Forty-two million Americans, one in eight people in the country, face the risk of losing access to food assistance as of November 1 if the government shutdown is not resolved. This is not merely a political dispute but a matter of basic human needs; the futures of children, seniors, and families are at stake.
On November 1, 42 million Americans will lose access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) due to the ongoing federal government shutdown. SNAP benefits are provided to the nation’s low-income people in the form of food stamps. In California the SNAP program is known as CalFresh, and more than 5.5 million people, including one in eight children in the state, rely on CalFresh.
California and 30 other states have stated they cannot make up for the federal cuts. Twenty-five states have sued the administration over the abrupt halt to SNAP benefits. Over the longer term, the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which Congress passed earlier this year, would reduce SNAP’s budget by $287 billion over the next decade. New requirements have also been introduced to determine eligibility.
The American Community Media held a press briefing on this grave situation with Jamie Bussel, senior program officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; Joseph Llobrera, director of research on food assistance policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; Eric Valladares, executive director of Familias en Acción; and Gina Plata-Nino, acting director for SNAP. The event was co-hosted with partner Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Stunning information was shared at the event.
SNAP is the largest federal food-assistance program in the United States, providing help to low-income households to purchase groceries. Individuals or families qualify based on income and assets. States administer the program day to day, but funding is largely federal. Nationwide, roughly – as noted – 42 million people receive this program monthly. We repeat this because the number is chilling.
The average monthly benefit per household runs to a few hundred dollars (for example, one article cites a figure similar to $332), and even that causes serious hardship if it disappears. This program is not just a form of aid: by enabling food purchases, it acts as an economic engine, supporting jobs and food supply chains. It plays a crucial role because if it shuts down, households abruptly fall into food insecurity, which has severe social and health consequences.
Jamie Bussel, a leader at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a national health philanthropy based in Princeton, New Jersey, which “focuses on a future where health is not a privilege for the few but a right for all” – said the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program is also at risk; it provides food, formula, breastfeeding support, and other assistance to women and infants. She added that a federal judge is expected to decide whether the Trump administration is lawfully halting funding for this government program.
The crisis is caused by the federal government shutdown, because Congress failed to pass the appropriations bill on time. USDA has indicated there is not enough money to fund SNAP during the shutdown and that it does not intend to use cash reserves, thereby putting November payments at risk. From this month on, SNAP disbursements are threatened unless there is an agreement or an alternative source of funds. Yet the money exists; it is clear that Trump wants to use hunger as leverage for blackmail.
New York State has already declared a state of emergency and directed $65 million to food banks because it feared SNAP would trigger a crisis. Court rulings have also been issued: two federal judges have prohibited suspending SNAP payments and instructed USDA to use available reserves to maintain benefits. The vouchers can be used to buy food in grocery stores and at farmers markets. SNAP is the largest anti-hunger program, with roots going back to the Great Depression, and it has never been disrupted the way it is now.
Jamie Bussel stated: “This crisis isn’t happening because Congress lacks money, but because our political leaders decided to prioritize politics over people and their ability to eat. Our families and our seniors are being trapped. Children, families, people with disabilities, and veterans are affected. Local economies will also suffer: 15% of gross grocery sales come from SNAP redemptions. SNAP also supports 9 food programs through food banks.”
THE STUNNING FACT IS THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY THE WORLD’S RICHEST NATION HAS FAILED TO FUND THE SNAP PROGRAM.
According to Gina Plata-Nino, acting director for SNAP at the Food Research & Action Center, we are here as the result of a political decision. USDA could have prevented this.
Most people are on SNAP because they lost a job, had their pay cut, or are working two or three jobs that still aren’t enough to cover these basic needs. “This program is what makes the difference between poverty and the chance to exit poverty,” she said. She noted that hunger, poverty, and SNAP usage are higher in remote and rural areas.
The director recounted stories that are incomprehensible in America. As she said, children ask: “Mom, why are you crying, why don’t we have apples this week?” Even things that look this simple are hard questions for many families. Many children, fortunately, still receive school meals. It is likely that the plans in Project 2025 would be carried out by gradually dismantling SNAP for good. The $187 billion reduction to the program points to this. Project 2025 follows this policy direction, whose goal is to create chaos.
According to Joseph Llobrera, the decline is of a magnitude we have never seen in this country. Eight million older adults and four million adults with disabilities are affected. USDA says nobody will be left without benefits because of the shutdown, but that isn’t true: the government has absolute legal authority and responsibility to free up reserves to cover SNAP benefits in November, but this still has not happened.
The law is clear: immediate emergency funds can be used for anything necessary. Nothing in the statute prevents the use of emergency reserves. The tragedy would be entirely preventable if the government acted quickly. Families must not go hungry because of political considerations. Yet that is what lies behind this.
Responsibility is shared among several actors. One is Congress, for failing to reach agreement on the budget or on interim funding in time. The executive branch (the administration) is another, because USDA’s decision not to use available reserves appears politically motivated. Political tactics also play a role: according to the press, during the current shutdown Trump is using food-assistance recipients as “hostages” to force a political deal and later blame Democrats for any missed payments.
The shutdown arose because neither side was willing to yield to the other. The stakes are severe, because this is about financing health coverage. The dispute now also threatens access to food. What happens if there is no agreement? SNAP payments may be missed; 42 million people would lack their food support for a month. Several consequences could follow: food banks would be overrun; as one aid-organization leader said, they “cannot meet the massive new demand that would arise if 42 million people lose their basic food security.”
Broader social consequences include rising hunger, poorer health, setbacks in children’s development, and weakened social stability. A political consequence is a loss of confidence in government if reliability erodes and the state’s “social contract” falters. If the state cannot provide basic support, it breeds distrust. There will also be economic consequences, because a SNAP shutdown is not only a humanitarian problem. The food industry and retail would suffer; demand could fall, feeding back into the broader economy.
Court orders require USDA to use available reserves and continue disbursements. This could temporarily ease the crisis. Responsibility is not merely technical or bureaucratic; the decisions also have political, humanitarian, and moral dimensions. If the program stops, we will not know which households will go days or weeks without food.
The United States has weathered many crises, but the fact that a democratic state is using people’s basic needs as political hostages is especially grave. Judges and states have partly intervened, but the ultimate solution depends on the will of Congress and the executive branch. As this dispute drags on, the most vulnerable suffer, and politically, those who fail to protect people who look to the state for help will pay the price.
