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: How have SNAP funding provisions in 2025 continuing resolutions compared to prior fiscal-year continuing resolutions in 2023 and 2024?
Executive Summary
The recent 2025 continuing-resolution fight over SNAP largely turned on the availability and use of a SNAP contingency reserve that Congress funded in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, and federal judges have ordered USDA to tap that reserve to maintain benefits for roughly 42 million people during the 2025 lapse. Reporting and court filings from late October and early November 2025 show that the federal judiciary and USDA guidance treat the 2025 CR’s SNAP outcome as operationally similar to how contingency funds and USDA authority were used in prior shutdowns and appropriations gaps, although political actors have framed the situation differently [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What advocates and courts are actually claiming about SNAP access in 2025 — and why it matters
Advocates, some reporters, and two federal judges have asserted that SNAP benefits should continue during the 2025 continuing-resolution impasse because Congress had already appropriated a $6 billion contingency in the 2024 Consolidated Appropriations Act that USDA can draw on to cover regular SNAP payments through September 30, 2026; courts cited statutory language and prior guidance to support orders directing USDA to use that fund to prevent benefit interruptions for millions [1] [2]. This legal posture matters because it changes the practical stakes of a shutdown: rather than immediate mass loss of benefits, the contingency fund provides a statutory mechanism for continuity that courts and USDA have treated as available, shifting the dispute from whether funds exist to the scope and timing of federal authority to disburse them [3] [4].
2. How 2025 CR provisions compare to 2023 and 2024: continuity over change
The statutory architecture underpinning SNAP did not radically change between 2023 and 2025; the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 adjusted program rules such as ABAWD age and waiver transparency but did not eliminate contingency mechanisms, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 explicitly set aside contingency resources that carry into 2025 operations. Consequently, the practical effect of the 2025 CRs—as adjudicated in court and implemented by USDA guidance—resembles prior fiscal-year continuing resolutions where contingency or carryover authorities were used to keep benefits flowing during funding gaps [5] [6] [2]. That similarity explains why observers see 2025 as comparable to prior CR periods despite heightened political rhetoric [7].
3. Operational guidance and historical practice: USDA’s role in keeping benefits flowing
USDA guidance and historical precedent from earlier shutdowns (including the 2018–2019 episode cited in analyses) show that the department has authority to draw on contingency reserves to issue regular SNAP benefits when appropriations lapse, and that guidance shaped judicial relief in late October 2025 directing continued payments to participants. The plain language of the contingency statute and USDA’s prior interpretations were pivotal in judges’ decisions ordering payments to continue for roughly 42 million recipients, a remedial posture that aligns USDA practice with the contingency funding Congress provided [3] [1] [7].
4. Competing narratives: headlines vs. statutory mechanics
Media and some political actors emphasized the possibility that “40 million people could lose access” to SNAP during a shutdown, a projection that galvanized lawmakers to introduce emergency bills and bipartisan measures aiming to insulate benefits [8] [9]. Those headlines capture the political risk and urgency but do not fully reflect the legal reality courts relied on when they ordered USDA to tap contingency funds. The divergence between sensational headlines and judicial interpretation reveals competing agendas: advocates and some lawmakers emphasize catastrophic outcomes to spur legislative action, while courts and administrative law focus on statutory language and existing appropriations that can blunt immediate harm [8] [9] [1].
5. Bottom line: policy continuity with political friction
Substantively, 2025 continuing-resolution outcomes for SNAP track prior fiscal-year continuing resolutions in that contingency funding and established USDA authority have been used to sustain benefits through funding lapses; judicial orders in late October 2025 reinforced that continuity by directing use of the 2024 contingency allocation. Politically, the episode produced intensified legislative and media activity—bills to expressly protect SNAP during shutdowns and alarmed coverage about potential benefit interruptions—which underscores that while statutory mechanisms exist to prevent immediate program collapse, the political stakes and interpretations remain contested and can influence long-term funding and program design [2] [4] [9].