SNAP Policy Watch
The Latest on SNAP
November 2, 2025
On November 10, through a special session (the second session called this year), both chambers of the New Mexico Legislature and Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham approved funding SNAP through the start of next year in the event that the federal government was unable to reach a deal and reopen the government. The decision passed with near-unanimous support in both state chambers: the House voted 52-9, and the Senate voted 30-6. The state will allocate $162 million total for SNAP funding, utilizing dollars from the Health Care Authority funds and the state’s emergency contingency funds. The legislation includes a provision that halts state payments once the federal government reopens and resumes SNAP funding.
As previously reported, on October 29, Governor Lujan Grisham announced that the state would provide $30 million in state funding from the Health Care Authority funds, intended to help feed New Mexicans through the first 10 days of November. Since the shutdown began on October 1, at least nine states have replicated New Mexico’s response by providing direct financial aid for SNAP at the state level including: Maryland, Louisiana, Vermont, Delaware, Hawaii, Virginia, Rhode Island, the District of Columbia and Arizona.
When will folks get their benefits?
In an alleged attempt to root out fraud, USDA will require individuals to reapply for SNAP. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins stated that the administration would require reapplication as USDA had received SNAP data from 29 Republican states where “186,000 deceased men and women and children in this country are receiving a check”. In an interview, Rollins stated: “It’s going to give us a platform and a trajectory to fundamentally rebuild this program, have everyone reapply for their benefit, make sure that everyone that’s taking a taxpayer-funded benefit through SNAP or food stamps, that they literally are vulnerable, and they can’t survive without it”.
Is this accurate?
Partially, but improper payments are not a new problem. States are required to recertify households regularly (every six to twelve months, sometimes longer for seniors using SNAP). It is possible that some households slip through the cracks. For instance, if an individual is deceased, or if a child moves households or systems, enrollment might not be determined until the state runs a death match or household reapplies. As a result, the 2018 Farm Bill authorized USDA to direct and maintain a national database, the National Accuracy Clearinghouse (NAC), to identify and prevent duplicate participation across states. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has worked to scale the system nationally, and limit improper payments and improve program integrity.
New Mexico is also strengthening oversight measures. Framing SNAP as dysfunctional is a consistent narrative in the Administration’s reform efforts, however, it’s something both sides of the aisle agree is critical. A familiar refrain has appeared at the state level with Republican State Senator Crystal Brantley, who represents the 35th district, calling for an expanded audit of SNAP benefits as reports surfaced of illicit exchange of SNAP benefits in Sierra County. You can read Brantley’s letter to the State Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) Director here. It is important to note that the legislation passed at the state level required that LFC conduct a program evaluation of the state’s administration of SNAP.
Court battles continue over SNAP
To recap, before SNAP funding lapsed, USDA announced that no funds would be issued on November 1, and that the contingency fund that has been utilized in at least two previous shutdowns, would not be used to fund SNAP. In response, multiple states filed lawsuits in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Both courts ruled that USDA’s action to not fund SNAP were unlawful, and ordered USDA to administer benefits, which the Administration appealed to the Supreme Court to block the order. The Supreme Court granted a temporary order and granted an administrative stay allowing the appeals court additional time to consider the appeal.