Business

Trump administration to partially fund SNAP this month after judges order use of emergency reserves

Published

3 months ago

November 3, 2025

President Donald Trump’s administration said Monday that it will partially fund SNAP for November, after two judges issued rulings requiring the government to keep the nation’s largest food aid program running.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, had planned to freeze payments starting Nov. 1 because it said it could no longer keep funding it during the federal government shutdown. The program serves about 1 in 8 Americans and is a major piece of the nation’s social safety net. It costs more than $8 billion per month nationally. The government says an emergency fund it will use has $4.65 billion — enough to cover about half the normal benefits.

Exhausting the fund potentially sets the stage for a similar situation in December if the shutdown isn’t resolved by then.

It’s not clear exactly how much beneficiaries will receive, nor how quickly they will see value show up on the debit cards they use to buy groceries. November payments have already been delayed for millions of people.

“The Trump Administration has the means to fund this program in full, and their decision not to will leave millions of Americans hungry and waiting even longer for relief as government takes the additional steps needed to partially fund this program,” Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, who led a coalition of Democratic state officials in one of the lawsuits that forced the funding, said in a statement.

How will SNAP beneficiaries manage?

People who receive the benefits are trying to figure out how to stretch their grocery money further.

Corina Betancourt, who’s 40 and lives in Glendale, Arizona, already uses a food bank sometimes to get groceries for herself and her three kids, ages 8 through 11. With her SNAP benefits reduced and delayed, she’s expecting to use the food bank more and find ways to stretch what she has further.

But she is worried that there won’t be enough for her children to eat with about $400 this month instead of around $800. “We always make things work somehow, some way,” she said.

In Camden, New Jersey, 41-year-old Jamal Brown, who is paralyzed after a series of strokes and on a fixed income, said family members asked him for a list of groceries he needs so they can stock him up.

But not everyone has that help.

“How did you expect to live a healthy life if you’re not eating the right stuff?” he asked. “If you don’t have the access to the food stamps, you’re going to go to the cheapest thing that you can afford.”

Details on how payments will roll out are still to come

The administration said it would provide details to states on Monday on calculating the per-household partial benefit. The process of loading the SNAP cards, which involves steps by state and federal government agencies and vendors, can take up to two weeks in some states. But the USDA warned in a court filing that it could take weeks or even months for states to make all the system changes to send out reduced benefits. The average monthly benefit is usually about $190 per person.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said at a news conference that it would take his state about a week to load benefit cards once the funding is made available.

“These are folks who are hungry, and every day matters,” Bonta said.

The USDA said last month that benefits for November wouldn’t be paid due to the federal government shutdown. That set off a scramble by food banks, state governments and the nearly 42 million Americans who receive the aid to find ways to ensure access to groceries.

The liberal group Democracy Forward, which represented plaintiffs in one of the lawsuits, said it was considering legal options to force full SNAP funding.

Other high-profile Democrats are calling for the government to do that on its own.

“USDA has the authority to fully fund SNAP and needs to do so immediately. Anything else is unacceptable,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said on social media.

State governments step in

Most states have boosted aid to food banks, and some are setting up systems to reload benefit cards with state taxpayer dollars. The threat of a delay also spurred lawsuits.

Federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ruled separately but similarly Friday, telling the government in response to lawsuits filed by Democratic state officials, cities and non-profits that it was required to use one emergency fund to pay for the program, at least in part. They gave the government the option to use additional money to fully fund the program and a deadline of Monday to decide.

Patrick Penn, Deputy Under Secretary Food Nutrition and Consumer Services for USDA, said in a court filing Monday that the department chose not to tap other emergency funds to ensure there’s not a gap in child nutrition programs for the rest of this fiscal year, which runs through September 2026.

Advocates and beneficiaries say halting the food aid would force people to choose between buying groceries and paying other bills. The majority of states have announced more or expedited funding for food banks or novel ways to load at least some benefits onto the SNAP debit cards.

New Mexico and Rhode Island officials said Monday that some SNAP beneficiaries received funds over the weekend from their emergency programs. Officials in Delaware are telling recipients that their benefits won’t be available until at least Nov. 7.

To qualify for SNAP in 2025, a household’s net income after certain expenses can’t exceed the federal poverty line. For a family of four, that’s about $32,000 per year.

