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: Can the President unilaterally release SNAP contingency funds without Congress?
Executive Summary
The core legal question is whether the President can, on his own, direct the release of the SNAP contingency reserve to pay benefits absent new congressional appropriations. The evidence in the materials shows a credible, divided legal view: some experts and prior practice support agency-directed use of the contingency account without fresh appropriation, while the USDA and administration officials argue the reserve is not legally available for routine benefits now. Reporting and court signals from late October 2025 indicate judges may force agency action to prevent benefit lapses, but they stop short of saying the President may unilaterally appropriate funds without following statutory agency procedures [1] [2] [3].
1. The Claim That the President Can Unilaterally Release SNAP Money — Backers’ Case
Supporters of immediate unilateral action point to the text of the contingency reserve and prior administrative practice, arguing the reserve was written to be available for “program operations” and previous administrations have drawn on such reserves to cover benefits during funding gaps. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities framed the statutory language as plainly permitting use for regular benefits and cited precedents where executive branch actions covered shortfalls [4]. CBS and other outlets reported legal experts saying roughly $5.5 billion is available to cover over half of November benefits and that the USDA could and should use those funds to avoid a lapse—an argument grounded in both statutory interpretation and functional necessity for program recipients [1]. This viewpoint emphasizes continuity of benefits and relies on administrative authority exercised within existing agency frameworks rather than new congressional appropriations.
2. The Administration and USDA Deny Legal Availability — The Counterargument
USDA statements and administration guidance framed in late October 2025 pushed the opposite view: the contingency fund is not “legally available” for routine SNAP benefits now, and agency procedures limit its use to narrowly defined shortfalls or specific statutory triggers. NBC’s live blog and reporting highlighted agency positions and internal guidance suggesting the contingency reserve cannot be treated as a general slush fund and that any release must conform to existing legal parameters overseen by USDA [5]. Daily Kos and other outlets reported USDA officials claiming the multi‑billion reserve was legally off‑limits for ordinary monthly benefits, undercutting claims that the President or Secretary could simply authorize payments outside the statutory framework [6].
3. Litigation Pressures and Judicial Remedies — Courts Enter the Fray
Federal courts moved quickly, with at least one judge in Boston signaling she might order the administration to use reserves to partially fund SNAP benefits, reflecting judicial willingness to compel agency action to avert immediate harm to tens of millions of beneficiaries. News coverage in late October 2025 described judges considering orders to stretch contingency funds or otherwise direct the USDA to disburse benefits, framing litigation as a practical check on administrative decisions when programs face imminent lapses [2] [3]. Those potential orders imply courts see a legal basis for using the reserve under some interpretations, but they do not equate to a judicial endorsement of presidential unilateral appropriation power beyond agency law and statutes.
4. Experts, Advocacy Groups, and Political Agendas — Who’s Arguing What and Why
The debate splits along lines where policy advocates and some legal scholars press for using reserves to prevent harm, while the administration frames restraint as fidelity to statutory limits and budgetary discipline. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and labor unions urged immediate use of the fund to avoid stopping benefits, emphasizing statutory language and past practice [4] [5]. Conversely, administration sources and certain media accounts framed refusal to tap the fund as adherence to law, suggesting an agenda to limit executive flexibility or to use legalistic barriers to press political leverage in budget fights [6]. These competing positions reflect both legal interpretation and tactical incentives: ensuring benefits flow versus maintaining negotiating leverage with Congress.
5. Bottom Line: What the Materials Establish and What They Do Not
The collected analyses make clear that the President cannot simply write a check outside statutory and agency authorities; any release of contingency funds must be justified under the law and executed through USDA procedures, though courts may order the agency to use the reserve to prevent harm. Sources from Oct. 25–31, 2025 show practitioners and judges leaning toward forcing agency action in the short term, while the administration argues the reserve is not presently available [6] [2] [3]. The materials do not establish a blanket presidential power to unilaterally appropriate contingency funds without Congressional role; they document legal controversy, administrative resistance, and active litigation likely to determine near‑term outcomes [1].