Last week, twenty four Democratic attorney generals, plus three governors subbing for their Republican AGs, successfully sued the Trump Administration over their withholding of emergency SNAP funding. Attorney General Andrea Campbell, from Massachusetts, was one of the leading AGs to take Trump to task and fight for Americans regardless of party or geography.
AG Campbell sits with Jen to divulge what motivated the lawsuit, what it means that the judge sided with the pro-SNAP legal team, and how the states are responding to Trump only partially funding the SNAP program through November.
Andrea Campbell is the 45th attorney general of Massachusetts. She previously served on the Boston City Council from 2016 to 2022 and was council president from 2018 to 2020. She received her JD from the UCLA School of Law.
The transcript has been edited slightly for formatting.
Jen Rubin
Hi, this is Jen Rubin and I am the Editor in Chief of the Contrarian. And we are delighted to welcome Andrea Campbell, who is the Attorney general of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Welcome, Attorney General.
AG Campbell
Thank you for having me.
Jen Rubin
It’s my pleasure. Now, on Friday, you got an extraordinary ruling. And by you, I mean 24 attorneys general, plus three governors. Um, what was that ruling and what happened then? Today?
AG Campbell
So we filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for unlawfully withholding Snap benefits and resources for those from the federal government during this government shutdown, and was delighted to see, of course, the order from the court here in Massachusetts, which essentially said the Trump administration is required to tap into Snap reserve funds, which is close to $6 billion to fund the Snap program through November, and they can also tap into other contingency resources available to them to fully fund the program. So we have been waiting for a response from the administration because they were required to come back to court today, Monday, um, to essentially let us all know how they’re going to execute this order and this plan. And they’ve come back with a response saying they’re going to partially fund, uh, Snap benefits through November, which is a disappointing. Of course, I’m excited anything would be funded, but disappointed because they could fully fund the program, but they’re choosing not to.
Jen Rubin
And those other funds would be funds that they could move into this account, just like they’ve moved funds around for the Pentagon and other issues that they wanted to fund.
AG Campbell
That’s exactly right. They have these what we call section 32 funds, but they could get creative and tap into other resources in the billions to ensure that folks have access to Snap benefits through the month of November. And I think what’s really worse is, is two things. One, never in the history of our country have we ever had a federal administration or a president, Republican or Democrat. Not fund snap benefits even during a government shutdown. This has never happened in the history of the program. And then second, this delay that we’re seeing, the fact that we are communicating right now, while there are families and children and people out there without Snap resources in the month of November is because of an intentional choice by the Trump administration not to fund this program, and they wouldn’t have done it without our lawsuit. And of course, without this, this decision from the court.
Jen Rubin
What does it mean to partially fund? Does everyone get half? Is there some formula by state or by individual? How is this going to work?
AG Campbell
We’re working that out now. It looks like it would be essentially 50%. But they will calculate and figure that out. And we will do the same, at least here in Massachusetts. For this state Um, folks will see relief at some point. We don’t know how long it will take because sadly, when you partially fund and have to do these calculations, it creates more delay for recipients, whereas if they actually fully funded it, it would have created less of a delay because we figured that out before. And fully funding is a lot easier than doing these calculations. So they’re creating even more headache by partially funding it when they could, of course, fully fund it.
Jen Rubin
So people now may be going to the grocery store having heard that, oh, this got resolved. And yet the store cannot process their EBT card because it says there are no funds there, or they’re not funds enough for whatever their purchase is. Um, what is Massachusetts doing? I know. Um, at least blue states, um, are trying to come up with patchwork. Um, what is your state doing to try to cover this, um, period of time where there’s such confusion and delay?
AG Campbell
Right now, the governor and the state legislature that would be responsible for closing this gap created by the feds. They don’t have the resources, and they’ve actually been explicit, um, that they don’t. And this would essentially cost the state, at least in Massachusetts, close to $240 million a month. Um, and so what they’re doing instead, of course, is pushing folks in, maybe our philanthropic community, other places to fund our food pantries, our food banks, to be able to ensure that folks who are food insecure, folks that don’t have food right now, or any other, frankly, thing they’re dealing with before the holidays, that they have resources. So there are a whole host of resources that all of us are promoting to families that we want them to access, while we hopefully use the tool that we have, which is the most impactful, our litigation tool to get the funds back on their cards in the immediate, while reminding folks this was an intentional choice by our federal government. And it’s egregious and disheartening to say the least.
