A federal judge in Boston signaled sharp skepticism toward the Trump administration’s plan to suspend food assistance for millions of Americans as the U.S. government shutdown drags into its second month.
During a tense hearing, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani questioned how federal officials could justify freezing all Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits—commonly known as food stamps—when $5.25 billion in contingency funds remain unused. Nearly 42 million people depend on the program, which faces disruption starting this weekend.
“It’s hard for me to understand how this isn’t an emergency when people are about to lose food benefits,” Talwani remarked, adding that Congress clearly intended for such funds to be used during crises.
Attorneys representing 25 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia urged the court to intervene, asking for an emergency order requiring the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to maintain at least partial payments. They argued that the department is obligated by law to disburse what funds remain, even if it cannot cover the full $8.5–$9 billion monthly cost.
The USDA has maintained that it lacks the authority to issue payments until Congress approves new spending legislation. The Justice Department warned that forcing the agency to make partial payments could lead to chaos, citing outdated state systems that might buckle under the strain.
But the judge appeared unmoved, questioning whether the administration’s “all-or-nothing” approach defied both common sense and congressional intent. “We’re not going to make everyone drop dead because it’s a political game,” she said pointedly.
The dispute comes as the political deadlock in Washington shows no signs of easing. The USDA’s own shutdown plan initially indicated contingency funds could sustain SNAP temporarily—but last week, the department reversed course, announcing on its website that “the well has run dry.”
The lawsuit, spearheaded by Massachusetts, California, Arizona, and Minnesota, asserts that withholding benefits violates federal law. SNAP provides vital food support to households earning less than 130% of the federal poverty line—about $1,632 per month for an individual.
Talwani noted that any ruling she issues would carry nationwide implications, since SNAP benefits cannot be reduced or halted based on geography or political divisions. “I can’t consider this in only the terms of half the nation,” she said.
The court’s decision, expected soon, could determine whether millions of Americans wake up this weekend with—or without—money for food.
