these multi-year funds were available for both state administration and participant benefits. Shortly after posting, that plan quietly vanished from USDA’s website.
All of this matters because the harm would be immediate and widespread. In Massachusetts alone, 1.1 million residents rely on SNAP each month — 342,000 children, 261,500 seniors. Connecticut serves more than 366,000 residents — 120,000 of them children. Nationwide, the program pumps more than $8.3 billion into basic nutrition each month. For families receiving an average benefit of $323 a month, even a week-long delay means empty shelves and skipped meals.
Cities and advocacy groups sued. In late October, the federal district court in Rhode Island found that withholding benefits would cause irreparable harm and ordered USDA to release contingency funds to ensure timely November payments. The court reaffirmed SNAP’s status as an entitlement: eligible households are legally owed assistance, and available funds must be used to provide it, shutdown or not. The court even pointed USDA toward specific additional funding sources — including a large food-related reserve account — if the contingency funds alone could not cover a full month.
The judge also noted that the administration’s own prior guidance contradicts its new position. In the first Trump term, USDA explicitly recognized contingency funds could support benefits during a lapse. Now the administration was asserting the opposite without a clear legal basis.
The judge even referenced Trump’s own Truth Social post during the ruling, where he insisted he didn’t want “Americans to go hungry” and asked the court to “clarify how we can legally fund SNAP as soon as possible,” adding that “it will BE MY HONOR to provide the funding.” After quoting it, the judge responded with a pointed line that read almost like a retort: here is the court’s order — and here is the legal direction you asked for.
This fight over what seems like paperwork and reserves is really about control. By ordering states to freeze the system, the administration created a crisis where one did not have to exist. The President has repeatedly blamed Democrats for the shutdown and now warns that hunger may follow if they do not yield. The narrative is crafted to make states, grocery stores, and parents point their frustration toward Congress while the executive branch holds the lever.
The facts in the record show something different. The money is there. The authority is there. The legal obligation is there. What changed is the political strategy.
Families do not experience shutdowns as abstractions — they feel them in their stomachs. And while the courts have intervened for now, it is important to keep the sequence straight. The administration first acknowledged SNAP could continue, then tried to erase that acknowledgment, then froze benefits, and only under court order agreed to release funds. That is not an unavoidable consequence of divided government. It is a decision made inside the White House.
As with many highly visible political conflicts, the goal seems performative: manufacture a crisis, assign blame elsewhere, and hope a hungry public believes the story. But documents, statutes, and court records tell another story entirely. When SNAP recipients check their EBT balances, they deserve to know why they might come up short. And they deserve to know who made that choice.
IF YOU NEED A LAWYER CONTACT US