Jen Rubin
Now, the attorneys general who went to court were all Democrats, and there were three other states that had Republicans and they refused to join. So the governors joined instead. How is this ruling now on partial benefits? Going to be distributed? Is everyone in the country going to get partial benefits?
AG Campbell
Sadly, and to your point, it has only been Democratic AGS that have stepped up to fight back against this egregious unlawful action. Actions, I should say, by the federal administration, not just in Snap. We fought a lawsuit today on the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program that they’re looking to dismantle in many ways. Um, not one Republican AG has joined our over 40 lawsuits. Not one. And so for governors in, say, Pennsylvania, Kansas or Kentucky, to get relief for Snap for their constituents, they had to join our lawsuit. But the practical implication of us exercising our leadership as Democratic AGS has been that Republican states are the red states. States with other human beings. Right? Will We’ll get the relief. Even though their elected officials didn’t fight for them. Because that’s what our leadership looks like as Democratic AGS. Right? We see the humanity in folks. We do this work regardless of what letter is by their name. We don’t care. We see human beings. We see children. We see hardworking families. We see seniors on fixed incomes. We see veterans as we approach Veterans Day unable to buy food. We see Thanksgiving coming. And of course, this being even more horrible for our constituents and for our local merchants, whereas we estimate here in Massachusetts they will lose maybe 20% of their sales because they’re folks who normally come to purchase goods from them, won’t have resources. So it is a collective effort among Democratic AGS, and I’m proud of that. At the same time, a disappointed with where we are in this, um, difficult time in our country. And we’ll keep fighting the fight. But practically nationwide, folks will see relief as a result of this lawsuit.
Jen Rubin
So just to underscore that if you are someone who is receiving Snap benefits in Mississippi or Alabama, President Trump cut those off their governor and their AG did nothing. And because Democratic governors and AGS from blue states went to court on their behalf, they’re at least going to get partial benefits. Is that how things are working?
AG Campbell
And I would say there’s also a complimentary lawsuit by Democracy Forward that pulled in other stakeholders who care about this issue, including some municipalities that would lose out. But even folks who are deeply involved in the clergy community because they run food pantries. So that lawsuit, which is in Rhode Island and came to the same result that this administration has to tap into these contingency funds that complements our lawsuit and by virtue of these lawsuits, extends this relief practically to everyone nationwide. But if you don’t have Democratic AG stepping up, folks in these other states would sadly miss out, and that’s unfortunate.
Jen Rubin
When this ruling came down and the Trump administration said, no, we’re not going to make people whole. Um, obviously there’s relief that at least some monies are going to be paid. Um, is there a contemplated further litigation to force them or urge them, require them to pay the full vote? Is that so possible? Or is that something that’s really within the discretion of the administration?
AG Campbell
We’re reviewing all of our options, and we always are. But at the outset and filing this initial lawsuit to get them to move, um, we were pushing for fully funding, uh, folks who at least participate in the lawsuit, who were talking about the harm to our respective states. And the court, in their very thoughtful decision, said, you have to tap into the Snap reserve fund. That’s what Congress made the fund for, for emergency situations to keep billions flowing into this program. But let’s be clear you also can, at your discretion, tap into other billions of dollars to close the gap and to fully fund this program through November, and what this administration and the president have chosen to do is further delay relief and to only tap into some of the funds to partially fund the program. And that’s egregious. That’s an intentional choice. That’s an intentional policy choice. And what’s worse is they have the money to close the gap. And like I said before, never in the history of our country has an administration or president not funded Snap. And if they did, they didn’t do it partially. They did it fully because they knew that hunger and folks going hungry in our country right now is not only unlawful, it’s un-American, it’s immoral, it’s, uh, disheartening and depressing, to say the least, as I fight the fight. On behalf of constituents in Massachusetts and beyond, I at the same time as a mother of two boys, remain just horrified that there are other families, other parents, other children out there that will suffer as a result of the political choice and the intentional policy choice of the Trump administration here.
Jen Rubin
A little bit about the Snap recipients in Massachusetts. How many people are we talking about and who are they? What kinds of people?
