What legal authority allows states to issue state-funded SNAP benefits?
Executive summary
States may choose to use their own funds to keep SNAP-like assistance flowing during federal funding lapses, and several governors authorized state-funded payments or emergency programs in November 2025; the USDA has said it will not reimburse states that take such unilateral action and has warned it lacks authority to replace all paused federal funding without congressional appropriations [1] [2] [3]. Federal law continues to make SNAP a federally funded program administered by states, with program rules, contingency funding actions, and waiver decisions governed by statutes and USDA guidance [4] [5] [6].
1. Who legally runs SNAP — federal dollars, state administration
SNAP is a federal entitlement program funded by Congress and administered at the state level: the USDA sets eligibility rules and allotments, while state agencies determine eligibility and issue benefits under federal law and guidance [4] [7]. The tension in late 2025 arose because Congress must appropriate funds for monthly benefit issuance; when appropriations lapsed during the shutdown, states still administered the program but lacked clear, ongoing federal funding authority for benefits [3] [8].
2. Can states issue state-funded SNAP benefits on their own authority?
Some governors and state legislatures authorized state-funded payments or emergency nutrition programs during the funding lapse; Newsweek and other outlets documented at least eight states and D.C. taking steps to cover some lapsed benefits with state money (Maryland, Delaware, Hawaii, Louisiana, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and D.C.) and specific state actions like Louisiana’s $150 million authorization were reported [1] [2]. Those actions are state-level choices to provide food assistance, but available sources indicate the USDA has said it will not reimburse states that use their own money to keep SNAP flowing, signaling a federal refusal to treat state backstops as federally authorized SNAP expenditures [2].
3. Federal limits: appropriations, contingency funds, and USDA authority
When appropriations lapse, the USDA can tap contingency funds and issue guidance to states; during the November 2025 lapse the department used contingency resources and issued guidance about benefit issuance and waivers once funding was restored, but the core point is that federal statutory appropriations are the primary legal authority for nationwide benefit payments [5] [3]. The USDA has also asserted authority to approve waivers under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 on an individual basis, showing some program flexibility remains within federal statute even amid disputes [6].
4. Courts, political fights, and conditional federal threats
The legal and political fight over SNAP in 2025 involved court injunctions and administrative threats. Courts temporarily blocked some federal actions and DOJ appeals and injunctions shaped whether full benefits were paid during the shutdown; anti-hunger advocates argued the USDA had the authority to keep benefits flowing and delayed doing so until court pressure [3]. Separately, the Agriculture Secretary threatened to withhold funding from states refusing to provide immigration-related data, a move that turned a technical data dispute into a high-stakes federal pressure point against some state governments [9].
5. Practical effects: patchwork responses and unequal outcomes
Because states make their own choices about using state funds, the practical outcome during the lapse was geographic variation: some states fast-tracked state dollars or emergency programs while others did not, producing a patchwork of assistance that varied by state and by timing [1] [2]. State-level bulletins (for example Virginia, Massachusetts, Maryland, Illinois) show agencies preparing to resume normal issuance once federal appropriations returned, and some state programs created temporary replacements [10] [11] [12] [13].
6. What the sources do not resolve
Available sources do not provide a single statutory citation that empowers a governor to use state general fund dollars for SNAP-equivalent payments during a federal lapse; they document that states did so and that USDA said it would not reimburse them, but they do not quote a specific state constitutional clause or statute authorizing governors’ emergency appropriations in every case [1] [2]. Likewise, the detailed legal analysis of whether unilateral state-funded payments convert recipient status under federal SNAP rules — and how states should reconcile federal eligibility, reporting and reimbursement rules if they pay with state funds — is not spelled out in the provided reporting [4] [3].
Final assessment: Congress funds SNAP; states administer it. States can and did deploy their own funds or emergency programs to cover shortfalls, but the USDA declined to treat those state expenditures as federally reimbursable and the incident exposed how appropriations, agency discretion (contingency funds and waivers), court orders and state politics interact to determine whether benefits flow uninterrupted [3] [6] [2].