Did the Senate pass the 2025 continuing resolution that changed SNAP funding and on what date?

1. What actually happened in the Senate — a procedural standoff, not a final funding change

The Senate’s activity in late 2025 centered on repeated procedural votes to advance a House-passed continuing resolution (CR) to reopen the government, not the enactment of a Senate-passed CR that permanently altered SNAP funding. The upper chamber took at least thirteen failed procedural votes and was preparing for a 14th vote, with leaders acknowledging the need for 60 votes to advance the measure and predicting the November 21 funding date in the House bill would almost certainly be revised. Those repeated failures meant no enacted CR had changed SNAP policy at that point; instead the Senate’s actions reflected a stalemate that left appropriations unresolved and SNAP subject to contingency or emergency mechanisms during the shutdown ^{[2] [3]}.

2. Earlier budget blueprint versus a continuing resolution — why the distinction matters

In April 2025 the Senate passed a separate budget resolution that included proposed cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, which is a policy blueprint and not a binding funding law. A budget resolution sets targets and signals priorities but does not itself appropriate funds; actual program funding requires passage of appropriations bills or a continuing resolution. Confusing the April budget resolution with a CR would conflate a policy proposal with the legal action that actually funds federal programs. The April resolution’s mention of SNAP cuts indicates congressional intent and political direction, but it did not by itself change benefit rules or funding flows for SNAP recipients during the shutdown ^[1].

3. Immediate effects on SNAP recipients — partial benefits, delays, and legal contours

Because appropriations were not in place, the Trump administration announced it would use a contingency fund to issue partial SNAP benefits for November — roughly 50% for eligible households — while some states could face delays in distributing those payments. That emergency approach followed judicial orders in some jurisdictions and highlighted that short-term administrative measures, litigation, and state implementation logistics — not a new Senate-passed CR — were driving benefit outcomes for millions of households. The result was a patchwork of coverage and timing that created real hardship for recipients even though a formal statutory change to SNAP had not been enacted by the Senate ^{[3] [4]}.

4. Conflicting proposals and political agendas — what different actors were pushing

Two different legislative tracks were visible: the House-passed CR designed to reopen government temporarily with a November 21 funding date and the earlier House reconciliation plan that proposed deep, long-term SNAP cuts. Senate Republicans and Democrats differed on whether to advance the House CR, and the April Senate budget resolution signaled Republican interest in longer-term cuts to entitlement programs. Advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers warned that proposed reconciliation cuts would deeply affect low-income families; proponents argued fiscal restraint and targeting. These competing agendas meant that votes on the CR were entangled with broader negotiations over appropriations and reconciliation, and the Senate’s failure to pass a CR reflected those strategic calculations rather than the passage of a final SNAP-altering funding bill ^{[5] [1]}.

5. Bottom line for the claim and chronological clarity

The claim that the Senate passed a 2025 continuing resolution that changed SNAP funding is not supported by the contemporaneous record as of November 4, 2025. The Senate passed a budget resolution in April that proposed SNAP cuts, but it had not enacted a continuing resolution altering SNAP benefits; instead, the Senate repeatedly failed to advance the House CR and the administration resorted to contingency funds and legal rulings to partially sustain benefits during the shutdown. Any statement asserting a Senate-passed CR changed SNAP funding would therefore conflate distinct legislative steps and miss the key dates and procedural failures documented in the congressional actions and contemporaneous reporting ^{[1] [2] [3]}.