Trump Seeks Legal Path to Fund SNAP After Court Halts Benefit Suspension
Former President Donald Trump has requested guidance from a federal court on how to legally fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) following a judge’s order that blocked his administration’s move to suspend benefits for millions of Americans. This development comes amid ongoing legal battles over SNAP funding during a critical period for food assistance recipients.
In late October 2025, a coalition of 26 states filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts challenging the Trump administration’s unlawful suspension of November SNAP benefits. The suit argued that cutting off assistance to approximately 42 million people would exacerbate food insecurity nationwide. Concurrently, national nonprofit organizations also pursued legal action to protect SNAP funding.
Federal courts have since ruled that the administration must use contingency funds to provide at least partial SNAP benefits for November, effectively blocking the abrupt suspension. However, the practical rollout of funds remains complex as most state agencies had already processed benefit files before the suspension was halted, which complicates refunding or adjusting benefits for recipients.
To comply with the court order, states face the challenge of either reprogramming their systems or modifying already generated Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) files to issue prorated benefits. This process requires coordination among state agencies, benefit processors, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which oversees SNAP administration.
Trump’s court submission sought direction on how to meet these legal requirements without violating the judicial order, indicating the administration’s intent to navigate the funding dilemma within the bounds of the law. This legal wrangling underscores the high stakes around SNAP funding as millions of Americans rely on these benefits for essential food security.
Advocates warn that any further delays or confusion could have significant repercussions. “Halting or reducing SNAP benefits adversely affects vulnerable families who depend on this support for basic nutrition,” stated a spokesperson from a leading nonprofit organization involved in the lawsuit.
This series of legal confrontations reflects the broader national debate on social safety net programs and government responsibilities during economic uncertainty. As the courts weigh ongoing motions, states and recipients await clarity on when full SNAP benefits will resume and how to ensure consistent access to these vital resources.