This is The Opportunity For Trump to Get Rid of Food Stamps Once and For All
 |
| New Spring Deli & Grocery in the Bronx, New York, last month.Credit...Marco Postigo Storel for The New York Times |
Lara Jakes contributed reporting
The New York Times
Food stamps: The Trump administration told states on Saturday to “immediately undo” any actions to provide full food stamp benefits to low-income families, threatening financial penalties if they do not comply. The late-night guidance from the Agriculture Department, which was reviewed by The New York Times, adds to the uncertainty surrounding the nation’s largest anti-hunger program during the government shutdown. Officials in several states said they remained unsure on Sunday how the directive would affect the roughly one in eight Americans who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Read more ›
Airport disruptions: A third day of government-mandated flight cuts was affecting 40 of the busiest airports in the United States on Sunday, as the government shutdown persists. There were more than 1,400 flight cancellations in the U.S. early Sunday morning, according to FlightAware, a tracking service. Read more ›
Hungary sanctions: President Trump granted Hungary a one-year exemption from sanctions the United States had imposed on countries that buy Russian oil. The exemption marks a victory for Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary, a populist autocrat and longtime Trump ally who met the president at the White House on Friday.
Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that a promise from Republicans to vote on extending expiring health care subsidies would be insufficient for House Democrats to end the stalemate that has shuttered the government. Speaker Mike Johnson has refused to commit to holding such a vote, but Democrats have long maintained that they want a guarantee that the tax credits will be extended.
“I don’t think that the House Democratic Caucus is prepared to support a promise, a wink and a prayer, from folks who have been devastating the health care of the American people for years,” Mr. Jeffries said.
The Trump Administration demands that states ‘undo’ work to send full food stamps to low-income families.
 |
| A person holds bread in bags. |
Volunteers distributing groceries at a church in New York this month.Credit...Marco Postigo Storel for The New York Times
The Trump administration told states that they must “immediately undo” any actions to provide full food stamp benefits to low-income families, in a move that added to the chaos and uncertainty surrounding the nation’s largest anti-hunger program during the government shutdown.
The Agriculture Department issued the command in a late-night Saturday memo, viewed later by The New York Times. That guidance threatened to impose financial penalties on states that did not “comply” quickly with the government’s new orders.
By Sunday morning, officials in several states said they were unsure how the latest directive from the Trump administration would affect the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP. The program, which serves one in eight Americans, has already faced staggering disruptions in recent days, as President Trump and his top aides have refused to fund it fully while the government remains closed.
Some of the roughly 42 million families enrolled in SNAP began to receive their full benefits on Friday, after a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to fully fund the program this month amid the shutdown. States like New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin raced to release the aid to residents, some of whom had been without nutrition assistance for days.
Soon after, though, the Supreme Court temporarily paused the judge’s order so that an appeals court could further review it, leaving the entire program in legal limbo. That review remains underway, and the decision could force the government to tap an ample store of reserves — totaling into the tens of billions of dollars — to preserve full SNAP benefits.
The Agriculture Department did not respond to a request for comment.
The food stamp program is funded by the federal government but largely managed by states. To provide benefits, states send files to processors, which manage the electronic benefit transfer system, known as E.B.T. These vendors then make the funds available on E.B.T. cards, which are the primary way that SNAP recipients purchase groceries.
In its guidance, the Agriculture Department said states may not send E.B.T. processors the files that would be required to provide full benefits. Rather, the agency said states must only send files for “partial” benefits, meaning that food stamp recipients would see their payments substantially cut.
“To the extent states sent full SNAP payment files for November 2025, this was unauthorized,” wrote Patrick A. Penn, a top official at the Agriculture Department. “Accordingly, states must immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025.”
David A. Super, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, said it would not be “legal” for the government to claw back benefits that it had already provisioned without affording people due process.
But, Mr. Super added, the federal government could halt work that some states had started, but not finished, to release full allotments to families this month. He said the memo could serve to “scare states partway along the process, and it’s telling the states to turn back.”
