Republicans say funding for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits — formerly known as food stamps — will run out on Nov. 1 due to the federal government shutdown, and there’s nothing they can do about it. Democrats say there’s a contingency fund that could and should continue to fund regular SNAP benefits.
And, in fact, that was the Republican plan up until at least a few weeks ago. Now, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers SNAP, says it can’t legally tap the contingency fund for that purpose.
“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 Oct. 27. “The best way for SNAP benefits to be paid on time is for the Democrats to end their shutdown.”
We can’t say whether the USDA is barred from tapping the contingency funds for regular SNAP benefits — ultimately that may be a decision for the courts — but the USDA position that Johnson cited has apparently changed in the past month. When the Trump administration’s USDA issued a “Lapse of Funding Plan” on Sept. 30, it stated that the contingency fund, estimated to be more than $5 billion, can and should be used to fund SNAP payments in the event of a shutdown.
“In addition, Congressional intent is evident that SNAP’s operations should continue since the program has been provided with multi-year contingency funds that can be used for State Administrative Expenses to ensure that the State can also continue operations during a Federal Government shutdown,” the document states. “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.”
That document has since been scrubbed from the USDA website, but it’s still available via the Wayback Machine archives.
“It’s also important to note that 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, if Donald Trump successfully withholds these SNAP benefits,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said on CNN on Oct. 29. “The Trump administration doesn’t need Congress to act in order to continue providing nutritional and food assistance to everyday Americans.”
What’s at Stake?
Democrats and Republicans have been locked in a stalemate over efforts to extend federal government funding. Democrats have insisted legislation should include an extension of the more generous Affordable Care Act subsidies, which were first enacted in 2021, and a repeal of some health care measures affecting Medicaid in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Republicans have balked at those demands, and have offered only a “clean” bill to temporarily extend current federal government funding levels. As a result, the government shut down on Oct. 1.
Funding of SNAP benefits continued through October, however, because, as the since-deleted “Lapse of Funding Plan” explained, the Office of Management and Budget’s general counsel advised obligating fiscal 2025 funds to cover SNAP benefits in October in the event of a government shutdown at the start of the fiscal year (Oct. 1). But the USDA now says it has no way to continue funding SNAP benefits beyond October, jeopardizing food assistance used by nearly 42 million Americans each month.
A banner at the top of the USDA Food & Nutrition website now states, “Senate Democrats have now voted 12 times to not fund the food stamp program, also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Bottom line, the well has run dry. At this time, there will be no benefits issued November 01. We are approaching an inflection point for Senate Democrats. They can continue to hold out for healthcare for illegal aliens and gender mutilation procedures or reopen the government so mothers, babies, and the most vulnerable among us can receive critical nutrition assistance.”
(The votes cited in that message were votes on Republican funding bills that didn’t include the Democrats’ demands on health care funding changes.)
Democratic leaders say the Trump administration could continue funding, but has chosen not to as a form of leverage in the shutdown standoff.
Contingency Fund
The SNAP program is funded through annual appropriations, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, allocated about $122 billion to fund food and nutrition programs (mostly SNAP benefits), in addition to $3 billion in reserve “for use only in such amounts and at such times as may become necessary to carry out program operations” through the end of September 2026. The reserve fund is good for two years, and together with funding from the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act of 2025, the contingency reserve totaled about $6 billion prior to the shutdown.
The amount is now likely between $5 billion and $6 billion, as some of the reserve was tapped to pay administrative costs in October, according to the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
As we said, up until earlier this month, the USDA’s “Lapse of Funding Plan” envisioned tapping that reserve to pay regular SNAP benefits in the event of a shutdown. That has been the understanding guiding past administrations, as well.
For example, the USDA’s 2021 contingency plan — cited in the run-up to a 2023 shutdown — assured that SNAP benefits would be paid during a shutdown, in part by tapping “multi-year carry over funds” and “contingency reserves.”
That was also the guidance during Trump’s first presidential term, according to CBPP.
During a shutdown in early 2019, the USDA assured that SNAP benefits would continue to be paid even “without an additional appropriation from Congress.”
“At President Trump’s direction, we have been working with the Administration on this solution. It works and is legally sound. And we want to assure states, and SNAP recipients, that the benefits for February will be provided,” Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said in a press release at the time. “Our motto here at USDA has been to ‘Do Right and Feed Everyone.’ With this solution, we’ve got the ‘Feed Everyone’ part handled. And I believe that the plan we’ve constructed takes care of the ‘Do Right’ part as well.”
