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.
Which members of Congress voted against SNAP funding most recently?
Executive Summary
Congress did not record a single unified roll-call “against SNAP funding” vote; instead, a series of procedural moves and blocked unanimous‑consent requests in late October–early November 2025 prevented immediate passage of bills or resolutions to keep benefits flowing. Key named congressional actors who directly blocked or objected to near‑term SNAP measures include Senate Republican leaders — notably Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Senate Republican leadership figures such as John Barrasso — who objected to unanimous‑consent requests or led efforts to block Democratic measures, while some Republicans (including Josh Hawley and a bipartisan group of co‑sponsors) supported standalone SNAP funding proposals [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. What “voted against” actually meant in the recent SNAP fight — procedural obstruction, not a single roll call
News coverage and congressional statements show the most consequential actions were procedural objections and blocked unanimous‑consent requests, not a simple yea‑nay roll call on a single funding bill. Senate Democrats repeatedly tried to use unanimous consent to pass short‑term or targeted SNAP funding measures; those requests were objected to on the floor, which functionally prevented the measures from advancing [1] [2]. Reporting indicates Senate Republican leaders framed objections as strategic leverage to demand a broader agreement to end a government shutdown rather than as a direct “no” on SNAP in committee or on the floor; this distinction matters because it changes the practical effect (benefits kept from immediate funding) versus the formal legislative record (absence of a roll‑call rejection) [2] [3]. The procedural nature of the objections has been emphasized by both parties in their messaging and press releases [1] [6].
2. Who was explicitly named as blocking aid — Thune and Barrasso led the objections
Multiple contemporaneous accounts identify Senate Majority Leader John Thune as the senator who objected to at least one unanimous‑consent request to pass a SNAP/WIC funding measure, effectively blocking expedited passage [1]. Other coverage documents that Senate Republicans led by figures like Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso blocked a separate Democratic resolution aimed at restoring full SNAP funding, framing the Democratic proposal as a political stunt and insisting reopening the government was the route to restore benefits [3]. These named actions represent the clearest, most recent instances where identifiable congressional leaders directly prevented immediate SNAP funding from being enacted during the shutdown [1] [3].
3. Republican split: some GOP senators pushed to protect benefits while leadership resisted
Contemporaneous reporting and sponsor lists show a divided Republican conference. Senator Josh Hawley authored a short‑term SNAP funding bill with 14 Republican co‑sponsors and bipartisan support from Democrats and independents, signaling that a significant bloc of Republicans favored at least limited SNAP coverage for November [5]. Senators such as Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins were reported among Republicans urging funding for benefits, while leadership prioritized broader shutdown leverage and declined to greenlight standalone SNAP votes [4] [5]. This intra‑party split explains why some GOP members publicly supported funding measures even as leadership officials, who control floor procedure, blocked unanimous‑consent paths [4] [2].
4. House context differs: committee votes and stated positions on cuts versus protections
In the House, the most recent committee vote highlighted was Rep. Shontel Brown’s opposition to a Republican Farm Bill (H.R. 8467) in the House Agriculture Committee, characterized as a vote against proposals that would cut SNAP by $30 billion; her vote is an identifiable instance of a member explicitly opposing cuts to SNAP in a committee markup rather than the Senate procedural battles [7]. Broader House messaging has included partisan claims that the other party is “denying” benefits, but the concrete, documented individual vote in the provided material is Brown’s May 24, 2024, committee vote against the GOP bill’s provisions [7]. The House record therefore shows different mechanics — policy votes over proposed cuts — as opposed to Senate procedural blocks on emergency funding [7] [6].
5. Messaging and potential agendas: why sources differ on who “blocked” benefits
Press releases from both parties frame the events to fit political goals: Senate Democrats emphasize Republican objections that left SNAP unfunded for millions and name Thune; Senate Republican and leadership statements emphasize the need to end the shutdown and label Democratic bills as political maneuvers [1] [3]. Independent reporting documents both the named objections and the bipartisan co‑sponsorship of Hawley’s bill, showing genuine divisions in motives: some Republicans sought to shield SNAP, while leadership used procedural tools to maintain leverage [5] [4]. Readers should note that Democratic and Republican communications serve advocacy ends; the underlying factual thread is that leadership objections, not a single roll‑call rejection, prevented immediate SNAP funding [1] [2].
6. Bottom line and what remains verifiable right now
The verifiable, recent facts are: Senate leaders John Thune and John Barrasso used procedural objections to block Democratic efforts to immediately fund SNAP in late October–early November 2025, and a separate Republican‑led short‑term proposal had multiple GOP co‑sponsors who supported funding [1] [3] [5]. The House had earlier committee action where Rep. Shontel Brown voted against a GOP Farm Bill she deemed harmful to SNAP beneficiaries [7]. These actions combined produced the practical outcome — interrupted or delayed benefits for millions — even though there is not a single, comprehensive roll‑call list of “who voted against SNAP” because the decisive moves were procedural and partisan messaging amplified by both sides [2] [6].