AG Campbell
It’s about 1.1 million folks here in Massachusetts, and over 60% of them are either children, seniors on fixed income or people with disabilities. So it is our most vulnerable, and we’re going to continue to hear stories about veterans and others who also are maybe on fixed incomes that also can’t tap into their Snap resources because they don’t have any available to them right now. So this is why we ran to court immediately to file a lawsuit. And what’s horrible is the administration, every step of the way, kept suggesting to us that they were going to fund these Snap accounts. But then within a week before November, they said we’re not going to do it. So we moved quickly, knowing there would be a slight possible delay.
Jen Rubin
And to your point, they actually put up a notice on the USDA website saying don’t worry.
AG Campbell
That’s right.
Jen Rubin
Who is going to be available? And then they change their mind.
AG Campbell
That’s exactly right.
Jen Rubin
there are many Republicans who say, well, these are just people who don’t want to work. My understanding is that a lot of people who get either partial or full snap benefits are working people. They simply cannot make ends meet in this economy. Um, talk to us a little bit about that. And the people, single parents, dual parents who are struggling to make ends meet are working 40 hours or more and still need help to feed their families.
AG Campbell
This suggestion that folks who receive Snap benefits are just sitting on the couch doing nothing. And this, the stereotypical view of those who receive these resources is total nonsense and misinformation. And I actually put myself in this category personally, because when I grew up in the city of Boston, we relied on food assistance. My father was formerly incarcerated, actually working, trying to get us his feet back underneath him to do better by us and to encourage us to make better choices than he did. And so we temporarily relied on food assistance, as many folks in this country have since the founding of the program in the 60s. And if we look at the number one issue right now, it’s affordability. Everything is too expensive. Wages are not keeping up. So if anything, you have a family that’s working 2 or 3 jobs and still can’t afford eggs because they’re now close to $10 or milk or other necessities for them and their kids. They want to get ahead. They don’t want to continue to rely on government benefits. They need it for maybe in a moment, an opportunity. And that’s what government should provide. While they then try to build a future where they can build the wealth for their family. Instead, what we’re seeing now is an administration really not only cut away, take away food from children and seniors, but literally not prioritize the well-being of our families, not use government as a positive to help people, but instead harm them during an affordability crisis. And so we’re doing what we can to protect our people. But it is working families that are going to suffer and already are. And it is parents, it is children and by extension, our school systems, our health care systems and other systems that serve these families.
Jen Rubin
Now, I’ll address one last myth, and that is somehow Republicans, perhaps because they don’t really care about governing, think that this is fungible money, that people can then take this money and go buy. I don’t know, you know, alcohol or cigarettes or whatever the heck they want to, um, claim is being bought. This is a, um, in essence, a voucher, though it’s on a card that you take to a supermarket, you cannot use this. My understanding is just to buy anything. There’s an approved list of things you can buy. Is that accurate?
AG Campbell
That’s exactly accurate. And this has been a myth that folks have tried to promote or perpetuate for years. It’s nonsense. You have states that have established a robust apparatus to ensure that folks get the resources in a timely manner, that there is no fraud in the system, that they’re using it to buy food. And if there were at some point that was addressed. And so we know here in Massachusetts, the 1.1 million people who depend on this resource for their daily food, they are going into the supermarket, into local merchants that actually receive these benefits, because not every merchant does. They’re doing it maybe sometimes with some shame, but they’re still showing up because they need the food for their families, and they need this food that are basic necessities, right? Because it’s only a limited amount. It’s not like you can go out and buy everything you can’t, because even those who receive these resources will still say they probably still are struggling with food insecurity. And one piece I want to add to this, because Massachusetts is the home to so many colleges and universities. This also affects college students, many who are getting their education and who are food insecure, and our campuses. So it’s a wide range of people that desperately need food, are not using it for some illegitimate purpose. And if there are a few in the system that are, we know how to take care of that and address fraud while not harming the majority of people that are using it to feed their children in themselves.
Jen Rubin
I cannot thank you enough, first of all, for the work you’re doing on behalf of all Americans and also for spending time with us on what must be a chaotic day. Um, we will be sure to check back with you. And, uh, best of luck as you’re trying to, um, literally put food on the table of Americans. So thanks so much for joining us.
AG Campbell
Thank you. And thank you for having me.