As CBPP documented, guidance issued by the USDA in 2019 stated that in the event of an extended shutdown, there were contingency reserve funds available to help continue to make SNAP benefit payments.
USDA’s New Position
The USDA, however, now says it cannot use the reserve to pay regular SNAP benefits.
A USDA memo provided to NPR says, “Contingency funds are not legally available to cover regular benefits.”
“SNAP contingency funds are only available to supplement regular monthly benefits when amounts have been appropriated for, but are insufficient to cover, benefits,” the memo states. “The contingency fund is not available to support FY 2026 regular benefits, because the appropriation for regular benefits no longer exists.
“Instead, the contingency fund is a source of funds for contingencies, such as the Disaster SNAP program, which provides food purchasing benefits for individuals in disaster areas, including natural disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods, that can come on quickly and without notice. For example, Hurricane Melissa is currently swirling in the Caribbean and could reach Florida. Having funds readily available allows the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to mobilize quickly in the days and weeks following a disaster.”
The memo also says transfers from the contingency fund would “pull away funding for school meals and infant formula.”
And, it says, states can’t cover the cost either: “Despite their willingness, States cannot cover the cost of benefits and be reimbursed. Unlike other reimbursable programs, SNAP allotments are fully Federally funded. States are responsible for determining household benefits, and the movement of dollars through to the processors and ultimately to the retailers. There is no provision or allowance under current law for States to cover the cost of benefits and be reimbursed.”
“I got a summary of the whole legal analysis, and it certainly looks legitimate to me,” Johnson said at his press conference on Oct. 27. “The contingency funds are not legally available to cover the benefits right now. The reason is because it’s a finite source of funds. It was appropriated by Congress and 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 isn’t buying it.
“Don’t give me the lie that this can’t be done legally,” Schumer said from the Senate floor on Oct. 29.
“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. “That’s not Democrats saying that. That’s the Republican-appointed U.S. Department of Agriculture saying, again, $6 billion in emergency reserves were ‘available to fund participant benefits.'”
It should be noted that the cost to fund SNAP benefits through the entire month of November (about $8 billion) is more than the amount in the contingency fund (between $5 billion and $6 billion).
According to CBPP, in addition to tapping the contingency fund, “the Administration could use its legal transfer authority … to supplement the contingency reserves, which alone are not enough to fund families’ full benefits for November.”
Said Schumer: “Never before in American history — not once under a Democratic president or a Republican president — has SNAP funding lapsed during a shutdown. Not even in 2019, during Trump’s last shutdown. In fact, Trump himself funded SNAP throughout that shutdown. So, this argument that he can’t do it and that he doesn’t have the money and that it’s not legal is just bull.”
Democratic attorneys general and governors from more than 20 states filed a federal lawsuit claiming the suspension of SNAP benefits “is both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.”
According to the lawsuit, “USDA suspended SNAP benefits even though, on information and belief, it has funds available to it that are sufficient to fund all, or at least a substantial portion, of November SNAP benefits.”
Meanwhile, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley introduced a bill, the “Keep SNAP Funded Act,” on Oct. 21 that seeks to ensure SNAP benefits are paid during the shutdown. It has 14 Republican co-sponsors.
In an op-ed, Hawley said, “There is no reason any of these residents of my state — or any other American who qualifies for food assistance — should go hungry. We can afford to provide the help.”
At least one Republican, Sen. Susan Collins, who co-sponsored Hawley’s bill, questioned the administration’s interpretation that it does not have the authority to use the contingency fund to continue to pay SNAP benefits.
“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,” Collins said. “I don’t think this was a USDA opinion. I really think it was imposed by OMB and we’ve been having discussions with OMB’s attorneys.”
In an interview aboard Air Force One on Oct. 28, Trump was asked if SNAP payments would stop on Nov. 1.
“Well, we’re going to get it done,” Trump said. “The Democrats have caused the problem on food stamps. Of course, all they have to do is sign.”
Update, Oct. 31: A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration to continue paying SNAP benefits during the shutdown. According to the New York Times, Judge John J. McConnell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island specifically noted that USDA “must distribute the contingency money timely, or as soon as possible, for the Nov. 1 payments to be made.” In a separate case, Judge Indira Talwani, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, found the Trump administration’s hold on paying SNAP benefits was “unlawful.” “Congress has put money in an emergency fund,” Talwani said during a hearing in the case, according to the New York Times. “It’s hard for me to understand how this isn’t an emergency, when there’s no money and a lot of people are needing their SNAP benefits.”
Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102.