The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more commonly known as ‘food stamps’, remains one of the most significant federal welfare schemes in the United States. Administered by the Department of Agriculture through its Food and Nutrition Service, the programme provides monthly electronic benefits that allow low-income households to buy food. Although the federal government funds these benefits in full, state governments manage eligibility and distribution, creating a system that depends on close cooperation between federal and state authorities.
As the government shutdown drags on, SNAP has become a central point of contention. Without a funding agreement in Congress, payments for more than 40 million Americans are now at risk. In response, 25 states have confirmed legal action against the federal government, accusing the Department of Agriculture of unlawfully withholding around $5bn in reserve funds that were set aside to maintain food assistance during national emergencies. Federal officials have argued that the current shutdown does not meet the legal definition of such an emergency, prompting accusations that Washington is neglecting its responsibility to safeguard vulnerable households.
This dispute reflects a deeper constitutional tension within American federalism. The states’ coordinated legal challenge demonstrates their capacity to act collectively to defend residents’ welfare when federal inaction threatens essential services. It also underlines the delicate balance of power in the US system, where states can use the courts to constrain federal authority and demand accountability in the face of political paralysis at the national level.