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.
Fact check: Were there amendments or riders in the 2025 continuing resolution that changed SNAP eligibility or funding levels and who sponsored them?
Executive Summary
The available documents show no evidence that amendments or riders in the 2025 continuing resolution materially changed SNAP eligibility or baseline funding levels; the continuing resolutions described maintained level funding and focused on short-term government funding rather than rewriting SNAP rules [1] [2]. Separate congressional actions and bills addressed continuity of benefits and policy changes: the Keep SNAP Funded Act of 2025 (H.R. 5822), co‑sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R‑NJ), would use unallocated federal funds to keep SNAP payments flowing during a shutdown but does not alter eligibility or long‑term funding formulas, and the 2025 budget reconciliation law (H.R. 1) enacted a new SNAP time‑limits policy that changes eligibility for certain groups — these are distinct actions from the continuing resolution itself [3] [4].
1. What the continuing resolution text actually did — stability, not reform
The September 2025 House‑passed continuing resolution kept level funding through a temporary stopgap period and did not include sweeping reauthorization language or major SNAP eligibility changes, according to contemporaneous reporting [1]. Continuing resolutions are usually designed to preserve existing program funding rates short term, and the 2025 measure described maintained Fiscal Year 2025 funding levels through November 21 without new eligibility rules or substantive funding increases for SNAP. This means that any changes to who qualifies for SNAP or to statutory benefit formulas were not enacted through the CR itself, and advocates and lawmakers focused attention on other legislative routes to address benefit continuity or programmatic changes [1] [2].
2. Who proposed protections for benefits during shutdowns and what they did — Smith’s Keep SNAP Funded Act
Separate from the CR, the Keep SNAP Funded Act of 2025 (H.R. 5822) was introduced and co‑sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R‑NJ) to ensure uninterrupted SNAP payments during a government shutdown by appropriating unallocated federal funds to the USDA [3]. The sponsor’s press release frames this as an emergency liquidity mechanism rather than a policy overhaul: the bill’s stated purpose is to maintain current benefits, not to change eligibility criteria or recalibrate funding formulas. That framing reveals an explicit priority — avoiding disruptions to recipients — and suggests a targeted, short‑term fiscal fix rather than a structural reform through riders or amendments attached to the CR [3].
3. Policy changes occurred elsewhere — reconciliation and time‑limit rules
While the CRs preserved status quo funding, policy shifts affecting eligibility emerged from other legislation, notably the 2025 budget reconciliation law (H.R. 1), which enacted a new SNAP time‑limits policy changing eligibility prospects for certain populations such as caregivers and some veterans [4]. That reconciliation vehicle is a distinct statutory path from the continuing resolution and carries different procedural rules and political tradeoffs. Observers and state agencies therefore faced a two‑track reality: CRs preserved immediate funding levels, while separate legislative actions altered longer‑term eligibility criteria, creating confusion about cause and effect in public discourse [4].
4. Conflicting signals in political messaging — who emphasizes what and why
Public communications and press reports offered competing frames: some Republican bills emphasized keeping benefits flowing during a shutdown, casting action as a humanitarian safeguard [3] [5], while Democratic senators and advocacy groups highlighted policy rollbacks or administration decisions that could restrict assistance [6]. Sources in the dataset include press releases and local reporting that underscore political agendas—sponsors of continuity bills present them as non‑controversial emergency fixes, whereas critics emphasize underlying policy changes enacted through other measures. The divergent messaging reflects tactical choices: attach minimal cost fixes to the shutdown debate, while pursuing more consequential changes through separate legislative vehicles [3] [6] [5].
5. Bottom line: continuing resolutions were not the vehicle for eligibility change, but changes occurred elsewhere
The reporting and documents consolidated here make a clear distinction: the 2025 continuing resolutions maintained existing SNAP funding levels without riders that overhauled eligibility, while separate bills and the reconciliation law moved policy on time limits and continuity measures. Sponsorship details are limited in the provided set, but H.R. 5822 is explicitly linked to Rep. Chris Smith as a co‑sponsor seeking to preserve benefits during a shutdown [3]. For anyone tracking SNAP policy, the critical takeaway is to watch both stopgap funding bills and parallel substantive legislation — they operate on different timetables and have distinct impacts on recipients [1] [4].