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.
Did Democrats vote against SNAP benefits in 2023 or 2024?
Executive Summary
Democrats did not cast votes that can be accurately described as directly voting “against SNAP benefits” in 2023 or 2024; instead, they repeatedly voted against Republican-led continuing resolutions and funding packages that bundled SNAP funding with other policy provisions, or they pursued alternative mechanisms to preserve benefits—actions that opponents framed as blocking SNAP [1] [2]. The debate centers on procedural votes during government funding standoffs, shifting USDA guidance on contingency funds, and partisan messaging in 2025 that repackages those procedural oppositions as a denial of benefits [3] [4] [5].
1. How the “voted against SNAP” claim became shorthand for complex funding fights
News reports and fact checks show the central confusion: multiple Senate and House votes in 2023–2024 were on continuing resolutions or Republican bills that bundled SNAP funding with other priorities, and Democrats voted against those packages because they objected to unrelated provisions, not because they opposed SNAP itself. Democrats opposed Republican-crafted CRs and funding bills—but those CRs included SNAP along with other policy riders and cuts—so a “no” vote on the package is not a direct vote to cut SNAP [1] [2]. Fact-checkers explicitly note there is no clear evidence Democrats cast direct votes aimed specifically at rescinding or denying SNAP benefits in those years; disputes were about broader funding terms and tactics during shutdown brinksmanship [3] [5].
2. The tally: repeated opposition to Republican bills, not explicit rejection of SNAP
Multiple sources document that Democrats voted against House- or Republican-sponsored continuing resolutions repeatedly—sometimes a dozen or more procedural rejections—while pursuing alternative funding paths to restore or preserve SNAP and other programs. These votes are often counted by critics as “voting against SNAP,” but the factual record shows Democrats were opposing the overall package and negotiating separate remedies rather than endorsing cuts to SNAP [1] [2]. Reports also show Democrats sought and introduced competing measures intended to ensure SNAP and related nutrition programs continued to be funded, signaling intent to maintain benefits even while rejecting Republican terms [6] [5].
3. The USDA contingency-fund wrinkle that muddied messaging
A crucial administrative element shifted the debate: USDA guidance on whether contingency or reserve funds could be used to pay SNAP benefits changed between administrations, and the Biden administration later said the reserve could not be used for regular SNAP payments—contradicting earlier positions and creating gaps when funding was in dispute. That administrative pivot contributed to payments being reduced or delayed and allowed political opponents to blame congressional votes, even though the root included executive guidance and budget mechanics [3]. The policy change made it easier for messaging to conflate procedural congressional opposition with operational failures to pay benefits on time.
4. Competing narratives and partisan messaging in 2025 that recycle earlier votes
In 2025 Republican committee releases and some advocacy materials framed Democratic votes in funding fights as a deliberate denial of full SNAP benefits; those releases rely on counting “no” votes on multi-issue CRs as votes “against SNAP” [4]. That framing serves a clear partisan purpose—assigning blame to political opponents during an ongoing program stress point—and the underlying facts are more nuanced: procedural opposition to bundled bills, administrative guidance changes, and bipartisan bargaining dynamics [4] [2]. Independent fact-checkers and newsrooms emphasize the need to separate package-level rejections from explicit votes to cut SNAP eligibility or benefits.
5. What the public record establishes and what remains omitted
The public record across the cited reporting and fact-checks establishes that Democrats did vote against multiple funding measures that included SNAP in 2023–2024, but they did not vote on standalone measures expressly to eliminate or reduce SNAP benefits; Democrats repeatedly proposed alternatives to fund SNAP while opposing Republican terms [1] [2]. Key omissions in public messaging are the administrative role of USDA reserve rules, the content of the rejected packages beyond SNAP, and the chronology—these omissions allow simplistic “voted against SNAP” claims to stick in political rhetoric [3] [5]. Readers should treat claims that Democrats “voted against SNAP” as shorthand for a complex series of procedural votes, administrative decisions, and partisan messaging rather than a literal, single vote to cut the program.