Source link

Business

What a Walmart CEO contender’s exit reveals about when to move on

Published

22 minutes ago

January 20, 2026

Jace Porter

There’s no such thing as a silver medal in a CEO succession race.

In November, Walmart named U.S. chief John Furner as its next CEO, crowning him the sixth leader in the history of the world’s largest retailer. The decision also quietly closed the door on another highly regarded contender for the corner office: Kath McLay, Walmart International’s CEO and a decade-long veteran of the company. On Thursday, Walmart disclosed that McLay would depart, staying on briefly to ensure a smooth transition.

The sequence was swift, orderly, and entirely unsurprising to those who study corporate succession. Boards rarely say it out loud, but experienced executives understand intuitively that once a CEO is chosen, the long-term prospects for previously whispered-about internal candidates dim almost immediately as power consolidates around the new chief executive.

That’s why many of the most ambitious leaders in American business don’t linger after a succession decision. They move deliberately, and often quickly, because the moment immediately after a board makes its choice is paradoxically when a near-CEO executive’s market value is at its peak. The executive has just been validated at the highest level—close enough to be seriously considered for the top job—without yet absorbing the reputational drag that can follow prolonged proximity to a decision that didn’t go their way.

In that narrow window, the story is still about capability. Search firms and directors see a leader who was trusted with scale, complexity, and board scrutiny, not someone who failed to clear the final hurdle.

When Jeff Immelt was named CEO of General Electric in 2001, the decision concluded one of the most closely watched succession contests in modern corporate history. Among the executives developed as credible successors was Bob Nardelli, then president and CEO of GE Power Systems. Nardelli didn’t stay to see how it might play out. Within months, he left GE to become Home Depot’s CEO.

A decade later, a different scenario unfolded at Apple, but with a similar outcome. Retail chief Ron Johnson had transformed Apple’s stores into an industry-defining, highly profitable global business and was widely viewed internally as CEO-caliber. Apple’s board had long centered its succession plans on Tim Cook, and when Cook was formally named successor to Steve Jobs, it effectively closed the door on a CEO path for Johnson. He left soon after to take the top job at J.C. Penney.

The executives who leave quickly aren’t being disloyal; they’re being realistic. Remaining too long after a succession decision can quietly erode an executive’s standing, both internally and externally, as the narrative shifts from “next in line” to “still waiting.”

At Ford Motor Co., president Joe Hinrichs was widely viewed as a leading CEO contender. When the board selected Jim Hackett in 2017, Hinrichs left not long afterward. Five years later, he resurfaced as CEO of transportation company CSX. Similarly, several senior Disney executives left or were sidelined after Bob Chapek was chosen as CEO in 2020. Most notably, Kevin Mayer, Disney’s head of direct-to-consumer and international, and a widely assumed CEO contender, departed within months to briefly become CEO of TikTok.

There are exceptions. But they tend to follow a different arc.

Although longtime Nike insider Elliott Hill was not passed over in a formal succession contest, he was widely viewed as CEO-ready when the board opted for an external hire in 2020. Hill stayed on for several years and later retired. Only after performance pressures mounted and the company embarked on a strategic reset did Nike’s board reverse course, asking Hill to return as CEO in 2024. Even then, such boomerangs remain exceedingly rare.

McLay’s departure from Walmart fits the dominant pattern. By exiting promptly while remaining to support a defined transition, she preserves both her reputation and her leverage. She leaves as an executive who was close enough to be seriously considered—not one who stayed long enough to be diminished by the process.

Join us at the Fortune Workplace Innovation Summit May 19–20, 2026, in Atlanta. The next era of workplace innovation is here—and the old playbook is being rewritten. At this exclusive, high-energy event, the world’s most innovative leaders will convene to explore how AI, humanity, and strategy converge to redefine, again, the future of work. Register now.

Source link

Business

Crypto market reels in face of tariff turmoil, Bitcoin falls below $90,000 as key legislation stalls

Published

53 minutes ago

January 20, 2026

Jace Porter

If you don’t like the price of Bitcoin, wait five minutes, and it will change. The major cryptocurrency’s volatility has been on full display to start the year, this time dipping about 7% since last week to its current price of just under $90,000 as of mid-day Tuesday.

Other cryptocurrencies have also slid. Ethereum is down 11% in the last six days to its current price of about $3,000, and Solana is down about 14% during that time to its price of about $127.