The Agriculture Department also said in its memo that states could lose access to some federal money to manage the SNAP program if they failed to comply, and may be “liable” for funding full benefits that the federal government did not authorize.
A timeline of the legal battle over food-stamps benefits.
 |
| People wait in line outside a building with bright blue doors. |
Residents lining up to receive bags of groceries at a food pantry in New York City.Credit...Marco Postigo Storel for The New York Times
The Supreme Court late Friday temporarily allowed the Trump administration to continue to withhold some funding for food stamps, the nation’s largest anti-hunger program, the latest twist in a dizzying legal battle with great stakes for millions of low-income Americans.
The order from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson paused, at least for now, the directive of a lower court judge, who had ordered the Trump administration to fully fund benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
The matter now rests in the hands of a federal appeals court, which is considering whether to maintain that pause, known as a stay, or allow the lower court judge’s order to take effect. The appeals court is expected to rule quickly.
In the meantime, states have struggled to interpret a series of conflicting rulings and changing developments, which by Saturday appeared to further disrupt food stamp benefits for some of the roughly one in eight Americans who receive them.
Here’s a timeline of the SNAP developments:
Oct. 1: The government shutdown begins after lawmakers in Congress failed to strike a deal to fund federal agencies and programs. The closure did not immediately affect SNAP, however, which was able to pay benefits for the month.
Oct. 24: The Trump administration informed states that it would not tap a reserve of about $5 billion to provide even partial benefits under SNAP, which normally costs about $8 billion a month. The decision by the Agriculture Department marked a reversal from the agency’s own public guidance, issued earlier in the fiscal standoff in Washington, which said it would use its contingency funds to sustain the food stamp program.
Oct. 28: Roughly two dozen states sued the Trump administration over its refusal to continue to fund SNAP. The states, including Arizona, California and Massachusetts, described the cuts as unnecessary and illegal, and they asked a federal judge in Boston to order the Agriculture Department to restart funding to avoid benefit cuts in November.
Oct. 30: A second coalition of cities, religious groups and other nonprofits sued the Trump administration in federal court in Rhode Island. They raised some of the same issues as the states as they looked to force the release of SNAP funds.
The Trump administration staunchly defended its decision to halt SNAP funds at a hearing before a federal judge in Massachusetts, who expressed deep skepticism with the arguments raised by the Justice Department. The government had even acknowledged ahead of that hearing that it had plenty of funds available in two accounts: an emergency fund for SNAP and a second reserve filled primarily with tariff revenue. But the Trump administration said it faced legal, technical and budgetary constraints that prevented it from transferring the money.
Oct. 31: Judge John J. McConnell Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, ruled against the Trump administration. Siding with cities and nonprofits, he said the government had to tap emergency money for SNAP — and consider using a second tranche of funds, largely comprising tariff revenue — to pay benefits quickly.
Nov. 1: In a written version of his earlier ruling, Judge McConnell gave the administration a choice: It could make full or partial SNAP payments that week to alleviate “irreparable harm” facing food stamp recipients. No matter which option it chose — and which funding source it used — the judge ordered the government to act with haste and during that week.
Nov. 3: The administration revealed in a set of court filings that it would send partial payments to SNAP recipients. Initially, the government said that eligible households could receive about half as much in benefits, and it warned that those benefits could be severely delayed. But guidance issued days later by the Agriculture Department revealed the cuts and delays would be much more extensive — leaving some families to receive no aid at all in November.
Nov. 4: President Trump threatened on social media to defy the federal court order, saying that SNAP payments “will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, later said the administration would be “fully complying” with the court order.
Nov. 6: The same federal judge in Rhode Island ordered that food stamps must be paid in full by Nov. 7. He sharply criticized the administration for holding up SNAP for “political reasons,” and required the government to use both emergency funds and its additional account to provide full benefits in November.
