New York's top law enforcement officer has taken a major stance against the Trump administration over the food stamp program. In a lawsuit filed in U.S District Court in Massachusetts, Attorney General Letitia James is pushing to have the USDA resume payments for SNAP benefits despite the current government shutdown.
The issue stems from the USDA's decision to halt payments on Saturday, leaving millions of Americans who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – also known as food stamps – facing uncertain futures. The agency claims it doesn't have the funds to cover costs and instead points fingers at Senate Democrats for not passing legislation that would allow for emergency funding.
However, James disputes this, arguing that the USDA is legally obligated to utilize contingency funds for payments. She asserts that there's no excuse for abandoning families who depend on SNAP as a lifeline. In her view, the federal government should prioritize protecting vulnerable populations like mothers and children over partisan politics.
James joined forces with 24 other states and the District of Columbia in filing this lawsuit, which seeks to intervene before benefits are paused next week. The attorneys general point out that Congress explicitly allocated funds specifically for maintaining benefits during funding gaps.
The stakes are high given that SNAP helps an estimated 40 million Americans afford groceries, including 3 million New Yorkers who receive $650 million in monthly benefits statewide. The Trump administration's actions have left many wondering how they'll put food on the table, especially with a significant portion of New York City relying on the program – over 1.8 million people.
While Governor Kathy Hochul has announced an expedited grant to support local food pantries, she acknowledged that the state can't fill the gap created by federal funding cuts. The lawsuit claims that the USDA's actions are arbitrary and capricious, with the agency having $6 billion in emergency funds at its disposal.
The other states involved in this suit include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
The issue stems from the USDA's decision to halt payments on Saturday, leaving millions of Americans who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – also known as food stamps – facing uncertain futures. The agency claims it doesn't have the funds to cover costs and instead points fingers at Senate Democrats for not passing legislation that would allow for emergency funding.
However, James disputes this, arguing that the USDA is legally obligated to utilize contingency funds for payments. She asserts that there's no excuse for abandoning families who depend on SNAP as a lifeline. In her view, the federal government should prioritize protecting vulnerable populations like mothers and children over partisan politics.
James joined forces with 24 other states and the District of Columbia in filing this lawsuit, which seeks to intervene before benefits are paused next week. The attorneys general point out that Congress explicitly allocated funds specifically for maintaining benefits during funding gaps.
The stakes are high given that SNAP helps an estimated 40 million Americans afford groceries, including 3 million New Yorkers who receive $650 million in monthly benefits statewide. The Trump administration's actions have left many wondering how they'll put food on the table, especially with a significant portion of New York City relying on the program – over 1.8 million people.
While Governor Kathy Hochul has announced an expedited grant to support local food pantries, she acknowledged that the state can't fill the gap created by federal funding cuts. The lawsuit claims that the USDA's actions are arbitrary and capricious, with the agency having $6 billion in emergency funds at its disposal.
The other states involved in this suit include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.