WHEN FEDERAL MONEY suddenly disappears, how much responsibility does the state have to use its own limited resources to minimize the impact? 

The rapidly approaching cutoff of food aid to tens of millions of Americans is posing that question to Beacon Hill, boxing legislative leaders and Gov. Maura Healey into a corner over whether and how to fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program now – and foreshadowing challenging budget math that looms on the longer-term horizon. 

Anti-hunger advocates and budget analysts stressed that the imminent crisis is a federal creation that could be avoided at the Trump administration’s will or by a Congressional deal to reopen the government. 

But even if the long-term responsibility is on Washington, top Massachusetts Democrats who control state government have been forced into a politically difficult decision: deploy tens or hundreds of millions of state dollars to temporarily replace a massive program, or allow more than 1 million residents to go without food aid until the federal government changes course. 

It’s not the only time policymakers here will need to grapple with paying for SNAP, either. The debate foreshadows higher costs that Massachusetts will likely need to absorb starting in two years under a change already enshrined in federal law. 
 
“The onus here is on the federal government to do their job, and they have abdicated their responsibility in doing that. But in Massachusetts, we can make a different choice,” said Victoria Negus, a senior economic justice advocate at the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute. “There’s a variety of options for what we could do here.” 

Days away from the deadline, Healey indicated on Thursday that she has no plans to tap the state’s record $8.6 billion long-term savings account, known as the “rainy day fund.” Instead, she launched a new website to connect needy residents to resources and announced plans to double state funding for food banks in November to $8 million – a small amount when compared to the more than $210 million the federal government allocates to Massachusetts each month to SNAP recipients. 

US District Judge John McConnell on Friday ordered that the Department of Agriculture must continue to pay benefits using its contingency fund or other funding sources, writing that “irreparable harm will begin to occur” without action, according to NBC News.

McConnell asked for an update from the Trump administration by noon Monday.

In a separate case, US District Court Judge Indira Talwani said Friday that plaintiffs who sued “are likely to succeed” in their argument that the suspension of benefit payments is unlawful. She allowed the Trump administration to weigh in by Monday on whether “they will authorize at least reduced SNAP benefits for November.”

Massachusetts Democrats praised the pair of related rulings, though Attorney General Andrea Campbell — who sued the Trump administration over SNAP — said some food aid recipients could still face temporary upheaval.

“While today’s decision marks a much-needed step in the right direction, our residents will still feel the devastating impacts of the federal government’s disregard for their health and wellbeing as they wait for the Court’s order to be implemented,” Campbell said in a statement Friday afternoon.

Other Massachusetts power players have not made clear the exact limits of what they’re comfortable pursuing with uncertainty still in the mix.

House budget chief Aaron Michlewitz told reporters Wednesday that officials are “looking at all options.” He also described the prospect of a “slippery slope” if the state commits too much to replacing federal dollars, especially with other impacts about to hit heating assistance and the Head Start early education program. 

“This isn’t just a one-issue conversation,” Michlewitz said of SNAP. “Certainly, we are concerned about that one issue, but this is a much broader discussion about what is happening with the federal government in relation to our reliance on how much we’re gaining from them, and in turn, what is going to happen with the shutdown.” 

A spokesperson for Senate President Karen Spilka said “conversations are ongoing about ways to mitigate the harm being brought upon us by President Trump’s decision to withhold funding.” 

“That said, no state can permanently sustain the hundreds of millions of dollars in long-term SNAP funding that the federal government is deliberately withholding,” the spokesperson, Gray Milkowski, said. “President Trump could release the funds today, and if he refuses then Congress should hold him to account.” 

The Trump administration announced in recent weeks that it will no longer issue SNAP benefits starting November 1, blaming the ongoing federal government shutdown and congressional Democrats, who continue to push for extension of tax credits that reduce health insurance premiums. 

SNAP provides lower-income households with funds every month, up to $994 for a family of four, to help cover the costs of food. And during economic downturns, every $1 spent on the nation’s largest anti-hunger program generates $1.54 in economic activity, with SNAP dollars supporting grocery stores and farmers, according to the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities — meaning any pause in SNAP benefits threatens ripple effects across the economy. 

The dire consequences of a possible SNAP freeze were laid bare earlier this week at a rally on the State House steps, where Chelsea resident and SNAP recipient Maria Torres warned that cutting off access to the aid could thrust her into food insecurity. 

“It is not just a government program,” she said. “It is a lifeline.” 

At that rally on Tuesday, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell announced she would join two dozen other states in suing to stop the end of SNAP aid. And Healey last week joined with the United Way to seek private donations to help cover food for those in need, warning at the time that “neither the state nor any organization here is going to be able to backfill SNAP benefits.” 

In recent years, Massachusetts has already committed state dollars toward maintaining programs originally paid for by Washington. 

The state is using its own money — $180 million this fiscal year — to provide free meals to all students in K-12 schools after the federal government ended a similar pandemic-era offering. Policymakers also made permanent an early childhood education grant program that helps providers cover operational expenses, totaling $475 million in state-level costs this year, and similarly launched as temporary federal aid. 