Vice President JD Vance criticized the judge’s “absurd ruling,” and the Justice Department quickly said it would appeal.
Nov. 7: In its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the Justice Department argued that there was no “lawful basis” to force the president to fund SNAP payments in full. The court declined to impose an immediate halt to the order, prompting an emergency appeal from the administration to the Supreme Court.
Later that night, Justice Jackson temporarily halted the Rhode Island court’s order to give the appeals court additional time to weigh elements of the case. But states including New York, Kansas, Pennsylvania and Oregon had already started to release full benefits to their residents, adding uncertainty to how the Supreme Court’s administrative stay would affect the payments.
Nov. 8: One day after the ruling, many states struggled to sort through the confusion. Some states had to delay their plans to provide full SNAP benefits, while some food stamp recipients experienced trouble using their benefits to buy groceries.
In late-night guidance, the Trump administration then told states it must “undo” the work to provide full food stamp payments to low-income families — and it threatened financial penalties on states that did not comply.
As beef prices remain high, Trump calls for an inquiry into big meatpacking companies.
 |
| The exterior of a light green industrial building with a sign in red letters saying JBS. |
A White House news release named four meatpackers, including JBS, as targets of an antitrust investigation.Credit...David Zalubowski/Associated Press
A Justice Department investigation into the country’s largest meatpacking companies for collusion and price fixing has the potential to reshape the cattle and beef industries. But past efforts to break the companies’ hold have gone nowhere.
The White House called for an examination into the meatpacking companies’ practices after President Trump, in a post on social media on Friday, accused them of artificially inflating prices and jeopardizing the country’s food supply. A White House news release specifically named JBS, Cargill, Tyson Foods and National Beef as targets of the investigation. The companies collectively slaughter 85 percent of the country’s cattle and a majority of its hogs.
Pam Bondi, the attorney general, said an investigation, headed by the Justice Department’s antitrust division, was already underway.
Ranchers have long complained that the big four meatpackers hold undue power. They have pointed to data that shows that retail beef prices rose over much of the last decade even as the price they received for their cattle fell, with middlemen like slaughterhouses taking in more of the profits.
“We welcome this investigation to ensure that cattle producers receive competitive prices for their cattle, and that consumers pay prices set by a competitive market rather than a monopolistic one,” Bill Bullard, the chief executive of the Ranchers-Cattlemen Legal Action Fund, said in a statement on Friday.
JBS, Cargill, Tyson Foods and National Beef did not respond to requests for comment. The Meat Institute, an industry lobbying group, said that beef packers were losing money and that “market transactions are transparent.”
Shares in JBS and Tyson Foods, the two publicly traded meatpackers, initially dropped on Friday after President Trump’s announcement, though Tyson’s stock recovered and ended up for the day.
A pound of ground beef cost $6.32 in September, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, an increase of more than 11 percent from the year before. Most economists have pointed to the United States cattle herd, which is smaller than it has been since the 1950s, as the main cause of high beef prices. President Trump has often talked about food prices and the Consumer Price Index, sometimes falsely saying the costs for some foods have fallen when they have not.
The opening of an investigation could mollify President Trump’s critics in ranching and farm country. While rural America largely voted for him in the last presidential election, many have grown more critical as his trade war drove down crop prices, and his administration spent $40 billion bailing out Argentina, an agricultural competitor of the United States. Mr. Trump has also blamed ranchers for high beef prices, leading to a drop in prices for cattle at auctions. But the retail price of beef has continued to rise.
The government, in President Trump’s first term, also examined the meatpacking industry. The Department of Justice subpoenaed information from the big meatpackers. President Joseph R. Biden Jr. also criticized meatpackers in one of his State of the Union addresses.
The companies have paid hundreds of millions of dollars over the years to settle an array of private lawsuits accusing them of fixing prices. But the government has rarely advanced beyond investigations to formally accuse the companies or their executives of wrongdoing.
