The Trump administration faces a constitutional crisis as federal courts clash with the executive branch over SNAP benefit payments, exposing the chaos created by Congress’s failure to fund essential government operations.
Story Snapshot
- USDA threatens financial penalties against states that issued full November SNAP benefits without authorization.
- A federal judge ordered full payments, but Supreme Court Justice Jackson temporarily paused the ruling.
- The government shutdown since October 1st has left 42 million Americans in limbo regarding food assistance.
- Administration proposes 65% partial payments while $8 billion in full benefits remains unfunded.
Government Shutdown Creates SNAP Payment Crisis
The ongoing government shutdown, which began on October 1st after Congress failed to pass essential spending legislation, has created unprecedented chaos in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
With 42 million Americans dependent on SNAP benefits, the Trump administration faces impossible choices between fiscal responsibility and immediate human needs. The program requires approximately $8 billion monthly, but lacks appropriated funding due to Congressional inaction that has paralyzed federal operations for over a month.
Trump administration demands states ‘undo’ full SNAP payouts as states warn of ‘catastrophic impact’ https://t.co/XbvwkXeP1d
— Hartford Courant (@hartfordcourant) November 9, 2025
USDA Demands States Reverse Unauthorized Payments
Deputy Under Secretary Patrick Penn issued a late-night memo on November 8th, threatening financial penalties against states that distributed full SNAP benefits without federal authorization.
The directive demands states “immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025” and limits payments to 65% of normal amounts.
States face potential cancellation of federal administrative cost-sharing or financial liability for unauthorized payments, though the USDA provided no clear mechanism for clawing back benefits already distributed to families.
The administration’s position reflects a commitment to constitutional spending limits and fiscal responsibility, even amid political pressure to exceed authorized funding.
More than half a dozen states had already issued full payments following conflicting federal court orders, creating administrative chaos and potential financial exposure for state governments caught between competing federal directives.
Federal Courts Challenge Executive Authority
U.S. District Judge Jack McConnell in Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration to pay full SNAP benefits, rejecting the proposed 65% partial payment plan. The ruling created immediate legal complications as the administration appealed while simultaneously facing demands for compliance.
The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals denied the administration’s request for an emergency injunction, escalating the constitutional conflict between judicial orders and executive budget authority.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily paused the lower court’s order, directing the 1st Circuit to expedite a ruling on the administration’s motion for an indefinite stay.
This judicial intervention highlights the complex constitutional questions surrounding federal spending authority during government shutdowns, particularly when Congress fails to appropriate necessary funds for essential programs serving millions of Americans.
Conservative Principles Meet Practical Realities
The Trump administration’s refusal to use the $4.65 billion contingency fund or Section 32 funds demonstrates adherence to constitutional spending principles and separation of powers. Past administrations continued SNAP payments during shutdowns, but the current approach prioritizes legal spending authority over political expedience.
Senator Amy Klobuchar’s criticism as “cruelty” misses the fundamental issue: Congress created this crisis by failing to pass necessary appropriations bills, not the executive branch enforcing constitutional spending limits.
