A group of 22 Democratic attorneys general on Wednesday sued the Trump administration over changes made to the nation’s federal food assistance program, claiming in the lawsuit that the Agriculture Department is illegally cutting groups of legal immigrants from receiving benefits.
In the lawsuit, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), the attorneys general say that a memo USDA sent to states on Oct. 31 describing changes made to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, through President Donald Trump’s massive tax bill goes “beyond” the statute Congress enacted by unlawfully cutting from the program legal permanent residents who were granted asylum or admitted as refugees.
At issue is a set of definitions in the October USDA memo, reviewed by The Washington Post, that state that those who entered the United States as refugees, asylum recipients and other humanitarian protection pathways are ineligible for SNAP — even after they become legal permanent residents, a pivot from established law.
USDA referred questions on the lawsuit to the Justice Department. The Justice Department and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
In their lawsuit, the attorneys general say no portion of the One Big Beautiful Bill supports this USDA position. The Democrats said in a statement that federal statute makes clear that “refugees, asylees, humanitarian parolees, individuals whose deportation has been withheld, and other humanitarian entrants become eligible for SNAP once they obtain their green cards and meet standard program requirements.”
“USDA’s memo attempts to rewrite those rules, ignoring Congress and threatening to cut off food assistance for people who are fully eligible under the law,” the statement said.
The attorneys general last week asked USDA to clarify its Oct. 31 guidance, arguing in a letter that the memo forced states to “implement confusing and inaccurate interpretations of the law.” According to the lawsuit, USDA did not respond to the letter, so the attorneys general turned to the courts. While the federal government pays for all SNAP benefits, states administer the program.
Under Trump’s massive tax bill — which was signed into law in July — groups that had previously been eligible to receive SNAP, including asylum seekers, refugees and those with humanitarian parole, were kicked off the program if they did not have permanent residency. Still, the bill maintained that legal permanent residents — meaning, those with green cards — would still receive the benefit, even if they came in as refugees or asylum seekers. The USDA memo, the lawsuit argues, provided different guidance.
About 42 million people receive food assistance through SNAP — making it the nation’s largest anti-hunger program. While the vast majority of SNAP recipients are citizens, according to the latest USDA data, nearly 90 percent of individuals on SNAP are U.S. citizens born in the country, 6 percent are naturalized citizens, a little over 1 percent are refugees and about 3 percent are in other categories of noncitizens.
In the USDA memo, the agency told states the changes must take effect Nov. 1 — a day after the memo was sent, which was during the government shutdown. That move, the attorneys general said in a statement, “blatantly misapplies the agency’s own regulations.” The lawsuit notes that federal rules guarantee states a 120-day grace period after new guidance is issued to update their systems without facing financial penalties.
While the attorneys general are seeking relief from the implementation of the changes outlined in the USDA memo, some states have already begun implementing them. The group of attorneys general warned that continuing to implement them could destabilize SNAP nationwide, create wrongful terminations, spread confusion among recipients and saddle states with large fines.
If states comply with the USDA guidance as written, the attorneys general and anti-hunger advocates said that hundreds of thousands of legal permanent residents could be forced out of SNAP, including some 35,000 in New York.
“The federal government’s shameful quest to take food away from children and families continues,” James said in a statement to The Post. “USDA has no authority to arbitrarily cut entire groups of people out of the SNAP program, and no one should go hungry because of the circumstances of their arrival to this country.”
Additionally, the Democrats warned that states, including New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Washington could face millions of dollars in penalties. In North Carolina, for example, they said the steep fines could effectively make it impossible for the state to offer SNAP, leaving over 1 million North Carolinians without benefits.
Shelby Gonzales, vice president for immigration policy at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said USDA’s Oct. 31 guidance scrambled states’ efforts to properly allocate benefits. The guidance, she warned, could lead to confusion as states interpret it differently.
“It’s always best when we have guidance that clearly reflects and interprets the law so that all states know what their obligations are, especially in a program as important and vital as SNAP,” Gonzales said.
Gina Plata-Nino, the interim SNAP director at the Food Research and Action Center, also noted that the system USDA is asking states to use to confirm the permanent status of refugees and asylum seekers is not updated frequently, which could cause states to deny benefits to some immigrants who are eligible to receive them.
“These are individuals who have suffered tremendously … to meet the status of a refugee. I mean, most people are waiting for a visa for seven-plus years. They’ve lost their family, they have experienced hardship that no human being should ever experience,” Plata-Nino said. Cutting SNAP benefits, she said, means “they’re pretty much losing their support system.”
The post USDA’s SNAP guidance unlawfully cuts legal immigrant groups, lawsuit says appeared first on Washington Post.
