What percentage of SNAP benefits are funded by the federal government versus state contributions?
Executive summary
The federal government pays 100% of SNAP benefit payments to households; states do not contribute to the dollar value of the monthly benefits but do share costs for program administration (federal funding covers full benefits while administrative funding is shared) [1]. During the 2025 shutdown debate, states sometimes used their own emergency funds to bridge gaps or provide supplemental aid, but federal law and typical practice assign benefit costs to the federal government [2] [3].
1. Who actually pays the grocery money: federal government covers benefits in full
Federal dollars fund the SNAP benefit checks (the monthly allotments deposited to EBT cards); states do not pick up that tab under normal law—“the federal government paying the full cost of benefits,” as explained by AP reporting on USDA actions and threats to withhold other funds [1]. That distinction matters because during funding disruptions the federal role is the legal and operational linchpin for benefits reaching roughly 40–42 million people [2] [4].
2. States pay to run the program — administrative dollars are shared
States and the federal government “split the cost of running SNAP,” meaning state agencies cover some administrative tasks and receive federal administrative funds as a shared responsibility; USDA enforcement actions and public messaging have focused on administrative funding, not benefit payments [1]. The consequence: states operate eligibility determination, EBT issuance, and outreach but rely on federal reimbursements and rules for those functions [1].
3. What happened during the 2025 shutdown — why lines blurred
When Congress failed to pass appropriations in October 2025, USDA initially said it lacked appropriated funds to pay full benefits for November, triggering partial payments, court orders, and a scramble by states and courts to restore full allotments [5] [2]. Some states briefly used state-funded emergency programs (for example Virginia’s VENA) or loaded partial benefits while litigation and last‑minute continuing resolutions played out [3] [6].
4. Court orders, contingency reserves and administrative guidance complicated the picture
Advocates and legal decisions argued contingency reserves and prior practice allowed USDA to cover months without new appropriations, while USDA’s guidance and later memoranda instructed states on how to proceed — including at times reducing maximum allotments to 65% for November before federal funding was restored by law [7] [8] [9]. That sequence created the public perception that states or non‑federal actors were funding benefits, but the legal framework still locates benefit liability with the federal government [7] [9].
5. Recent political pressure — threats targeted administrative funds, not benefits
USDA Secretary public statements threatened to withhold some funds from states that did not provide certain data, but reporting and legal experts note the agency’s authority applies to administrative funds and compliance—not to stop SNAP benefit payments to recipients [10] [1]. AP quotes a law professor saying there is “never authority to withhold the SNAP benefits” while USDA statements referenced targeting administrative funding [1] [10].
6. Numbers to remember and limitations of available reporting
Available reporting states the federal government pays the full benefit cost and that states share administrative expenses; specific percentage splits for overall administrative cost-sharing or any occasional state emergency top‑ups during crises are not given in the cited sources [1] [3]. Sources document the program serves about 40–42 million people and cite average monthly benefits around $188–$190 per person in 2025, useful context for scale but not a federal/state percentage split of total program spending [2] [4].
7. Bottom line and competing perspectives
Bottom line: federal taxpayers fund 100% of the SNAP benefit payments to households under normal law; states finance and administer program operations with federal administrative reimbursements, and sometimes use state emergency money in crises [1] [3]. Competing narratives during the 2025 shutdown framed the problem as a federal funding failure (USDA’s contention about appropriations) versus a legal/policy dispute over contingency funds and prior practice (advocates and judges argued contingency funds should have been used) [7] [2]. Available sources do not provide a precise overall percentage split of combined federal vs. state spending across benefits plus administration.