Delta volunteers sorting food, repacking bulk foods into smaller portions, assembling a box kit with assorted food for seniors and children at Utah Food Bank | Photo by Delta News Hub via Wikimedia Commons
As the federal government shutdown drags on, more than 42 million Americans—many of them children, seniors, and working families—are staring down a terrifying question: What happens when the food runs out?
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the nation’s largest anti-hunger initiative, is on the brink of collapse. For the first time in its 60-year history, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has signaled it will not distribute benefits during a government shutdown, citing legal constraints on using its $5 billion contingency fund. This decision, if not reversed, will leave tens of millions without the means to feed their families starting on November 1.
It is not just a policy failure—it’s a moral emergency.
Thankfully, some states are stepping up. New York Governor Kathy Hochul declared a state of emergency and committed $95 million in emergency food aid. Connecticut, Louisiana, New Mexico, and California have followed suit, allocating millions to food banks and emergency EBT distributions. But these are stopgaps, not solutions. The federal government must act—and act now.
A Partisan Divide with Real-World Consequences
At the heart of this crisis lies a bitter partisan divide. Democrats argue that the USDA has both the authority and the obligation to use its contingency funds to continue SNAP payments during a shutdown. They point to past precedents—such as the 2018–2019 shutdown—when the USDA used similar funds to keep benefits flowing.
“This is about basic human dignity,” said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, one of 25 state officials suing the USDA. “The law is clear. The money is there. The need is urgent.”
Republicans, however, have taken a different stance. Some argue that the USDA’s legal interpretation is correct and that Congress must explicitly authorize any spending during a shutdown. Others see the crisis as an opportunity to push for broader reforms to SNAP, including stricter work requirements and reduced eligibility.
Representative Mark Green (R-TN), chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, recently stated, “We need to ensure that safety net programs are sustainable and not open-ended entitlements. This is a chance to revisit how we administer aid.”
But while lawmakers debate legal interpretations and long-term reforms, families are running out of time.
“We cannot allow bureaucratic paralysis or political brinkmanship to starve millions. We must demand that our leaders—regardless of party—act with urgency, compassion, and clarity. It is not a moment for ideological purity. It is a moment for moral clarity.”
The Human Cost of Delay
SNAP is not a luxury. It is a lifeline. It feeds one in eight Americans, including nearly 20 million children. In New York alone, over 2.8 million residents rely on SNAP to survive. In Connecticut, that number is 360,000. Across the country, food banks are already reporting surges in demand, with some seeing lines stretch around the block.
If benefits are suspended, the consequences will be swift and severe. Child hunger will spike, especially among students who rely on SNAP to supplement school meals; Seniors and people with disabilities—many of whom live on fixed incomes—will be forced to choose between food and medicine; local economies will suffer, as grocery stores and small businesses lose billions in SNAP-driven revenue; and, food banks will be overwhelmed, unable to meet the sudden surge in need.
It is not speculation—it’s a forecast grounded in data and lived experience. During the pandemic, when SNAP benefits were temporarily expanded, food insecurity dropped significantly. Now, we risk reversing that progress.
What Needs to Happen
First, the USDA must reverse its position and release the $5 billion in contingency funds. Legal scholars and state attorneys general argue that the agency has the authority to do so, as it did in previous shutdowns. A federal judge in Boston is currently reviewing the multi-state lawsuit, and a favorable ruling could force the USDA’s hand.
Second, Congress must pass a continuing resolution or targeted legislation to immediately fund SNAP. It should not be a partisan issue. Hunger does not check party affiliation. It affects red states and blue states alike.
Third, we need to reframe how we talk about food assistance. SNAP is not a handout—it’s an investment in public health, child development, and economic stability. Every dollar spent on SNAP generates $1.50 to $1.80 in economic activity, according to the USDA.
A Call to Conscience
As a Filipino American civic advocate, I’ve seen firsthand how programs like SNAP sustain our most vulnerable neighbors—immigrant families, essential workers, and seniors who built this country. Inaction is not just negligent—it is cruel.
We cannot allow bureaucratic paralysis or political brinkmanship to starve millions. We must demand that our leaders—regardless of party—act with urgency, compassion, and clarity.
It is not a moment for ideological purity. It is a moment for moral clarity.
Let us not be remembered as the generation that let children go hungry while debating legal footnotes. Let us be remembered as the generation that chose justice, humanity, and common sense.
The clock is ticking. The stakes are high. And the nation is watching.
