A sweeping data analysis of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) reveals how devastating a prolonged suspension of benefits would be, as legal uncertainty clouds the federal government’s obligation to pay millions of recipients during the ongoing shutdown.
The analysis, compiled from US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and American Community Survey (ACS) data and published by The New York Times, shows that nearly 42 million Americans – one in eight people – rely on SNAP to put food on the table. In some counties, particularly in Appalachia, Native American reservations, and urban low-income districts, the proportion exceeds 40 percent of all households.
This week, US District Judges John McConnell (Rhode Island) and Indira Talwani (Massachusetts) ruled that the administration must fund November SNAP payments, rejecting its claim that contingency funds could not be deployed during the shutdown. But even with those rulings, families now enter November with no certainty about the timing or scale of disbursements, as federal agencies await executive direction.
“There could be no greater necessity than ensuring people are fed,” Judge McConnell said in his ruling, warning that any delay would cause “irreparable harm.”
Where SNAP Dependency Is Deepest
According to USDA and ACS figures, entire regions of the United States would face acute hardship if SNAP benefits are delayed or reduced:
The Deep South and Appalachia: States such as Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia, Alabama, and Louisiana have some of the highest SNAP dependency rates, with up to 30% of households relying on food aid.
Native American Reservations: In South Dakota and Montana, counties on reservations such as Pine Ridge and Rosebud report participation above 50%, reflecting persistent poverty and limited access to fresh food retailers.
California’s Central Valley: Agricultural counties including Fresno, Tulare, and Kern rely heavily on SNAP to offset seasonal job instability.
Urban Poverty Zones: In New York City’s Bronx, Detroit’s 13th District, and Philadelphia’s 2nd District, between 40% and 60% of households receive benefits.
A heat map released by The New York Times visualises this disparity – dark clusters spanning the rural South, the Rust Belt, and dense urban cores where food insecurity would surge within days of a lapse.
Economic Shockwave From a SNAP Lapse
SNAP’s reach extends beyond households. Analysts estimate that three-quarters of all SNAP spending flows directly to local supermarkets and corner stores, generating billions in local economic activity each month. “Every SNAP dollar circulates quickly,” said Luke Tilley, chief economist at Wilmington Trust. “When payments stop, the impact is immediate – on grocers, truckers, and farm suppliers.”
The average benefit, roughly $187 per person monthly, might appear modest, but collectively, SNAP injects nearly $8 billion in federal funds per month into regional economies. If those funds are withheld, experts warn of cascading effects – from layoffs in retail food sectors to spikes in demand at food banks.
In states like California, Florida, and Texas, where large migrant and service-sector populations depend on food assistance, local charities are already reporting surges in emergency food requests.
Political Crossfire and Legal Fallout
The SNAP impasse also exposes the political fault lines deepened by the government shutdown. Among the 50 congressional districts with the highest SNAP participation rates, 43 are represented by Democrats – but the program also has deep reach in Republican rural strongholds that supported Trump in 2024, including Appalachian counties, border regions of Texas, and parts of the Midwest.
That broad dependency, experts note, makes defiance of the court order politically perilous. “This is no longer a partisan issue,” said Skye Perryman, head of Democracy Forward, which represented plaintiffs in the Rhode Island case. “Hunger doesn’t vote red or blue.”
If the administration delays compliance, economists warn that by mid-November, food retailers could face supply shortfalls, and low-income households could miss an entire payment cycle – a first in SNAP’s 59-year history.