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.
How does the Antideficiency Act affect SNAP payments during a lapse in appropriations?
Executive Summary
The Antideficiency Act bars federal agencies from obligating or spending money without a current appropriation, which can interrupt federal programs during a funding lapse, but SNAP payments have multiple legal and accounting pathways that often allow benefits to continue. Analyses of recent reporting and oversight work show competing outcomes: some sources report that SNAP would be halted for roughly 42 million recipients absent new appropriations [1] [2], while other legal and administrative explanations indicate USDA may draw on contingency funds, prior obligations, or permanent authorities to keep payments flowing or to justify limited disbursements [3] [4] [5]. The factual picture is that the Antideficiency Act creates a legal constraint; whether SNAP recipients actually lose benefits in a specific lapse depends on which authorities USDA uses, judicial rulings, and Congressional action [6] [7].
1. Legal Brake or Safety Valve? How the Antideficiency Act Forces Choices
The Antideficiency Act functions as a hard legal brake: agencies cannot obligate funds without an appropriation, and violations require reporting and accounting remedies, as shown in GAO analysis of USDA’s prior early payments episode [7]. That constraint means USDA must choose among lawful authorities—pre‑existing obligated funds, multiyear carryovers, contingency reserves, permanent authorities like Section 32, or statutory exceptions for emergencies—to continue SNAP when Congress does not act [4] [5]. Oversight findings from prior lapses highlight that misreading a CR or relying on expired authorizations can trigger an Antideficiency Act violation, creating administrative and legal costs that limit USDA’s flexibility even when funds exist in other forms [7]. The Act thus forces tradeoffs between legal compliance and urgent benefit continuity.
2. Contingency Funds and Accounting Maneuvers: Practical Paths to Keep Benefits Flowing
USDA and analysts point to practical mechanisms that can sustain SNAP through a shutdown: obligated monthly accounting, a designated SNAP contingency fund, multiyear carryovers, and permanent agricultural authorities that can be repurposed for food assistance [3] [4] [2]. In practice, USDA’s accounting treats some benefits as obligated in advance, which allowed earlier months’ payments to proceed in a lapse [5]. Courts have in some cases required continuity for benefits deemed critical to life and property, and administration actions have sometimes provided partial or emergency payments citing those authorities [3] [6]. These pathways are legally complex and politically contested, meaning continuity is possible but not guaranteed and depends on timely administrative choices and potential judicial review.
3. What History Shows: Past Shutdowns and SNAP Outcomes
Historical episodes illustrate both outcomes: during prior lapses USDA attempted early payments and faced GAO findings that some moves likely violated the Antideficiency Act when they lacked valid authority [7], while other actions used contingency resources to avert abrupt cuts [4]. Recent reporting and legal filings document disputes over whether full monthly payments can be issued, including emergency court interventions and administration decisions to deliver partial benefits in some months [6] [3]. That history highlights a pattern where legal risk, operational accounting, and political will interact—administration choices and court rulings can either preserve benefits temporarily or force pauses until Congress acts.
4. Stakes and Scale: Who Would Be Hurt If Authorities Aren’t Used?
If USDA cannot or chooses not to rely on contingency authorities, the immediate impact is large: analyses cited concerns that about 42 million SNAP recipients could face delayed or reduced benefits, creating urgent hardship for low‑income households and pressure on states [1] [2]. Some states have explored stopgap measures to assist recipients when federal payments are uncertain [8], but those state responses are uneven and would not substitute for nationwide federal disbursements. The scale of potential harm raises political pressure on Congress to pass continuing resolutions or appropriations, and it also frames legal arguments that courts may weigh when assessing emergency exceptions or obligations tied to life‑sustaining assistance [1] [9].
5. Conflicting Messages and Political Agendas: Read the Fine Print
Reporting and official statements sometimes conflict because of differing incentives: advocacy groups stress immediate consumer impacts and press for guaranteed appropriations [5], media accounts may emphasize worst‑case interruptions to spur public attention [1] [2], and administrative statements can assert limited authority to provide at least partial payments while minimizing admission of legal risk [6] [3]. Oversight agencies and courts focus on legal technicalities such as the text of continuing resolutions or the scope of contingency funds, which can undercut broad public assurances [7]. Recognize that sources can emphasize operational continuity or legal vulnerability depending on agenda, so real outcomes hinge on which authorities are invoked and whether courts or Congress act promptly [4] [6].