After the longest U.S. government shutdown in history, food assistance for about 42 million people is expected to be restored after a nearly two-week interruption. But experts and recipients warn that the damage may linger long after payments resume.
The suspension of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funding — SNAP, the nation’s largest anti-hunger program — left many families scrambling. Jacqueline Giammona, a single working mother of two in Sacramento, Calif., said her pantry and freezer were nearly empty by the time some November benefits finally appeared on EBT cards in her state. She felt relief, but also a persistent, unsettling question: what if the aid is taken away again?
Giammona called the pause in benefits an “abuse of power” and said it would leave lasting anger and distrust toward government. Her reaction reflects a broader concern among advocates and researchers that interrupting SNAP has consequences beyond the immediate loss of groceries: people’s confidence in the program and willingness to seek help may be eroded.
SNAP has been a cornerstone of the safety net for more than six decades, serving roughly one in eight Americans living at or near the poverty line. Its funding is set annually by Congress and designed to expand and contract to meet need. Observers say the recent interruption — and the White House’s choice to withhold funds — challenged the idea that SNAP is an untouchable entitlement.
“This is a big surprise,” said Craig Gundersen, an economics professor at Baylor University, arguing that the pause undermined SNAP’s entitlement status and raised serious concerns about future reliability.
The pause unfolded amid political and legal battles. The Agriculture Department announced it would not cover the full roughly $8 billion in November SNAP benefits, blaming the shutdown and lawmakers it said were responsible. The department said it had about $4.5 billion in a contingency fund to cover roughly half of the month’s payments and defended its decision by saying funds were needed for other child nutrition programs. Lower courts pushed back, and the dispute moved through the legal system.
Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center, described the administration’s decision as a deliberate policy choice that provoked shock and outrage among anti-hunger advocates. Critics also noted that President Donald Trump had previously criticized SNAP on political grounds and made inaccurate public claims about how the program had been expanded under the previous administration.
Congress’s short-term deal to reopen the government also included funding for SNAP through September 2026, but advocates worry the pause sets a dangerous precedent. “Once you break a taboo,” FitzSimons said, “it’s that much easier to break a taboo.” She and others want a statutory fix so SNAP benefits can’t be delayed again during future shutdowns, though passing such legislation before the next fiscal year begins may be difficult.
Beyond the policy debate, advocates fear the interruption will have chilling effects on people in need. Joel Berg, CEO of Hunger Free America, warned that making SNAP payments uncertain could discourage eligible people from applying. For many, the stigma and paperwork of public assistance are already barriers; unpredictability only adds another deterrent.
The disruption did, however, put a spotlight on how essential SNAP is. Recipients reported an outpouring of private and public support as attention grew. Craig Gundersen suggested the episode might increase public awareness of SNAP’s role and reinforce arguments for protecting its entitlement status.
Brittany Jansen of Phoenix, who applied for SNAP 10 months ago after her family racked up thousands in credit card debt to cover groceries and gas, hopes the experience helps others understand that hunger affects people who work and struggle to make ends meet. She and her husband both work irregular hours, split shifts to avoid childcare costs, and are still trying to stabilize their finances. When she first told her mother they were receiving benefits, her mother was surprised — “Well, you both have jobs,” she said — illustrating common misconceptions about who needs help.
For families like Giammona’s and Jansen’s, the immediate worry is practical: ensuring there is food on the table. But the wider fallout — increased mistrust of government, hesitancy to enroll in assistance, and the political weaponization of basic needs programs — could reverberate long after the funds are restored. Many advocates are calling for legislative safeguards to prevent future interruptions and to rebuild confidence among current and potential SNAP recipients.