Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Contingency
Executive summary
The SNAP contingency reserve became a flashpoint during the 2025 government shutdown: the USDA initially said it would not tap roughly $5–$6 billion in contingency funds to pay full November benefits, risking delays for about 42 million recipients, then reversed course in litigation and moved to use contingency money to pay partial benefits (estimates of coverage ranged from ~50% to 65%) [1] [2] [3] [4]. Legal and policy experts dispute whether those contingency funds can and should be used to cover regular monthly SNAP benefits; prior practice and budget documents show the contingency reserve has been treated as available for program operations, while USDA and the administration have advanced legal and practical limits on that use [5] [6].
1. What the administration said and why it mattered
USDA memos and public statements in late October said the agency would not tap the SNAP contingency fund to cover November benefits, a move that—if maintained—would have left roughly 42 million Americans without their normal food aid that month and prompted widespread state and advocacy pressure [1] [7]. The administration argued legal and operational constraints limited use of the contingency fund and that full-month funding would have required about $9.2 billion—more than the available contingency amounts—meaning any reserve could not fully replace appropriations [6].
2. The legal and procedural fights in court
Two federal judges ordered the USDA to consider using emergency reserve funds or otherwise provide benefits; the administration subsequently told a judge it would tap contingency funds to provide reduced November payments and later filed that it would “fulfill its obligation to expend the full amount of SNAP contingency funds” for partial benefits [2] [8] [9]. States and Democratic-led coalitions sued to force broader use of reserves; courts gave USDA leeway to choose partial or full approaches but pushed the agency toward at least partial payments [4] [9].
3. How much the contingency reserve actually covers
Estimates and reporting vary: some outlets cite roughly $5 billion in contingency funds available at USDA, others $6 billion reflecting multiyear reserves, while typical monthly SNAP outlays are estimated near $8–9 billion—so the reserve could not cover full November benefits without other transfers [2] [5] [1] [8]. After analysis, USDA informed states it would fund about 65% of November payments from contingency funds, a higher share than some earlier warnings that the reserve would cover only about half [3] [4].
4. Policy history and competing interpretations
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and other budget analysts note that SNAP’s contingency reserve has in past years been treated as available for participant benefits and routine operations and that law and prior agency guidance support using the reserve when appropriations lapse [5] [10]. By contrast, USDA and administration officials argued statutory and Office of Management and Budget constraints limit transfers and that contingency funds cannot simply substitute for appropriations in all circumstances—an interpretation that formed part of their initial refusal [6].
5. Practical impacts on recipients and states
Regardless of the legal debates, court-ordered contingency use meant many SNAP households faced delayed or reduced payments: beneficiaries could receive only partial benefits in November and might get retroactive “make-whole” payments after a resolution, but delays and the administrative complexity of calculating partial amounts created real hardships and prompted states to seek stopgap measures like emergency food bank support [4] [2] [11].
6. Media reporting and numerical discrepancies to watch for
Coverage used differing figures—some articles said $5 billion, others $6 billion in reserves, while monthly need was reported as roughly $8–9 billion—so readers should note the variation reflects different ways of counting multiyear reserves and whether certain prior-year appropriations remain legally available [1] [5] [8] [6]. Also, different outlets reported different expected share of benefits to be paid (50% in some stories, 65% in others) as USDA’s calculations evolved under court pressure [4] [3].
7. What reporting does not settle
Available sources do not mention a final, uncontested legal ruling that definitively resolves all statutory questions about contingency fund authority beyond the immediate relief ordered and administered for November 2025; they also do not include any definitive, single-source accounting that reconciles every dollar of contingency reserves against every possible legal transfer (not found in current reporting) [5] [2] [3].
Conclusion — read both the law and the ledger: budget experts point to precedent for using the contingency reserve for regular benefits, while USDA and the administration highlighted legal and practical limits; courts forced at least partial use and USDA reported funding roughly two‑thirds of payments from contingency funds, but disagreements about scope, accounting, and timing persisted through the shutdown [5] [9] [3].