As the Trump administration continues to defy federal court orders to release emergency food assistance, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has issued a new directive to grocery stores: do not offer discounts to customers affected by the suspension of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. The warning, sent out in an agency-wide email, has left both retailers and anti-hunger advocates alarmed, deepening what has already become a crisis for millions of low-income families.
More than 42 million Americans rely on SNAP to feed their households. Nearly 39% of recipients are children, and the program covers as much as 80% of grocery costs for the poorest families. This month, those benefits were halted when the administration refused to release funds, even after two federal judges ruled that the freeze was unlawful.
On Friday, U.S. District Judges Indira Talwani in Massachusetts and John McConnell in Rhode Island ordered the USDA to use $6 billion in contingency funds to resume benefit payments. Both courts found that the agency’s freeze violated federal law. McConnell ruled that “there is no doubt that the six billion dollars in contingency funds are appropriated funds that are without a doubt necessary to carry out the program’s operation.” He added, “The shutdown of the government through funding doesn’t do away with SNAP. It just does away with the funding of it. There could be no greater necessity than the prohibition across the board of funds for the program’s operations.”
McConnell also warned of the human consequences of the administration’s refusal to comply. “There is no doubt, and it is beyond argument, that irreparable harm will begin to occur if it hasn’t already occurred in the terror it has caused some people about the availability of funding for food for their family,” he said. Comparing the government’s concern over maintaining a financial reserve to the suffering of hungry families, he concluded that “It’s clear that when compared to the millions of people that will go without funds for food versus the agency’s desire not to use contingency funds in case there’s a hurricane need, the balances of those equities clearly goes on the side of ensuring that people are fed.”
Despite these rulings, SNAP recipients have not received their payments. The administration has maintained that it lacks “legal authority” to disburse funds. President Donald Trump wrote on social media that “government lawyers do not think we have the legal authority to pay SNAP with certain monies we have available, and now two courts have issued conflicting opinions on what we can and cannot do.” He continued, “I do NOT want Americans to go hungry just because the Radical Democrats refuse to do the right thing and REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT. Therefore, I have instructed our lawyers to ask the Court to clarify how we can legally fund SNAP as soon as possible.”
Meanwhile, the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service sent a warning email to retailers, stating: “You must offer eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions to SNAP-EBT customers as other customers, except that sales tax cannot be charged on SNAP purchases.” The email continued, “You cannot treat SNAP-EBT customers differently from any other customer. Offering discounts or services only to SNAP-eligible customers is a SNAP violation unless you have a SNAP equal treatment waiver.”
The message, which cited SNAP’s “Equal Treatment Rule,” quickly spread through the grocery industry. It effectively prohibits stores from providing discounts, meal vouchers, or other forms of targeted assistance to households unable to use their EBT cards during the freeze. According to Washington Post reporter Catherine Rampell, who first obtained the email, “I’m aware of at least two stores that had offered struggling customers a discount, then withdrew it after receiving this email.” She added that it was “understandable why grocery stores might be scared off” because “a store caught violating the prohibition could be denied the ability to accept SNAP benefits in the future. In low-income areas where the SNAP shutdown will have the biggest impact, getting thrown off SNAP could mean a store is no longer financially viable.”
Legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold criticized the agency’s move as a distortion of the policy’s intent. He described the warning as a “perverted interpretation of a rule that stops grocers from price gouging SNAP recipients… charging them more when they use food stamps.”
The USDA’s Equal Treatment Rule is designed to ensure that retailers charge the same prices to all customers and do not discriminate against SNAP participants. But critics argue that applying the rule to stop temporary discounts for those suddenly cut off from federal aid in a government-manufactured crisis amounts to bureaucratic cruelty. “Can’t follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don’t help poor people afford food,” one labor movement lawyer wrote on social media.
The current shutdown, now weeks long, has left state agencies without federal reimbursement for distributing benefits. USDA officials have argued that contingency funds must be reserved for “future emergencies.” But Judge McConnell rejected that rationale outright, saying it could not outweigh the immediate risk of hunger.
As the legal fight continues, advocates are pointing to internal inconsistencies within the USDA’s own policy documents. On September 30, the agency posted a 55-page “Lapse of Funding” plan stating that, in the event of a shutdown, “the department will continue operations related to… core nutrition safety net programs.” That document was abruptly removed and replaced with a new memo claiming that “due to Congressional Democrats’ refusal to pass a clean continuing resolution (CR), approximately 42 million individuals will not receive SNAP benefits come November 1st.” The new memo also declared that “contingency fund is not available to support FY 2026 regular benefits, because the appropriation for regular benefits no longer exist.”
Attorney and activist Miles Mogulescu noted that “until a few days ago, even the Trump administration agreed that these funds should be used to continue SNAP funding during the shutdown.” He emphasized that the change in position “cited absolutely no law supporting its position. Instead, it made up a rule claiming that the ‘contingency fund is not available…’”
Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said it was “unequivocally false” that the administration lacked the authority to pay benefits. “I know from experience that the federal government has the authority and the tools it needs during a shutdown to get these SNAP funds to families,” she said. “Even at this late date, the professionals at the Department of Agriculture and in states can make this happen. And, to state the obvious, benefits that are a couple of days delayed are far more help to families than going without any help at all.”
Parrott added that “The administration itself admits these reserves are available for use. It could have, and should have, taken steps weeks ago to be ready to use these funds. Instead, it may choose not to use them in an effort to gain political advantage.”
Experts say the administration’s refusal to comply with the rulings appears to be part of a broader political strategy to pressure Democrats during the shutdown negotiations. “Terminating SNAP is a choice, and an overtly unlawful one at that,” said David Super, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University. “The administration has chosen to hold food for more than forty million vulnerable people hostage to try to force Democrats to capitulate without negotiations.”
With grocery stores barred from offering targeted discounts and federal benefits frozen, food banks and pantries across the country report preparing for a surge in demand. Local officials warn that even a brief disruption in benefits can push already-struggling households into crisis. For millions of families who rely on SNAP to eat, the message from Washington is clear: relief will not come soon, and those trying to help risk punishment for doing so.
COMMENTS