SNAP benefits interrupted! U.S. Supreme Court approves Trump to withhold $4 billion in food aid

In a fierce game surrounding the federal government budget, the legal scale has temporarily tilted in favor of the executive branch. The U.S. Supreme Court has approved the Trump administration's request to delay the disbursement of approximately $4 billion in food assistance funds, a decision that will directly impact the livelihoods of 42 million low-income individuals across the country and exacerbate the socioeconomic uncertainty caused by the government shutdown.

According to media reports on the 8th, the Supreme Court issued an order on Friday to temporarily suspend a lower court ruling that mandated the government to fully pay this month's SNAP benefits (commonly known as food stamps). This move means that the judicial order regarding the funding gap for the "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program," which was set to expire that day, has been put on hold. The program's total monthly expenditure is approximately $8.5 billion to $9 billion.

The administrative stay was issued by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. She noted that the move aims to give the lower appellate court more time to review the formal appeal submitted by the government. According to the order, the stay will automatically expire two days after the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston makes a ruling on the government's request.

This series of judicial confrontations has made the already troubled outlook for the SNAP benefits program, which is suffering due to the federal government shutdown, even more uncertain. According to a previous article by Wall Street Insight, since about 12% of the U.S. population relies on SNAP benefits, any interruption or significant delay in payments will directly affect a large voter base. Bank of America believes that the resulting significant political costs may prompt both parties to accelerate negotiations to avoid further deterioration of the situation.

Judicial Stalemate: From District Court to Supreme Court

The core of this dispute stems from a ruling by Rhode Island District Court Judge John McConnell. Faced with funding shortages due to the government shutdown, the Trump administration initially planned to suspend the entire SNAP program in November but later proposed providing $4.65 billion in emergency funds for partial coverage. However, Judge John McConnell ruled on Thursday that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must fully pay the total benefits of $8.5 billion to $9 billion for this month.

John McConnell, appointed by Democratic former President Obama, accused the Republican Trump administration of withholding SNAP benefits for "political reasons." He ordered the USDA to utilize a child nutrition program with $23.35 billion in funding, supported by tariff revenues, to cover the funding gap for SNAP.

In response, the Trump administration quickly filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. Justice Department lawyers warned that failing to block Judge McConnell's ruling could "trigger a bank run-like judicial order," thereby "sowing more chaos caused by the shutdown." U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi stated on social media platform X that the Supreme Court's decision suspended what she considered to be "the worst manifestation of judicial activism."

Opposing Side: The Government Must Provide Assistance

The legal group Democracy Forward, representing the challengers, stated that the government has a clear legal obligation to pay these funds. This group has united multiple cities, unions, and non-profit organizations to file a lawsuit against the government. They emphasized in documents submitted to the appellate court that if Judge John McConnell's ruling is suspended, nearly one-eighth of Americans will be in distress.

Skye Perryman, head of Democracy Forward, stated in an interview that the court hearing this case “has made it very clear that this administration not only has the legal authority to pay these funds but must pay these funds.” The attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote:

“The court should dismiss the defendant's motion and should not allow them to further delay providing essential food assistance to individuals and families in urgent need.”

States in Confusion, Aid Distribution in Chaos

Just hours before the Supreme Court intervened, local governments had received a once-optimistic signal. The U.S. Department of Agriculture had notified states that it was working to comply with Judge John McConnell's order and was preparing to fully distribute November's SNAP benefits, even as the government was simultaneously appealing.

This prompted positive responses from state governments. Several states, including New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, indicated that they had instructed state agencies to prepare to fully distribute November's benefits to the public. Massachusetts Governor, Democrat Maura Healey, stated in a press release:

“President Trump should not have put the American people in this position.”

However, the latest directive from the Supreme Court forced states' efforts to come to a halt, and the aid program was once again stalled.

Welfare Program Interrupted for the First Time in 60 Years, Bipartisanship May Be Forced

Earlier this month, SNAP benefits experienced their first interruption in the program's 60-year history, causing immediate impacts on families that rely on this assistance. Reports indicated that benefit recipients had to turn to already overwhelmed food distribution centers and make sacrifices, such as forgoing medication purchases, to stretch their tight budgets.

The SNAP program is designed to provide food assistance to Americans with incomes below 130% of the federal poverty line. According to the standards for fiscal year 2026, the maximum monthly benefit for a single-person household is $298, and for a two-person household, it is $546. This funding interruption affects nearly one-eighth of Americans.

However, the political implications of this event far exceed the economic impact. According to a previous article from Wall Street Watch, compared to relatively manageable economic effects, a report from Bank of America suggests that the political consequences of the SNAP payment interruption are “much greater.”

The report emphasizes that about 12% of the U.S. population relies on SNAP benefits to maintain basic living standards. When tens of millions of voters cannot receive food assistance on time, the resulting social and political pressure is something both parties find difficult to bear. This widespread and direct impact on people's livelihoods resonates far more with political sensitivities than abstract macroeconomic data Therefore, although the government has announced that it will make partial payments, this "drop in the bucket" type of remedy and the delay in disbursement will still constitute a huge "political cost." Analysis suggests that it is precisely this cost that is most likely to prompt both parties to choose to end the government shutdown to avoid more serious political consequences.

Risk Warning and Disclaimer

The market has risks, and investment should be cautious. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into account the individual user's specific investment objectives, financial situation, or needs. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article are suitable for their specific circumstances. Investment based on this is at their own risk