Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
USDA is illegally cancelling SNAP by deleting a memorandum and refusing to use contingency funds. true or false
Executive summary
Available reporting shows the USDA issued a memorandum directing states to “undo” full November SNAP payments and warned of penalties if they did not, while also saying it would not tap its full contingency funds to cover those payments; courts have intervened and the legal fight is ongoing (see USDA memo and court pauses) [1] [2]. Sources do not present a single, definitive legal finding that the USDA’s actions are “illegal” across the board — lower courts ordered full funding in some cases, the administration appealed and the Supreme Court issued emergency pauses — meaning the question “true or false” depends on unresolved litigation and differing legal interpretations in the sources [3] [2].
1. What the USDA actually did: a memo telling states to “undo” full payments
On Nov. 8–9, 2025 the USDA issued a written memorandum instructing states to “immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025,” warning that failure to comply could lead to cancellation of the federal share of state administrative costs or other penalties, and framing some state actions to issue full payments as “unauthorized” [1] [4] [5].
2. What the administration said about contingency funds and partial payments
The administration told some courts and the public it would not or could not fully fund SNAP for November from regular appropriations during the shutdown, and instead indicated it would use a contingency fund to make partial payments (about 65% in at least one plan), though that use and its scope became a litigation flashpoint [2] [6].
3. Court rulings and emergency pauses complicate “illegal” labels
Multiple lower-court judges ordered the USDA to fund full SNAP benefits — at least one federal judge directed the agency to tap tariff or contingency money to cover November — but the administration appealed and the Supreme Court (individual justices) issued emergency pauses of lower-court orders, leaving the legal status unresolved and in flux [3] [2] [6].
4. How news outlets frame legality vs. policy choice
Mainstream outlets report the USDA’s memo and its refusal to deploy full contingency funding as bold administrative choices and the subject of lawsuits; outlets note experts disagreed with the USDA’s funding claim and some judges sided with states seeking full payments, but the media coverage does not uniformly declare the agency’s actions definitively “illegal” because appeals and emergency stays remain active [7] [8] [9].
5. States’ responses and practical consequences for recipients
Several states began issuing full November payments or moved to do so, prompting the USDA warning and potential clawbacks; millions of SNAP recipients faced delays or reduced benefits while states, courts, and the USDA sparred — reporting emphasizes real-world hardship and food-bank demand as payments hung in legal limbo [9] [8] [10].
6. Competing legal and political narratives
The administration argues it must conserve appropriated funds and that certain disbursements were unauthorized, while states and plaintiffs argue the agency has statutory duties and available contingency authorities to prevent a lapse in benefits; courts have alternately sided with states and paused those orders pending appeals, demonstrating active legal disagreement rather than settled illegality [6] [3] [4].
7. What reporters and experts note about “illegal” vs. “disputed”
News coverage tends to describe the USDA’s steps as controversial, aggressive, and subject to legal challenge — coverage cites federal judges ordering full payments and the USDA’s countermeasures — but because higher court rulings and appeals are ongoing, sources stop short of a universal legal judgment that the agency’s actions are unlawful in every context [7] [2] [3].
8. Bottom line for the original claim (“USDA is illegally cancelling SNAP…”)
Available sources document the USDA’s directive to halt or claw back full November SNAP payments and its reluctance to use contingency funds fully, and they document court orders and emergency pauses; however, the reporting does not establish one final legal determination that the USDA’s actions are categorically “illegal” — instead it shows an unresolved, high-stakes legal dispute with differing rulings and emergency court interventions [1] [3] [2].
Limitations: reporting cited here captures the situation while litigation and executive actions are active; final legal conclusions may change with appellate rulings or further agency guidance, and available sources do not contain a single definitive judicial ruling that settles illegality for all affected states [3] [1].