Oh SNAP!

-D.O.P.E

SNAP, a federally funded program, provides monthly assistance for groceries to low-income households. It’s often described as modest aid, but it’s a lifeline that frees family budgets to cover rent, utilities, diapers, medicine, and other essentials. Every dollar of SNAP benefits stimulates local economies, generating roughly $1.79 in economic activity.

Beyond dollars spent, SNAP has measurable, life-changing effects. The Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure has shown SNAP lifting millions out of poverty, and studies in White House reports have highlighted notable declines in food insecurity after families began receiving benefits. For children in low-income households, the program has produced meaningful improvements in food security after sustained participation. Critics will point to budget concerns or policy disagreements, but the empirical record consistently signals that SNAP reduces hunger and supports healthy development.

The nation’s struggle with a shutdown and funding gaps has highlighted the importance of context. When the federal government halted most operations, a question arose: can a court compel the government to use funds from other programs to continue SNAP benefits during a lapse in appropriation? This question reached the courts and the Supreme Court, pitting urgent human needs against budgetary constraints and political strategy. The debates were real-time, with emergency funds drawn from various sources and states stepping in to bridge gaps. Litigants argued about the legality and morality of redirecting funds.

Advocates led the legal campaign to fund November SNAP benefits, arguing that it’s a mandatory program designed to protect millions of Americans, especially children and the elderly. The administration framed the issue in terms of broader fiscal necessity and the limits of a budget that had to be reconciled through legislation. The tension produced courtroom back-and-forth, petitions for emergency stays, and rapid filings as the shutdown dragged on.

This episode reveals two truths that should shape policy: SNAP is an essential lifeline that prevents hunger and stabilizes families, and the perpetual “crisis mode” approach to funding basic nutrition invites avoidable human suffering and undermines trust in a government that promises to protect its most vulnerable citizens.

If we believe in the social compact, Congress and the administration should treat SNAP as an essential service, one that must be funded and protected even amid political stalemates. Concrete steps could include:

• Establish automatic or automatic-stabilization funding for SNAP during emergencies to avoid lasting hunger while Congress negotiates broader budgets. Protect SNAP’s core funding from diversion that risks reducing benefits during a shutdown. Create clarifying statutory language to reduce vulnerability to last-minute court orders or executive actions during funding gaps. Expand data-driven supports to track and mitigate the effects of benefit reductions on households and children, enabling swift policymaking. Invest in public communication about SNAP’s impact as a proven anti-hunger and anti-poverty tool that stabilizes families, strengthens communities, and sustains local economies.

The legal battle surrounding SNAP funding spanned several weeks. Courts ordered the federal government to distribute full benefits, but the Trump administration appealed and sought delays. The Supreme Court intermittently blocked payments during the shutdown. The dispute largely ended with the government shutdown resolution and Congressional funding deal, leaving millions in a precarious wait for food aid. The Trump regime allocated 20 billion and 40 billion to Argentina and is now appealing to the Supreme Court to prevent giving 8 billion to hungry Americans. Let that sink in. They are willing to give 40 billion to fuck over American farmers and fight to withhold 8 billion to feed Americans. That’s not a typo; it’s a fact, and it’s disheartening. Only if we had a Congress with Article 1 powers? Perhaps one day we’ll have a functioning Congress that understands that the power of the purse lies with them. Instead, they prefer to deceive us. When you hear politicians say, “America first,” ask them “Which America?”