Can the Trump administration legally alter SNAP eligibility without Congress?

1. What advocates and officials are actually claiming — and why it matters

Multiple claims circulate: that the administration can unilaterally cut benefits, that it can change eligibility nationwide, and that it can use internal funds to sustain payments during a shutdown. Reporting shows the administration did pay partial November benefits by tapping SNAP contingency funds rather than transferring Child Nutrition Program money, prompting a federal judge to demand timely payments. These moves highlight a practical distinction: administrative discretion governs timing and funding choices during emergencies, while statutory eligibility thresholds—who qualifies for SNAP—originate in law passed by Congress. The immediate controversy over partial payments thus reflects a funding and operational choice, not a settled legal power to rewrite eligibility criteria ^{[2] [4] [5]}.

2. The rulemaking route: how the executive can reshape access within legal limits

The USDA used formal rulemaking to tighten the Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWD) time-limit waivers and to alter retailer stocking definitions, demonstrating that the executive can reshuffle eligibility-related rules under the Food and Nutrition Act and administrative procedure. The 2019 ABAWD rule set new waiver floors and data aggregation limits; regulatory changes to retailer requirements also proceeded via Federal Register notices. These steps are lawful when administratively tethered to statutory authority and when agencies follow notice-and-comment requirements, yet opponents argue such rules can conflict with Congressional intent and invite litigation. Thus, administrative rulemaking is a powerful but litigable channel for changing who receives benefits or how they qualify ^{[1] [6]}.

3. Funding maneuvers during shutdowns: contingency funds versus statutory change

Court orders and shutdown-era choices underscore that funding decisions are not the same as eligibility changes. The administration’s decision to provide half of SNAP benefits for November by using contingency funds, and to decline drawing $4 billion from Child Nutrition Programs, was a financial judgment influenced by operational priorities and litigation pressure. Federal judges can compel timely distribution of benefits, but courts do not grant agencies carte blanche to alter eligibility definitions. Using contingency funds can temporarily sustain benefit payments, yet it cannot permanently change eligibility criteria established by Congress without separate statutory authorization ^{[2] [4] [5]}.

4. State waivers and program flexibility: where authority is already decentralized

SNAP’s statutory and regulatory framework grants states a range of options and waivers—from broad-based categorical eligibility to ABAWD exemptions—so many practical eligibility effects are already exercised at the state level with USDA approval. The Food and Nutrition Service’s State Options Report and recent USDA-approved food restriction waivers show that states, with federal sign-off, can alter participation rules or permissible purchases. These state-flexibility channels allow significant variation in who receives benefits and under what conditions, illustrating that much of the observable “change” in eligibility is actually state-level implementation under federal oversight, not unilateral federal redefinition of statutory entitlements ^{[3] [7] [8]}.

5. Litigation, politics, and the limits of administrative power

Legal challenges and bipartisan pushback have repeatedly constrained administrative efforts to narrow access. Advocacy groups, state attorneys general, and courts have contested Trump-era rules and waivers as inconsistent with Congressional mandate or administrative procedure. While agencies can promulgate rules altering program operation, those rules risk being vacated if courts find they exceed statutory authority or sidestep required processes. Political actors can also block or reverse administrative changes through legislation or appropriations during subsequent Congressional sessions. Therefore, administrative changes are effective only insofar as they survive judicial review and political counterpressure ^{[9] [1]}.

6. Bottom line and watchpoints for policymakers and the public

Executive action can and does reshape SNAP operation—through rulemaking, waiver approvals, and funding decisions—but it cannot definitively repeal or replace statutory eligibility criteria without Congress. Short-term funding tactics and regulatory adjustments affect millions immediately, yet they remain legally precarious and subject to litigation and legislative correction. Watch for three signals: new formal rules published in the Federal Register, litigation outcomes from courts reviewing those rules, and Congressional responses in statute or appropriations. Those three developments will determine whether administrative maneuvers become lasting policy or are reversed ^{[6] [5] [9]}.