The Trump administration announced that following “further calculations” it has determined it can provide recipients of low-income food assistance approximately two-thirds of their usual benefits this month, rather than the 50% initially pledged.
Officials at the Department of Agriculture, which administers the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, identified an “error” in their earlier calculations and “worked to issue new guidance and tables as soon as it was discovered,” lawyers for the Department of Justice stated in court filings late Wednesday.
Earlier this week, uncertainty surrounded whether the administration would provide any SNAP benefits to the 42 million Americans participating in the programme.
Despite two court orders mandating continued funding of the programme amid a federal funding lapse, President Donald Trump declared on social media Tuesday that no SNAP benefits would be distributed until Democrats ended the government shutdown. Administration officials quickly reversed his statement, promising partial payments, though on an uncertain timeline.
Wednesday evening, groups that filed lawsuits against the Trump administration over the cutoff of SNAP funds accused it of failing to comply with the order of a federal judge in Rhode Island. The judge had directed the administration to utilise a $4.65 billion SNAP contingency fund to finance the benefits.
The groups that sued argued the administration was only providing $3 billion from the contingency fund under its plan to pay 50% of benefits.
In its own filings in the Rhode Island case and a separate lawsuit in Massachusetts, Justice Department lawyers stated the administration is now instructing states, which distribute SNAP payments, to provide recipients with 65% of their usual benefits.
The revision represents a significant development in an evolving crisis affecting tens of millions of Americans who depend on nutritional assistance to feed their families. The programme serves as a crucial safety net for low-income households, children, elderly individuals, and people with disabilities.
The initial announcement of 50% benefit levels created immediate alarm among anti-hunger advocates and state officials who warned that reduced payments would force impossible choices for families already struggling with food insecurity. Grocery budgets stretched thin under normal circumstances would become wholly inadequate with halved benefits.
The calculation error that led to the initial underestimate raises questions about the administration’s internal review processes and the speed with which policy changes affecting millions of vulnerable Americans were developed and communicated. Such miscalculations can sow confusion among state agencies responsible for implementing federal directives and create anxiety among beneficiaries uncertain about their benefits.
The $4.65 billion contingency fund at the centre of the court disputes exists precisely for situations like government shutdowns or funding gaps. Congress established this reserve to ensure continuity of nutrition assistance even during appropriations lapses, recognising the critical nature of food security for vulnerable populations.
The legal challenges brought by advocacy groups reflect concerns that the administration was not fully utilising available resources to maintain benefit levels despite court orders. The gap between the $4.65 billion available and the $3 billion initially allocated suggested the administration was withholding funds that could support higher benefit payments.
The 65% benefit level, whilst an improvement over 50%, still represents a substantial reduction that will challenge recipients’ ability to afford adequate nutrition throughout the month. A family receiving $600 monthly in benefits under normal circumstances would receive $390 under the new calculation, a $210 shortfall that significantly limits purchasing power.
Food banks and emergency food providers are bracing for increased demand as SNAP recipients exhaust reduced benefits before month’s end. These organisations typically experience surges in need during the final week of each month when benefits run low, and the current situation will likely exacerbate this pattern.
State agencies administering SNAP face operational challenges implementing rapidly changing federal guidance. Benefit calculation systems require programming adjustments, and communication with millions of recipients demands clear, timely information about what they can expect. The shifting directives create administrative burdens during an already stressful period.
President Trump’s Tuesday social media declaration that no benefits would be distributed created panic among recipients and advocates. The statement contradicted existing court orders and raised constitutional questions about executive authority to withhold congressionally appropriated funds. The rapid walkback suggested internal recognition that the position was legally and politically untenable.
The government shutdown’s impact on SNAP highlights the programme’s vulnerability during appropriations lapses despite its mandatory spending classification. Whilst technically funded through mandatory appropriations rather than annual discretionary spending, the programme still requires appropriations authority to access and distribute funds.
The Rhode Island and Massachusetts court cases represent attempts by advocacy organisations to compel the administration to fulfil legal obligations to maintain programme operations. Federal judges in both jurisdictions issued orders directing continued funding, establishing judicial precedent that SNAP benefits cannot simply be suspended during shutdown periods.
The Justice Department’s acknowledgment of calculation errors and submission of revised guidance in court filings indicates recognition that the initial plan was inadequate both legally and practically. The willingness to revise the benefit percentage suggests pressure from legal challenges and public criticism influenced administration decision-making.
Anti-hunger organisations continue monitoring implementation to ensure states receive clear guidance and recipients obtain promised benefits. The revised 65% figure must translate into actual payments reaching families, not merely theoretical calculations on paper.
The situation underscores broader debates about programme adequacy and benefit levels even under normal circumstances. Many nutrition experts and advocates argue that SNAP benefit calculations, based on the Thrifty Food Plan, already provide insufficient resources for healthy diets, making any reduction particularly harmful.
Families receiving reduced benefits will likely employ various coping strategies including skipping meals, purchasing less nutritious but cheaper foods, visiting food banks, and seeking assistance from religious organisations or community groups. These adaptations can have health consequences particularly for children and individuals with medical conditions requiring specific diets.
