Washington and Oregon have joined a coalition of 25 states Tuesday suing the Trump administration over the suspension of SNAP benefits if the government shutdown continues.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program helps approximately 42 million Americans purchase food every month. The ongoing government shutdown, which entered its 28th day Tuesday, threatens to stop those benefits on November 1 if no agreement is reached to reopen the government.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, along with a coalition of 22 other attorneys general and three governors, filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the U.S. Department of Agriculture challenging its decision to withhold SNAP benefits.
The government shutdown began on October 1, when Congress failed to appropriate funds for the new federal fiscal year. On October 10, USDA informed state SNAP agencies that if the shutdown persisted, there would be insufficient funds to pay full November benefits for the approximately 42 million individuals reliant on the program, according to a statement from AG Brown.
“Despite USDA’s claim of insufficient funds, the agency has access to billions of dollars in SNAP-specific contingency funds appropriated by Congress for this very purpose,” Brown alleges in his complaint. “Furthermore, USDA has funded other programs with emergency funds during this shutdown, but has refused to fund SNAP, leaving millions of Americans without the assistance they need to buy food.”
Brown criticized the federal government’s decision, stating, “SNAP benefits help ensure that nearly a million Washingtonians, seniors, children, and people living with disabilities, have enough to eat every day.”
He added, “Trump is picking and choosing what gets funded and what doesn’t during the shutdown. Apparently keeping food on the table for more than 40 million Americans isn’t a priority for the President.”
In a memo issued on Friday, the USDA said there’s actually less money in the fund than reported and that it is only for true emergencies “like hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods, that can come on quickly and without notice.”
“For example, Hurricane Melissa is currently swirling in the Caribbean and could reach Florida,” the memo says. “Having funds readily available allows for mobilization quickly in the days and weeks following a disaster.”
The coalition argues that USDA’s suspension of SNAP benefits is illegal under the Administrative Procedure Act and contrary to Congress’s directive that SNAP should continue during a shutdown. They plan to request a temporary restraining order to reinstate benefits immediately.
In Washington state, nearly 1 million people use SNAP benefits to keep food on the table. In Oregon, the program helped over 757,000 residents buy food in 2024, which is about one in six Oregonians, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
If SNAP benefits are not restored by the November 1 deadline, Brown alleges in his complaint that the economic repercussions could also extend to grocers and merchants nationwide, as USDA estimates that every $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.54 in economic activity.
Some food banks are already making contingency plans, calling on people to donate food or holding food drives this week before the November 1 deadline.
The 25-state coalition suing the Trump administration represents more than half of U.S. states, demonstrating widespread bipartisan or at minimum Democratic-led opposition to the SNAP suspension threatening vulnerable populations.
The 28-day shutdown duration surpassing four weeks places the current impasse among the longest government funding lapses in modern history, with the October 1 start meaning federal operations have been disrupted for nearly a month.
Attorney General Nick Brown’s leadership role joining 22 other attorneys general and three governors positions Washington state at the forefront of legal challenges protecting federal assistance programs during political standoffs.
The October 10 USDA notification to state agencies provided three weeks’ advance warning of potential benefit cutoffs, creating time for legal challenges while generating anxiety among recipients uncertain whether November food assistance will arrive.
The “billions of dollars in SNAP-specific contingency funds” allegation contradicts USDA’s insufficient funds claim, with Brown arguing Congress specifically appropriated reserves for exactly these circumstances where shutdowns threaten nutrition assistance continuity.
The accusation that USDA “has funded other programs with emergency funds during this shutdown, but has refused to fund SNAP” suggests selective application of contingency resources that prioritizes certain programs over hunger prevention.
The nearly 1 million Washingtonians depending on SNAP include demographics Brown specifically identifies as “seniors, children, and people living with disabilities,” populations with limited ability to suddenly replace lost food assistance through employment or other income sources.
Brown’s characterization that “Trump is picking and choosing what gets funded” frames the SNAP suspension as deliberate political decision rather than inevitable consequence of budget impasse, attributing agency to executive branch choices.
The USDA Friday memo defending contingency fund preservation for “hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods” creates hierarchy of emergencies where natural disasters warrant rapid mobilization while predictable November 1 deadline for 42 million people doesn’t qualify.
The Hurricane Melissa example cited in USDA’s memo demonstrates the agency’s prioritization of potential future disasters over immediate certain crisis affecting tens of millions, a risk management calculation the coalition challenges.
The Administrative Procedure Act legal argument contends USDA violated federal administrative law requiring agencies to follow proper procedures when changing policies that affect public benefits and vulnerable populations.
The Congressional directive claim that “SNAP should continue during a shutdown” suggests legislative intent for nutrition assistance to operate as essential service exempt from appropriations lapses, similar to Social Security payments.
The temporary restraining order request seeks immediate judicial intervention forcing USDA to restore benefits before November 1, bypassing lengthy litigation that would leave recipients without food assistance for months.
The 757,000 Oregon SNAP recipients representing “one in six Oregonians” demonstrates the program’s reach extends far beyond stereotypical welfare populations to include working families whose wages don’t cover basic needs.
The $1.54 economic multiplier effect per SNAP dollar spent illustrates how nutrition assistance functions as economic stimulus, with grocery stores, farmers markets, and food retailers losing revenue when benefits cease.
The food bank contingency planning and emergency food drives reveal how charitable sector scrambles to fill gaps when government safety nets fail, though food banks lack capacity to replace $5 billion monthly federal program.
Seattle-area food banks including Food Lifeline and Northwest Harvest face overwhelming demand if SNAP suspension occurs, with existing inventory and volunteer capacity inadequate to serve additional million Washington residents suddenly needing emergency food.
The November 1 deadline creates time pressure intensifying political negotiations, with the administration potentially calculating that benefit suspension will force Democrats to accept budget terms they previously rejected.
The lawsuit coalition’s geographic diversity likely spanning Democratic and potentially Republican-led states demonstrates that SNAP protection transcends partisan politics in states where rural poverty and agricultural economies depend on nutrition assistance.
