Listen to the article
SNAP Benefits at Risk as Shutdown Standoff Continues
Republicans and Democrats are locked in a heated debate over the future of food assistance for nearly 42 million Americans as the federal government shutdown threatens to halt Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits on November 1.
Republicans claim funding for SNAP—formerly known as food stamps—will run out due to the shutdown, while Democrats insist a contingency fund could and should be used to continue providing these essential benefits.
“There has to be a preexisting appropriation for the contingency fund to be used, and Democrats blocked that appropriation when they rejected the clean continuing resolution,” Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said at a press conference on October 27. “The best way for SNAP benefits to be paid on time is for the Democrats to end their shutdown.”
However, documentation suggests the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which administers SNAP, has recently reversed its position on using contingency funds. When the Trump administration’s USDA issued a “Lapse of Funding Plan” on September 30, it explicitly stated that the contingency fund, estimated at more than $5 billion, could fund SNAP payments during a shutdown.
That document, which has since been removed from the USDA website but remains available in web archives, stated: “These multi-year contingency funds are also available to fund participant benefits in the event that a lapse occurs in the middle of the fiscal year.”
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries highlighted this contradiction on CNN, saying, “The money currently exists within the Trump administration, including $5 billion in a contingency fund, specifically, for this kind of circumstance, to continue providing SNAP benefits to the American people, including 16 million children who might otherwise go hungry.”
The government shutdown began on October 1 after Democrats and Republicans failed to reach an agreement on extending federal funding. Democrats have pushed for an extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies and repeal of certain Medicaid measures, while Republicans have offered only a “clean” bill to temporarily extend current funding levels.
SNAP benefits continued through October because, as the now-deleted funding plan explained, the Office of Management and Budget advised using fiscal 2025 funds to cover October benefits. But the USDA now claims it has no legal means to fund benefits beyond October.
The reserve fund for SNAP was established through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024, which allocated approximately $122 billion for food and nutrition programs along with $3 billion in reserves. Together with additional funding, the contingency reserve totaled about $6 billion before the shutdown, though that amount has likely decreased to between $5 billion and $6 billion after administrative costs were paid in October.
This understanding that contingency funds could cover SNAP benefits during a shutdown has guided past administrations. During a shutdown in early 2019, then-Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue assured that SNAP benefits would continue “without an additional appropriation from Congress,” citing the administration’s legal authority to use available funds.
The USDA’s new position, outlined in a memo provided to NPR, claims, “Contingency funds are not legally available to cover regular benefits.” The memo argues these funds are “only available to supplement regular monthly benefits when amounts have been appropriated for, but are insufficient to cover, benefits,” and should be reserved for emergencies like natural disasters.
Speaker Johnson supported this interpretation, saying, “If they transfer funds from these other sources, it pulls it away immediately from school meals and infant formula, so it’s a trade-off.”
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer forcefully rejected this explanation. “Just weeks ago, Trump’s own U.S. Department of Agriculture confirmed in writing that contingency funds—about $6 billion in emergency reserves—were ‘available to fund participant benefits,'” Schumer said on the Senate floor. “Never before in American history—not once under a Democratic president or a Republican president—has SNAP funding lapsed during a shutdown.”
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes that while the contingency fund alone (between $5 billion and $6 billion) isn’t enough to fully fund November’s SNAP benefits (approximately $8 billion), “the Administration could use its legal transfer authority to supplement the contingency reserves.”
Democratic attorneys general and governors from more than 20 states have filed a federal lawsuit claiming the suspension of SNAP benefits “is both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.”
Meanwhile, Republican Senator Josh Hawley has introduced the “Keep SNAP Funded Act” with 14 Republican co-sponsors, stating, “There is no reason any of these residents of my state—or any other American who qualifies for food assistance—should go hungry.”
Even Republican Senator Susan Collins, who co-sponsored Hawley’s bill, questioned the administration’s legal interpretation, saying, “It is a novel interpretation for the department to claim that it cannot use that $5 billion in contingency money to help with SNAP benefits.”
As the November 1 deadline approaches, the fate of food assistance for millions of Americans remains uncertain while the political standoff continues.
Verify This Yourself
Use these professional tools to fact-check and investigate claims independently
Reverse Image Search
Check if this image has been used elsewhere or in different contexts
Ask Our AI About This Claim
Get instant answers with web-powered AI analysis
Related Fact-Checks
See what other fact-checkers have said about similar claims
Want More Verification Tools?
Access our full suite of professional disinformation monitoring and investigation tools
7 Comments
It’s frustrating to see lawmakers squabbling over an issue that should be above partisan politics. SNAP is a critical lifeline for millions – Congress needs to put aside differences and find a solution to protect this vital program.
I’m curious to learn more about the USDA’s stance on using the SNAP contingency fund. It seems like a reasonable solution to avoid disrupting benefits, if the funds are truly available. Hopefully the two parties can find a compromise.
Agreed, the focus should be on finding a practical solution to protect SNAP recipients, not scoring political points. Access to nutritious food is a basic human need that shouldn’t be held hostage by partisan gridlock.
The ongoing debate over SNAP emergency funding highlights the partisan divide in Congress. Both sides seem to have valid points, but the real concern should be ensuring vulnerable Americans don’t lose access to essential food assistance during a shutdown.
This is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides. While the political gamesmanship is concerning, the real priority should be ensuring food security for millions of vulnerable Americans during this impasse.
You make a good point. Ideally, Congress would put aside partisanship and work together to find a way to continue SNAP benefits uninterrupted, regardless of the broader budget standoff.
As someone who closely follows commodity and energy markets, I’m curious how a disruption in SNAP funding could impact demand and prices for agricultural products. This dispute could have ripple effects beyond just food assistance programs.