Trump Demands States Reverse SNAP Payments Amid Backlash/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The Trump administration has ordered states to reverse recent full SNAP payments issued under court rulings. More than two dozen states are pushing back, warning of chaos if they’re penalized or left uncompensated. As legal battles escalate, governors vow to defy the order and defend food aid to millions.
SNAP Benefit Standoff: Quick Looks
- USDA demands states “undo” November’s full SNAP payments
- Supreme Court paused lower court rulings that allowed payouts
- States warn of “catastrophic disruptions” without reimbursement
- Legal uncertainty escalates amid shutdown-related chaos
- Several governors refuse to comply with USDA’s demand
- Democrats accuse Trump of weaponizing food aid during shutdown
- Four conflicting directives from the USDA in six days
- Lawsuits and appeals expected to challenge the reversal order
Deep Look
Trump Administration Orders States to Reverse SNAP Payments, Sparking Fierce Legal and Political Clash
The Trump administration has issued a controversial directive ordering states to reverse full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits issued earlier this month under court rulings that temporarily expanded access to food aid during the ongoing government shutdown. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced the reversal following a decision by Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to pause those rulings, pending further review.
In a letter sent Saturday, USDA Deputy Undersecretary Patrick Penn warned state SNAP directors that any full payments made for November were now considered “unauthorized” and that states must “immediately undo” them. The agency also suggested that states could face penalties if they fail to comply.
This abrupt reversal comes after numerous states acted quickly to distribute full SNAP benefits following favorable court decisions. Those rulings were obtained by a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and nonprofit organizations seeking to force the federal government to maintain critical food support during the shutdown.
States Warn of Devastating Impacts
More than two dozen states responded sharply to the USDA’s demand. In a federal court filing over the weekend, state officials said the directive would result in “catastrophic operational disruptions,” particularly as many had already issued the benefits or used state funds to fill the gap while the federal government remained shuttered.
Wisconsin, for example, disbursed benefits to 700,000 residents after a federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the restoration of SNAP last week. But the U.S. Treasury subsequently froze reimbursement funds. Governor Tony Evers warned that Wisconsin may run out of money by Monday, risking unpaid vendors and mounting legal consequences.
Governor Evers firmly rejected the USDA directive. “No,” he said in a public statement. “We followed a valid court order to ensure nearly 700,000 Wisconsinites, including 270,000 children, had access to food.”
Other governors echoed the sentiment. Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey declared that SNAP funds were legally distributed before the Supreme Court’s stay and said her administration would defend the payments in court if Trump attempts a clawback.
“President Trump should focus on reopening the government instead of stripping food from families,” Healey said.
Confusion Over Funding and Reimbursement
A key issue lies in whether the Trump administration will reimburse states that used their own money to temporarily sustain SNAP benefits. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska criticized the administration’s position, saying it was “shocking” to threaten states that acted in good faith to protect their residents.
“It’s outrageous for the federal government to penalize states that stepped up,” Murkowski said. “They shouldn’t be punished for doing the right thing.”
Legal experts noted the confusion caused by the USDA’s conflicting guidance. In the span of six days, states received four different directives from the agency. Maryland Governor Wes Moore accused the administration of creating “intentional chaos” to destabilize safety net programs.
“There is no clarity, no leadership — just chaos,” Moore said in an interview on CBS. “And that chaos is hurting real people who depend on these benefits to eat.”
Shutdown and SNAP Intersect in Political Standoff
The SNAP dispute is playing out against the broader backdrop of the federal government shutdown, now entering its sixth week. President Trump and congressional Republicans have been under increasing pressure as essential programs, including food assistance, face funding shortfalls.
Democrats have blasted the administration’s handling of SNAP, accusing it of weaponizing food aid during the shutdown. While the Senate has made progress on a bipartisan agreement to partially reopen the government, the administration’s refusal to guarantee food assistance funding has become a key sticking point.
The emerging Senate proposal includes full funding for SNAP and would reimburse states that paid out benefits during the shutdown, offering a potential off-ramp to the crisis. However, House Republicans have yet to signal whether they’ll support such measures.
Legal Challenges Mount
The legal battle is far from over. States are preparing to argue that their actions were lawful and in compliance with judicial orders in place at the time of payment. Democratic leaders say they are ready to return to court to challenge the administration’s attempt to reverse the disbursements.
The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals is reviewing the Trump administration’s request to halt SNAP payments permanently. In filings, states warn that they could be asked to return hundreds of millions of dollars if the administration succeeds in its legal argument, a move they say could devastate public services and shake trust in federal-state cooperation.
As the situation continues to evolve, millions of families are left in limbo, unsure if the benefits they received will be rescinded or clawed back. With the holidays approaching, the uncertainty surrounding food aid has added urgency and anxiety to an already fraught political climate.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.