When it comes to food assistance, though, the scope is much larger. 

Massachusetts typically receives north of $210 million each month in federal funding for SNAP, according to the Department of Transitional Assistance. That’s more in a single month than the amount allotted for a full year of providing no-cost school meals to all students, and an annual rate of around $2.5 billion, rivaling total funding for MassHealth, the single largest area of spending in the state budget. 

“The state budget cannot absorb even one month of federal failure,” DTA wrote in an FAQ about the imminent lapse in SNAP benefits. 

Some activists and analysts disagree, arguing that Beacon Hill has resources available to float benefits temporarily even if the costs of a long-term replacement are too steep. 

“I don’t know what the federal government is going to do and if government is going to open up by December. I have no crystal ball, nor do any of us,” Negus said. “What I do know is that we can take steps as a Commonwealth to at least mitigate the harm in November.” 

Lawmakers have hesitated to dip into the rainy day fund after their willingness to do so in 2017 prompted S&P to downgrade the state’s bond rating. 

“Obviously, there’s a lot of hesitation to use it, but we believe that you have $8 billion sitting there. There’s no reason we couldn’t tap [it], even if you took half of that, and at least gave people something,” said Chelsea Sedani, director of advocacy at the left-leaning Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center. “I don’t know how we could sit here as a state and not do something.” 

One sign at the Tuesday rally bore a similar message aimed not at Washington, but at state lawmakers: “You can’t save for a rainy day,” it read, “while people starve today.” 

House Speaker Ron Mariano warned that dipping into long-term savings to keep benefits flowing could create more problems. 

“There is no end to the potential risk that we have running through the rainy day fund [and] backfilling federal programs,” he said Wednesday. “We would then be in the position of picking winners and losers, and it’s the federal government who is choosing not to fund these things.” 

Seeking to contrast himself from Healey, Republican gubernatorial challenger Mike Kennealy announced his support for dipping into the rainy day fund to keep SNAP benefits afloat. 

Kennealy’s campaign said “fully funding SNAP for one month would use about 2.5 percent of the current fund balance.” He added that if he were governor, he would propose legislation limiting eligibility for state-funded food aid only to lawful residents who have been in Massachusetts for at least six months. 

Washington has continued to pay food aid during prior government shutdowns, and advocates called on the US Department of Agriculture to tap into contingency reserves or transfer from other accounts to do so. (USDA suggested contingency funds are “not legally available” for that purpose, according to NPR.) 

Many states are directing residents toward food banks in preparation for SNAP benefits to lapse. Some are using their own funding to mitigate the change, including New York, where Gov. Kathy Hochul has outlined plans to deploy about $41 million. 

Vermont officials on Wednesday moved to fund food aid for the first half of November with the support of Republican Gov. Phil Scott, who said it is “our obligation at this point as states to do what we can for the people we serve,” according to VTDigger. But Healey expressed no intent to follow suit. 

“They’re very different things,” Healey said when asked why she wants USDA to spend money from its contingency fund while expressing no interest in using the state’s reserves. “No state is tapping into its rainy day fund or stabilization fund, as it’s called. No state is doing that. There’s a reason for that.”  

With November 1 inching closer and a deal in Washington proving elusive, the food fight is now landing squarely in state capitals. 

“It’s clear that the approach of this federal government is to take these programs that have historically been funded by the federal government and put them on states. But states have to balance their budget, and states don’t have the resources for programs like SNAP,” Erin McAleer, president of the anti-hunger organization Project Bread, told CommonWealth Beacon. “So I do think that part of the strategy is putting governors and state legislatures in this really difficult position of figuring out what to fund with limited resources.” 

The upheaval, though, could be just a preview of what’s to come. More food aid costs are set to land on states in the years ahead, and Massachusetts could be forced to bear the brunt of it.  

The Republican megalaw enacted earlier this year implemented a host of changes to SNAP eligibility and funding, including a new requirement that for the first time will require certain states to pay a portion of the benefits. 

This cost shift will start in October 2027, and what states owe will depend on their “payment error rate,” or what share of payments were too large or too small. States with error rates above 10 percent will be required to cover 15 percent of benefit costs, while states with error rates below 6 percent won’t have to chip in at all. 

Massachusetts, with its 14 percent error rate last year, could be on the hook for tens of millions of dollars per month to maintain benefits for SNAP recipients in the state. .  

The state is working to lower its error rate by hiring more case workers, reinstating requirements that households periodically submit paperwork and partake in interviews related to their SNAP eligibility, and improve technology platforms and phone lines to improve eligibility determination.   

But if it can’t lower the error rate far enough, state policymakers will be forced to make tough choices around how to grow revenue, cut programs, or both. 

“We have so many needs outside of [the federal cuts], and so we’re in a situation as a state where we really need to think thoughtfully about new revenue,” Sedani said. “When we have a federal government that’s so focused on giving tax cuts to the rich and making the rich richer at the expense of people’s food, we as a state have an ability and a choice to do it differently.” 

This story has been updated to reflect new legal developments announced Friday afternoon.