“A VITAL BULWARK AGAINST HUNGER AND INSECURITY”

In his February 24, 2026 State of the Union address, President Trump boasted, “In one year, we have lifted 2.4 million Americans, a record, off of food stamps.” The number is correct; the facts tell a different story.

Even in an administration known for its cruelty toward poor people, the attacks on the Supplemental National Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) stand out. Established in 1964, SNAP is the largest food assistance program in the US and a key component of its safety net. The program serves 42 million people, one in eight Americans; seventy percent are children, people with disabilities, or those over 65. Although funded by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), SNAP is administered by the states.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s encouragement to states to ban the purchase of soft drinks and ultra-processed food with SNAP benefits is the one action that has received support from at least some public health advocates. By the beginning of March, 2026, the USDA had granted waivers to 22 states to do just that. The advocates who applaud that development argue that the government should not pay for food items associated with poor health. Others, however, point out that the prohibitions stigmatize SNAP recipients, that because the program provides only partial assistance, they can buy junk food with other money, and that the requirements have led to chaos and confusion. A February 2026 Politico article noted that some states have not provided lists of banned items; as a result, SNAP recipients and grocers are left “trying to figure out what even qualifies as ‘junk food.’ Is Gatorade? What about granola bars?” On March 11, the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, an advocacy group, filed a case challenging the state food restrictions.

The administration’s first major assault on SNAP occurred on July 4, 2025, when the One Big Beautiful Act (OBBA) cut $186 billion from the program, strengthened recipients’ work requirements, reduced the eligibility of some legal immigrants, and shifted more of the administrative burden from the federal government to the states.

The second attack took place on October 24, a few weeks after the government shutdown began, when the USDA suddenly announced that it would suspend November benefits. Because charitable food assistance programs (soup kitchens, food pantries, and food banks) could not fill the gap, anti-hunger advocates warned that SNAP recipients soon would run out of food.

On October 30, a group consisting of nonprofits and local governments as well as a union and a grocery store sued the government in the US District Court of Rhode Island. The following day Judge John H. McConnell, Jr. ruled against the government, noting that it had two accounts that could be used for this purpose, a contingency fund for emergencies and the National Child Nutrition Program funds.

In his written opinion released on November 1, McConnell ordered that “to alleviate the irreparable harm the Court found exists without timely payment of SNAP benefits,” the government must find the money to fund the payments. The administration had two choices: It could provide partial payments by November 3 or full payments by November 5.

The government failed to meet either deadline. On November 4, Trump threatened to defy the court order, writing on social media that SNAP payments “will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!”

On November 6, McConnell rebuked the government for delaying payments for “political reasons” and ordered it to release the full benefits by the following day. Although USDA claimed that “the well has run dry,” McConnell again pointed out that the department could tap into two revenue sources--the $6 billion in contingency funds and the $23 billion in Child Nutrition Program funds. Referring to the latter, he wrote, “It defies belief that the Defendants would prioritize a hypothetical disruption in child food assistance, projected to occur no sooner than May of 2026 (if at all), over the very real and immediate risk of children being deprived of their food assistance today.”

On November 7, the Justice Department appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, contending that there was no “legal basis” for forcing the president to fund the payments in full. When that court refused to immediately suspend the District Court’s order, the administration filed an emergency motion in the Supreme Court. Late that night, Justice Jackson issued a stay to give the appeals court more time to consider the case.

By then some states already had started to pay full benefits. On November 8, the administration ordered those states to “undo” that work and threatened penalties for noncompliance.

On November 9, Judge Julie Rikelman, writing for a three judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, ordered the administration to make full SNAP payments. “For low-income Americans,” she wrote, “SNAP is a vital bulwark against hunger and food insecurity. . . Without SNAP, tens of millions would go hungry—the first among a cascade of other health and financial harms that would befall those forced to go without enough food, particularly in the months leading up to winter.”

Even while acknowledging that the issue soon might become moot, the government refused to give up. On November 10, it returned to the Supreme Court for relief. The shutdown ended on November 12. The following day the administration withdrew its appeal.

Since early 2026, researchers have been able to document the dire consequences of the changes OBBA made to SNAP and the fall suspension of benefits. As Trump reported on February 24, participation in the program fell by six percent (2.4 million people) between July 2025 and December 2025. The drop was especially pronounced in Arizona, which sharply reduced staffing even as new administrative burdens increased. As a result, SNAP participation declined by an astonishing 47 percent. “Arizona is just the alarm bell,” warned Joseph Palomino, executive director of the Arizona Center for Economic Progress, a nonpartisan advocacy organization.

While Trump bragged about “lifting” people “off” of food assistance rather than pushing them off, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins attributes the drop in SNAp enrollment to her vigorous assault on fraud. Only the luxury car models have changed since Reagan coined the term “welfare queen” in his presidential campaign. Linda Taylor, the woman he first smeared with that title, drove a Cadillac. Rollins claims that SNAP recipients own Ferraris, Bentleys, and Teslas.

In 2023 the historian Christopher Bosso wrote, “Barring a seismic shift in our politics—say, conservative Republicans win the presidency and amass congressional majorities—the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program will remain at the center of the nation’s nutrition and income-assistance safety net.” Bosso could not have foreseen the viciousness of a right-wing takeover of the government. The future existence of SNAP now hangs in the balance.

Emily K. Abel is Professor Emerita at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health. Her forthcoming book is Listening to Dementia: Advocating for Dignity and Autonomy (NYU Press, August 2026)

Sources:

“Fact-Checking Trump’s State of the Union Speech,” New York Times, February 25, 2026.

Christopher Bosso, Why SNAP Works: A Political History—and Defense—of the Food Stamp Program (University of California Press, 2023).

Marcia Brown and Paula Friedrich, “Is Gatorade Unhealthy? Granola Bars? Take this Quiz to Understand Kennedy’s New SNAP Bans,” Politico, February 14, 2026.

Marion Nestle, “The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): History, Politics, and Public Health Implications,” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 109, no. 12 (December 2019).

Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “SNAP Tracker: People Are Losing Food Assistance as the Republican Megabill Is Implemented,” https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/the-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap

Nicole Santa Cruz, “’The Alarm Bell’: Arizona’s Drop in SNAP Participation Signals Potential Nationwide Impact of Trump Legislation,” ProPublica, April 8, 2026.

Michael Sainato, “Trump Administration Claims Food Aid Fraud but Critics Say ‘There Is No Evidence,’” Guardian, May 4, 2026.

Rhode Island State Council of Churches v. Rollins, D RI McConnell (11.1.25)

Rhode Island State Council of Churches v. Rollins, D RI McConnell (11.6.25)

Rhode Island State Council of Churches v. Rollins, 1^st Circuit Court of Appeals Rikelman (11.9.25)