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.
When and why did USDA assume administrative responsibility for SNAP from previous agencies?
Executive summary
USDA did not “assume” SNAP overnight in recent weeks; the agency already operates the program through its Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), and recent reporting describes USDA actions during a 2025 funding lapse — including using contingency funds, issuing guidance to states, and litigating court orders about November benefit issuance [1] [2] [3]. Reporting centers on USDA’s operational role in carrying out SNAP benefits to states and on disputes about whether and how the department could pay full November 2025 benefits during a government shutdown [1] [3] [2].
1. USDA is the federal operator of SNAP — not a new actor
SNAP is administered at the federal level by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service; contemporary coverage repeatedly describes USDA/FNS as “the agency that operates SNAP,” responsible for transmitting funds and guidance to states [3] [1]. The recent 2025 dispute over November payments therefore reflects actions by the standing federal operator, not a transfer of administrative responsibility from a different federal agency [3] [1].
2. What triggered the flurry of USDA actions in November 2025
The immediate cause of the intense coverage was a lapse in appropriations (a government shutdown) in late 2025 that put SNAP benefit issuance for November at risk and prompted legal challenges and emergency guidance from USDA/FNS to states about how to proceed [2] [1]. Courts ordered or stayed orders about full benefit issuance, and USDA responded with memos directing states about what payments were authorized or unauthorized pending further court action [3] [1].
3. Contingency reserves and the core technical question
A central technical dispute was whether USDA could use SNAP’s contingency reserve to cover regular benefits during the lapse. Analysts and advocates point out prior practice and statutory language that contingency funds have been used for benefit issuance in past shutdowns; one analysis says SNAP had roughly $5–$6 billion available in contingency reserves at the start of FY2026 and that prior USDA/OMB practice treated those funds as available for regular benefits [2]. The Trump Administration at the time argued constraints on using such funds, prompting litigation over whether full November benefits could be authorized [2] [3].
4. The legal and operational tug-of-war: judges, the Supreme Court, and memos
Federal judges ordered the administration to issue full benefits using contingency funds; the administration appealed, and the Supreme Court temporarily stayed a lower-court order — after which USDA issued guidance telling states to “undo” any full-issuance steps taken under the prior order, warning of penalties for noncompliance [3] [4] [1]. That sequence made USDA the visible actor implementing or pausing payments depending on the legal posture and its interpretation of funding authorities [3] [1].
5. How states fit in: federal operator vs. state implementers
Reporting emphasizes that states run program operations (certification, EBT issuance) but depend on USDA for federal funding authorizations and technical direction. In November 2025, some states began issuing full benefits under a court order and USDA communications; others awaited USDA’s final authorization before transmittal to EBT processors [3] [5] [1]. USDA’s memos explicitly told states the steps they must take and warned of repercussions under federal rules if states proceeded contrary to USDA direction [1].
6. Broader policy moves occurring at the same time
Alongside the funding dispute, USDA under Secretary Brooke Rollins was pursuing policy changes — including tighter work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents and proposals to require broad reapplication/recertification of SNAP participants — which media linked to administrative guidance issued during the shutdown [6] [7] [8]. Coverage highlights competing views: the administration framed these steps as anti-fraud and fiscal restraint, while anti-hunger groups and some states warned they would cut access and add administrative burdens [7] [8].
7. What the available sources do and do not say
Sources make clear USDA/FNS is the longstanding federal operator of SNAP and describe its actions and legal fights during the November 2025 funding lapse [3] [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention any transfer of SNAP administrative responsibility from another federal agency to USDA in 2025 — they consistently treat USDA as the operating agency [3] [1]. They also document disagreement over use of contingency reserves and show how court rulings, memos, and state implementation choices created uncertainty for households [2] [3] [1].
8. Bottom line for readers
The key fact is procedural: USDA/FNS already ran SNAP and was the agency on the front line during the 2025 funding crisis, where legal, financial and policy disputes temporarily determined whether and how full November benefits would be issued. The controversy centered on funding authority, contingency reserves, and competing legal orders, not a sudden reassignment of program administration to USDA from another agency [1] [2] [3].