While the stoppage was brief, an expert on food assistance says it raises questions about the future of America’s anti-hunger safety net
“This is the first time in modern history that benefits have actually been withheld, despite USDA having a contingency fund available to pay benefits during the shutdown,” said Benjamin Chrisinger, assistant professor in the departments of Community Health and Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning. Photo: Shutterstock
During the 43-day federal government shutdown, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits were withheld for two weeks in early November. This was the first time in the program’s history that the benefits—designed to safeguard Americans against catastrophic hunger—were inaccessible.
The disruption impacted not only the millions of Americans who rely on the program to help pay for groceries but also food retailers and community-based food assistance programs.
Though benefits resumed when the government reopened on November 14, the interruption—on top of new work requirements for SNAP recipients and state restrictions on what foods qualify for the program—raised questions about the program’s future.
What ramifications does this interruption have on the program? Could the Supreme Court rulings on SNAP have repercussions for food security? And should states limit what types of foods SNAP recipients can purchase?
Tufts Now spoke with Benjamin Chrisinger, assistant professor in the departments of Community Health and Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning, who has done extensive research on food assistance programs and their efficacy.
How damaging was the period without SNAP benefits to the program at large? Are the impacts still felt now that benefits have resumed?
Besides the obvious harms to participants—both in terms of added worry and increased food insecurity—it’s too soon to know the broader impacts on the program. States undoubtedly incurred added administrative costs to respond to rapidly changing and conflicting information from the courts and USDA. And it’s quite possible that some food retailers suffered big losses in the first half of November.
Some states successfully distributed SNAP benefits during the shutdown. Why was this able to happen? How does that situation vary by state?
Most states that paid full or partial benefits during the shutdown did so immediately following a court order or revised guidance from USDA. When USDA required states to calculate reduced SNAP payments (with some households receiving no benefits at all), this added a further logistical complication.
Even when states had resumed payments, sometimes these were interrupted by a conflicting court order or revised USDA guidance, leaving benefits only distributed to a portion of households.
Some states also used their own discretionary or emergency funds to cover the gap in November benefits. In some cases, states repurposed Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funds, but those funds could only go to households with children.
Many states also gave emergency funds to regional food banks to help them deal with increased demand.
What do the recent Supreme Court rulings on SNAP signify—if anything—about the future of the program?
The willingness of the Court to allow SNAP to be withheld raises serious questions for me. This is the first time in modern history that benefits have actually been withheld, despite USDA having a contingency fund available to pay benefits during the shutdown.
A key feature of SNAP has been its consistency, which lets households plan and budget, and lessens their worries about having enough to eat. The Supreme Court’s rulings seem to cast doubt on the future consistency of the program.
There are movements in some states to restrict the types of food that it is possible to purchase on SNAP (e.g. high-calorie sodas, highly processed foods). Are you in favor of those proposals? Why or why not?
I’ve been thinking and writing about this issue for some time now. There are a variety of ethical arguments against making SNAP more restrictive, including issues of fairness for low-income households who already have limited options.
SNAP is already an unusual approach to food security compared to other countries; many view unrestricted cash transfers as more efficient. Cash transfers let households prioritize needs, which might be food, but could be medial expenses, utilities, or even a child’s birthday.
Historically, the program’s direct link between low-income households and food retailers and producers has given it some political protection, though the shutdown shows how this is not always the case.
We can’t forget about the bigger picture: The One Big Beautiful Bill massively reduced funding for SNAP and imposed stricter work requirements. So SNAP is already becoming less generous and less inclusive. To me, that’s the main health problem, and that’s where we should focus.
The program is already remarkably good at achieving its main goal of preventing hunger. If another goal is to improve Americans’ nutrition, then population-level policies like nutritional standards on added sugars or sodium would create a healthier food system for everyone.
