Fact check: Were SNAP funding levels increased or cut in the 2025 continuing resolution?

1. What actually happened to SNAP in the 2025 continuing resolution fight — benefits were not increased, they were at risk of stopping

The continuing resolution tied to the October 2025 government shutdown did not enact a funding increase for SNAP; instead it produced a funding gap that left routine SNAP benefit payments in jeopardy and threatened to interrupt assistance for roughly 41–42 million participants beginning November 1. The USDA publicly warned that the “well has run dry” and that regular benefits could not be issued absent new appropriations, a stance that prompted immediate political and legal pushback ^{[4] [5]}. Multiple outlet reports from late October 2025 described imminent pauses in benefit issuance tied to the lapse in appropriations rather than a statutory change that increased funding ^{[4] [5]}.

2. The legal flashpoint: USDA says it cannot use the contingency reserve, others say it can

A central factual dispute concerns the SNAP contingency reserve and whether it can be tapped to fund normal monthly benefits during an appropriations lapse. The USDA asserted it could not legally use the contingency reserve to cover routine benefits, creating the operational rationale for benefit interruptions. Policy analysts and past practice — including prior administrations — argue the plain language of the contingency reserve and historical precedent permit its use for regular benefits, creating a conflict between the agency’s legal interpretation and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ reading of the statute and precedent ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Court rulings and emergency actions changed the immediate outlook for beneficiaries

Federal courts intervened to stop planned suspensions of SNAP distribution in at least one instance, ordering the administration to distribute aid using emergency funds or other mechanisms; judges found that suspending benefits would cause irreparable harm to millions. These judicial decisions temporarily blunted the immediate threat of benefit cuts for many recipients, but did not resolve the underlying appropriations or statutory interpretation disputes, meaning future shutdowns or unresolved legal interpretations could recreate the same crisis ^{[6] [7]}.

4. Separate legislative proposals would have cut SNAP in ways the continuing resolution did not directly accomplish

While the continuing resolution itself did not enact permanent SNAP reductions, separate House Republican legislative proposals and reconciliation language sought deep, long-term cuts to SNAP — one analysis estimated nearly $300 billion in reductions through 2034, which would represent the largest rollback in program history. Those proposed cuts are distinct from the immediate funding lapse caused by the CR, but they amplify risk for program participants if enacted in future bills ^[3].

5. Political fissures within the GOP and bipartisan pressure reflect competing priorities

Republican senators split on whether to provide stopgap funding or allow SNAP to lapse in order to heighten pressure in shutdown negotiations; some senators introduced stand‑alone bills to fund benefits during the shutdown, while leadership figures resisted, arguing leverage against Democrats. Democrats pushed back by contesting the USDA’s legal interpretation and by pursuing court and legislative avenues to protect benefits, exposing a fractured political landscape where policy, procedure and partisan strategy intersect ^[8].

6. Bottom line: continuing resolution did not increase SNAP funding — immediate harm was averted only by courts and ad hoc measures, while long‑term cuts remain a separate threat

In short, the October 2025 continuing resolution and associated shutdown did not raise SNAP appropriations; instead, funding gaps risked halting benefits absent judicial or legislative remedies. Short‑term interruptions were mitigated in part by court orders and state actions, but proposed legislative cuts elsewhere in Congress would, if passed, reduce SNAP substantially over the coming decade — a distinctly separate policy fight from the CR’s immediate funding lapse ^{[4] [3] [7]}.