The dip comes as President Donald Trump threatened European nations with tariffs as they pushed back against his plans to take over Greenland, causing markets to scramble. Meanwhile, crypto markets faced an additional headwind as key legislation for the industry, known as the Clarity Act, became stalled after industry giant Coinbase unexpectedly withdrew its support late last week.

“President Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on Europe has put Bitcoin under pressure,” said Russell Thompson, chief investment officer at Hilbert Group. “The postponement of the Clarity Act in the Senate committee mainly due to concerns from Coinbase eliminated a large amount of positive sentiment in the market.”

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong objected to the Clarity Act primarily on grounds that crypto owners would not be able to earn yield from stablecoins. The new uncertainty over the bill, which many assumed was on a smooth path towards a Presidential signature, has shaken the price not just of crypto assets but also the share price of companies exposed to digital assets.

It’s uncertain whether the current headwinds will fade anytime soon. Trump has made his intentions of taking control of Greenland clear. When a group of European nations expressed solidarity with the Danish, he threatened those countries with tariffs, saying he would not back down until Greenland was purchased. Bitcoin and other risk assets subsequently fell, along with major stock indices, while the price of gold rose.

It’s not all gloom and doom for crypto, at least according to some analysts, who view Bitcoin’s correlation with macroeconomic forces as confirmation that digital assets have finally gone mainstream.

“Bitcoin’s reactivity is another sign of its increasing integration with broader macroeconomic forces, signaling maturation rather than fragility, even as short-term volatility continues,” said Beto Aparicio, senior manager of strategic finance at Offchain Labs.

Source link

Business

The 9 most disruptive deals of Trump’s first year back in the White House

Published

1 hour ago

January 20, 2026

Jace Porter

President Trump lives on deals: “That’s what I do—I do deals,” he once told Bob Woodward. On the one-year anniversary of his second presidency, he’s pushing hard to make his biggest, most disruptive deal ever, one that would bring Greenland under the control of the U.S.—and the global business community is still scrambling to adapt to his approach. Here are nine of Trump’s most unorthodox deals from the past year.

Nine deals that shook the business world

April 2, 2025: Reciprocal tariffs

Trump imposes “reciprocal tariffs” on 57 countries, with each tariff understood as an opening bid in a negotiation. Several countries have since made deals. The one-on-one negotiations, unlike the multilateral system of the past 80 years, can be chaotic for companies and economies

June 13: U.S. Steel “Golden Share”

In return for allowing Nippon Steel to buy U.S. Steel, Trump requires that the U.S. receive several powers over the company, including total power over all the board’s independent directors and vetoes over locations of offices and factories.

July 10: MP Materials

The U.S. pays $400 million for a large equity share in MP and signs a contract to buy all of MP’s rare earth magnets for 10 years. The reason for the equity stake was not disclosed.

July 14: Nvidia, Part 1

JADE GAO—AFP/Getty Images

Trump reverses the U.S. ban on selling Nvidia H20 chips to China in exchange for Nvidia paying the U.S. 15% of the revenue.

July 23: Columbia University

The Trump administration restores $400 million of canceled federal research funding for the university under an unprecedented multipoint deal. For example, Columbia must supply data to the federal government for all applicants, broken down by race, “color,” GPA, and standardized test performance. A few other schools later make similar deals.

August 6: Apple

At a public appearance with Trump, CEO Tim Cook announces Apple will invest an additional $100 billion in the U.S. over four years; Trump announces Apple will be exempt from a planned tariff on imported chips that would have doubled the price of iPhones in the U.S.

August 22: Intel

Intel trades the U.S. government a 9.9% equity stake in exchange for $8.9 billion that might already be owed to Intel under the CHIPS and Science Act. The deal is unusual because the company was not in immediate danger or significantly affecting the economy.

December 8: Nvidia, Part 2:

Trump reverses the U.S. ban on selling powerful Nvidia H200 chips in exchange for Nvidia paying the U.S. 25% of the revenue. Both Nvidia deals are unusual because the payments to the U.S., based on exports, appear to be forbidden by the Constitution.

December 19: Pharma

Nine pharmaceutical companies make deals with Trump that are intended to lower drug prices. This is unusual because Trump negotiated separate deals with each company, and the terms have not been released.

All eyes this week will be watching President Trump at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where the president has hinted he’ll announce some high-stakes agreements. Expect the unexpected.

A version of this piece appears in the February/March 2026 issue of Fortune.

Source link