Which federal agency and budget account funds SNAP benefits?

1. Who officially runs the program — clarity from agency and Congressional reports

Congressional and agency materials uniformly identify the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service as the federal administrator of SNAP; FNS issues benefits, sets federal rules, and provides funding to state agencies for issuance ^{[1] [4]}. The CRS September 2025 brief reiterates USDA/FNS’s central role in partnership with state SNAP agencies and explains SNAP’s authorization under the Food and Nutrition Act, reinforcing that responsibility for federal funding and program oversight sits with USDA/FNS ^[4]. This consensus eliminates confusion about which federal department is responsible, while leaving room for technical distinctions between types of budget authority used to deliver payments.

2. Where the money formally comes from — the SNAP appropriation and contingency reserve

SNAP benefit dollars flow through the USDA/FNS budget framework: the SNAP appropriation funds benefit payments and includes a contingency reserve that can be tapped to cover payments when appropriations timing or legal constraints arise ^[3]. Analyses and legal challenges in 2025 highlighted the contingency reserve’s availability and precedent for its use; past administrations have relied on that reserve during funding disruptions. CRS notes and FNS materials describe benefit funding as part of the program’s appropriation structure, distinguishing between the federal benefit entitlement (mandatory) and the discretionary administrative funding that supports state operations ^{[4] [6]}.

3. Controversy and alternative pots — Section 32 and emergency uses reported in 2025

Reporting from November 2025 and October 2025 shows the administration and courts disputing which accounts may be used to make full monthly SNAP payments, with courts ordering use of available USDA accounts and administration proposals to use different contingency sums ^{[7] [5]}. Journalistic sources describe Section 32 (a long-standing USDA account funded by customs receipts) and other tariff-derived funds as potential supplemental sources; one account held roughly $23 billion in October 2025 that advocates and courts considered for nutrition programs ^[5]. These episodes illustrate that while the main legal responsibility rests with USDA/FNS, operational funding can involve multiple statutory authorities during crises ^{[5] [3]}.

4. Legal and budgetary distinctions that matter for payments

Legal and budgetary texts show a key distinction: benefit payments operate as an entitlement financed through appropriation language and statutory authorities, whereas administrative grants to states are typically discretionary ^{[4] [8]}. CRS and policy documents emphasize that the Food and Nutrition Act authorizes benefits and that appropriations and reconciliation laws (including the 2018 farm bill and later amendments) shape funding levels and mechanisms. Disputes in 2025 focused on whether particular contingency accounts or emergency funds are legally available for regular monthly benefits — a technical but decisive legal question that courts and agency guidance resolved contextually ^{[4] [3]}.

5. Bottom line and what was missing from the initial claims

The initial claim that USDA/FNS funds SNAP is correct; the missing nuance in many summaries is that funding is implemented through specific USDA appropriation accounts — including the SNAP benefit appropriation, a contingency reserve, and occasionally other USDA accounts like Section 32 in extraordinary circumstances ^{[1] [5] [3]}. CRS and reporting from late 2025 fill in those details, showing both routine financing and exceptional mechanisms used during disputes over payments. The public debate in 2025 made clear that naming the administering agency is necessary but not sufficient: identifying which USDA account or statutory authority will be tapped in a given month matters for whether claimants receive full benefits on schedule ^{[4] [7]}.