Has any president attempted to reallocate SNAP funds without Congress and when?

1. How the administration moved to limit SNAP payments and why that matters

The Trump administration informed courts and states that it would not issue full SNAP payments for November unless Congress resolved the funding lapse, then chose to tap about $4.65 billion in USDA contingency funds to cover roughly half of normal benefits after two federal judges intervened; the executive decision to limit funding during a lapse in appropriations represents a rare executive action affecting direct assistance to millions ^{[1] [2]}. Federal judges ordered the government either to fully fund November benefits using contingency sources or to fund half using those same contingency resources; the administration opted for the partial-payment route, a choice that changed the immediate cash available to households and forced states to scramble to provide emergency support or declare states of emergency to mitigate hunger risks ^{[5] [6]}. This sequence highlights a clash between the executive’s budgetary choices during a shutdown and judicial interpretations of statutory emergency funds.

2. What the courts required and how the administration complied

Two federal judges reviewed legal challenges and directed the administration to use available emergency funds to continue SNAP disbursements; one order gave the government the option to fully fund benefits using contingency funds and Child Nutrition Program funds or to provide half of benefits from contingency funds only, and the administration selected the partial option ^{[1] [2]}. The legal rulings effectively constrained the administration’s initial position that benefits could be halted, compelling use of executive-held contingency resources to prevent a full cutoff; that compulsion illustrates how the judiciary can limit executive choices in program implementation during appropriations gaps, even while leaving some discretion about the scale and source of emergency funding ^{[1] [5]}. States and advocacy organizations cited the rulings as grounds to demand full restoration or state-level compensation for reduced federal payments ^{[4] [2]}.

3. How states and governors responded to the partial federal funding

Governors from both parties moved quickly to address the shortfall: New York’s governor declared a state of emergency and committed additional state funds to sustain food assistance for nearly three million residents, Delaware and other states used emergency authorities to continue SNAP-like disbursements, and a coalition of governors formally urged President Trump to release full emergency funding to avoid widespread hunger ^{[3] [6] [4]}. These state actions demonstrate practical reliance on state appropriations and emergency powers when federal flows are interrupted, and they reveal political and fiscal strain on state budgets that must absorb unanticipated costs when federal programs are disrupted. Governors framed their interventions as necessary to avoid immediate food insecurity while pressing the federal government to restore full benefits ^{[3] [4]}.

4. Competing narratives: legal authority vs. policy choice

Proponents of the administration’s approach argued that contingency funds are limited and that the executive must balance statutory constraints against wider budgetary risks, while critics — including Democratic leaders, food security advocates, and some judges — argued there was legal authority and sufficient funds to provide full benefits and that partial funding was an avoidable policy choice with severe human consequences ^{[2] [5]}. Advocacy groups stressed that cutting half of benefits would push millions into hunger and strain food banks, framing the decision as discretionary and politically motivated; the administration countered that using contingency funds beyond certain limits could violate statutory constraints and set problematic precedent if used to cover regular obligations without congressional action ^{[1] [2]}. The clash underscores an institutional tension between executive discretion in emergencies and expectations from states and advocates for continuous assistance.

5. The broader historical and political context for presidential reallocations

While presidents and administrations have used executive authorities to manage program flows during crises, the November 2025 episode is notable because it involved an explicit choice to partially fund SNAP without new congressional appropriations and because federal courts required the use of contingency funds to avoid a full cutoff; commentators and officials described the move as unprecedented in scale and direct impact on SNAP recipients, prompting swift state and legal pushback ^{[5] [1]}. The episode fits a broader pattern where shutdowns and appropriations standoffs force difficult trade-offs between executive action, judicial intervention, and state-level emergency measures; it also spotlights how decisions about contingency fund use can become focal points for political blame and legal scrutiny when millions of vulnerable residents depend on federal benefits ^{[3] [2]}.