Ranchers have not been alone in their criticism of the control held by a handful of large companies. Farmers have long complained that just a few companies control the seed, fertilizer and equipment industries, and they have no choice but to pay inflated prices for those products.
Gail Slater, the assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s antitrust division, said at her confirmation hearing in the spring that agriculture was one of the industries she wanted to focus on.
Ms. Slater, a Republican who has embraced what she calls “America First Antitrust,” said she believed that antitrust enforcers should give priority to core industries that affect the pocketbooks of Americans, like food, housing and health care. She has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Agriculture Department to protect competition in the agricultural industry.
When the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on concentration in the seed and fertilizer industries last month, she attended and later met with people running independent seed businesses who were among the witnesses. On Friday, she said she had met with a number of ranchers.
But even if Ms. Slater and the antitrust division want to take action against potential collusion, it is unclear whether they will have the ability to do so.
Over the summer, Ms. Slater was forced to fire two of her top deputies, Roger Alford and William Rinner.
Mr. Alford later said at a conference that they were fired because lobbyists for companies involved in a potential acquisition objected to the antitrust division’s review, and persuaded Justice Department officials under Ms. Bondi to demand their ouster.
Trump gave Hungary’s Viktor Orban a one-year reprieve on sanctions after their White House meeting.
 |
| President Trump sits at a table next to Viktor Orban and other people. Flags are in the background. |
President Trump met with Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary on Friday at the White House.Credit...Tierney L. Cross/The New York Times
President Trump has granted Hungary a one-year exemption from sanctions the United States has imposed on countries buying Russian oil after meeting with the Hungarian prime minister at the White House on Friday.
The extension was part of a series of agreements that had come out of the meeting between Mr. Trump and Prime Minister Viktor Orban, according to a White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the agreement. The sanctions are aimed at pressuring Russia to end its war in Ukraine.
The exemption marks a victory for Mr. Orban, a populist autocrat and longtime ally of Mr. Trump’s who is facing one of the toughest re-election battles of his career. Mr. Orban announced the deal on social media shortly after the White House meeting.
Hungary also agreed to purchase liquefied natural gas from the United States, according to a fact sheet released by the State Department on Friday, with contracts totaling about $600 million.
In his social media post, Mr. Orban wrote that Mr. Trump had “guaranteed full sanction exemptions” for two of the country’s major pipelines, TurkStream and Friendship, “allowing Hungary to continue providing families with the lowest energy prices in Europe.”
Heading into the meeting, Mr. Orban had maintained that U.S. sanctions imposed last month on Russia’s two largest energy companies over the war in Ukraine threatened to collapse the country’s sluggish economy. Hungary gets much of its energy from Russia, and on Friday, Mr. Orban reiterated that it had fewer options than its European neighbors because the country relies heavily on pipelines.
On Friday, after Mr. Orban boasted of a new “golden age” of diplomatic relations between the two countries, Mr. Trump signaled that he was sympathetic to Hungary’s plight when he said he would consider an exemption.
“It’s a great country, it’s a big country, but they don’t have sea,” he said, referring to the fact that the country is landlocked. “They don’t have the ports, and so they have a difficult problem.”
Even as he was poised to grant the exemption for Hungary, Mr. Trump chastised other European countries, saying that he was “disturbed” they were still buying Russian oil.
The exemption was a notable concession by Mr. Trump. The sanctions are among the most significant measures that the United States has taken against the Russian energy sector since the beginning of the war, and the only leverage Mr. Trump has been willing to wield against President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.
For months, Mr. Trump has pressured European countries to stop purchasing oil, a major source of funding for Russia’s military campaign.
Hungary imports 86 percent of its oil from Russia, an amount that has increased since Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, according to the Atlantic Council research group in Washington.
Mr. Orban has openly sympathized with Mr. Putin and, like Mr. Trump, has broken with much of Europe by calling for Ukraine to cede more land to Russia to secure a cease-fire.
Share from NYTimes website:
Comments