Can the president unilaterally spend money on SNAP without Congress?

1. Who actually controls federal spending — a constitutional check that matters now

The Constitution vests appropriations power in Congress, and that principle underlies modern limits on presidential spending authority. Courts have repeatedly rejected unilateral executive impoundment or redirection of funds when statutes require disbursement, and Congress responded in 1974 with the Impoundment Control Act to channel disputes into a formal rescission process rather than permit executive withholding of appropriated funds. The Impoundment Control Act allows the president only a brief window to propose rescissions and does not authorize indefinite withholding for benefit programs or formula grants, which matters directly to SNAP funding disputes ^[1]. Recent judicial intervention in shutdown-era SNAP disputes reinforces that statutory appropriations and judicial orders can compel spending despite executive resistance ^{[5] [6]}.

2. Contingency pots and transfer clauses — limited executive tools, heavily contested

The federal agencies possess a patchwork of contingency funds and limited statutory transfer authorities that can be used to keep certain programs running temporarily when appropriations lapse. For SNAP, the USDA maintains a contingency reserve and 7 U.S.C. § 2257 provides specified transfer authority, meaning the administration can sometimes tap rainy-day funds or shuffle funds among nutrition programs to avert an immediate cutoff. However, the scope of those authorities is constrained by statute and agency rules, and the administration’s decisions to use or not use those pots have been challenged in court; judges have ordered full benefits restored in some cases, while the administration has argued that such judicial orders infringe on Congress’s budget authority ^{[3] [7] [4]}.

3. Recent courtroom outcomes: judges stepping into an appropriations dispute

Federal judges in multiple districts have recently ordered the administration to restore or continue SNAP funding during a government funding lapse, finding that contingency and emergency reserves must be used to prevent abrupt benefit terminations. Those rulings show courts are willing to enforce statutory and administrative frameworks to preserve program continuity. The Justice Department has appealed these orders, arguing separation-of-powers concerns and asserting that only Congress can lawfully appropriate the tens of billions required for a full month of SNAP benefits, making the legal fight ongoing and outcome-dependent ^{[2] [6] [5]}.

4. Practical stakes: billions at issue and state-level scramble

A single month of full SNAP benefits costs on the order of $8–9 billion, and the administration’s choice to use a smaller contingency pot that covered roughly half the monthly need prompted states and retailers to plan for shortfalls. Some states moved to distribute benefits based on available guidance, while others awaited federal clarity or court direction. The large dollar amounts involved explain why courts, states, and advocacy groups have pressed the issue: the funding choice has immediate effects on tens of millions of beneficiaries and on state administration ^{[2] [7]}.

5. What the competing legal arguments actually claim and where the uncertainty remains

The administration contends it lacks lawful authority to tap certain funds or that using them without a clear appropriation would violate the separation of powers; advocates and some legal analysts counter that statutory language, historical agency contingency plans, and prior practice authorize temporary action to maintain benefits. Courts have so far intervened to require use of available emergency funds in some cases, but appeals are pending and the scope of permissible executive action remains contested. The practical upshot is that limited executive tools exist but they are neither unfettered nor settled law, leaving resolution to pending appellate and possibly Supreme Court review ^{[1] [4]}.

6. Big picture: law, politics, and precedent will decide whether SNAP can be funded without new appropriations

Congress retains primary responsibility for creating and renewing entitlement funding; presidential and executive-branch mechanisms can only bridge short gaps under constrained statutory authority and are vulnerable to legal challenge. Recent judicial orders from October–November 2025 illustrate that courts will enforce statutory frameworks when benefit programs are threatened, but final legal boundaries will be established only through ongoing appeals and potential legislative action. In short, the president cannot unilaterally and permanently spend new money on SNAP without Congress, though temporary, contested measures exist that have been and will continue to be litigated ^{[1] [6] [3]}.