Did President Trump divert tariff money to fund snap during the 2025 shutdown?
Executive summary
President Trump’s 2025 administration used some tariff revenue for child nutrition programs (making $450 million available for WIC) but did not divert the larger pool of tariff receipts to fully fund November SNAP during the shutdown; the administration instead tapped $5.25 billion in contingency funds and said it would not move the additional tariff money needed to cover the roughly $4 billion–$9 billion monthly SNAP shortfall [1] [2]. Courts, governors and advocates pushed back — a federal judge later ordered full funding and criticized apparent political intent to disrupt SNAP [3] [4].
1. What actually happened to tariff revenue and SNAP funding during the 2025 shutdown
The administration explicitly allocated $450 million in tariff revenue to shore up the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) but declined to tap the larger tariff pool to pay full November SNAP benefits, saying contingency funds totaling $5.25 billion would be used instead [1] [2]. USDA filings and Reuters reporting state the administration refused to re-route the additional billions of tariff dollars that would have been necessary to fully fund SNAP’s monthly cost of roughly $8–9 billion [2] [1].
2. How much would have been required — and why tariff money wasn’t used
SNAP costs in a month were reported at about $8 billion–$9 billion; the administration said drawing down billions more from tariffs risked creating shortfalls in child nutrition programs (school lunches and related accounts) that tariff receipts already supported [2] [1]. USDA officials argued shifting approximately $4 billion for one month of SNAP would “merely shift the problem” onto millions of children who rely on school meals [1].
3. The legal and political pushback
Federal judges ordered the administration to restart and fully fund SNAP; one judge admonished officials, attributing delays in part to an apparent effort by the President and aides “to disrupt the program ‘for political reasons’” [3]. States and governors moved to declare emergencies or use surplus state funds to bridge gaps; some states rushed to redirect resources while the federal government issued shifting guidance and memos telling states to undo full benefit payments after a Supreme Court stay [5] [4] [6].
4. Conflicting narratives: administration rationale vs. critics
The administration framed its choices as protecting child nutrition and preserving funds designated for school meals and other programs, arguing procedural and statutory constraints limited using tariff receipts for SNAP [1] [2]. Critics, including some Democrats and state officials, said tariff revenue could have been tapped to prevent SNAP from going dark and accused the administration of a political decision to withhold full funding [7] [3]. Reporting shows both: the administration used some tariff revenue for WIC but declined to reassign the larger sums needed for full SNAP payments [1] [2].
5. What the courts and directives changed — and remaining confusion
A Rhode Island judge ordered full funding and later another judge ordered full payments for roughly 42 million people; the Justice Department appealed, producing legal back-and-forth and operational confusion for states trying to pay benefits [3] [4]. The USDA then issued memos directing states to issue partial rather than full benefits and threatening sanctions if states failed to “undo” unauthorized full payments after the Supreme Court intervened, leaving implementation chaotic [4] [6].
6. Bigger context: tariffs as a budget source and political promises
Trump publicly promoted using tariff revenue for dividends and other programs, but independent analyses and reporting note tariff receipts remain a limited and politically fraught revenue stream; administrations face competing legal earmarks for those funds and potential downstream consequences [8] [9]. Reporting also highlights the mismatch between political promises about “tariff dividends” and the immediate legal and programmatic constraints around reassigning tariff dollars in a shutdown [10] [9].
7. Bottom line and limits of available reporting
Available sources make clear the administration did use $450 million of tariff money for WIC but did not transfer the larger tariff reserves to fully fund SNAP in November 2025; instead it used $5.25 billion in contingency funds and resisted shifting additional tariff revenue, prompting lawsuits and a judge’s rebuke [1] [2] [3]. Whether internal deliberations were driven primarily by legal constraint or political strategy is disputed in the record: judges and critics cited political motive while the administration cited programmatic risks and statutory limits [3] [1]. Available sources do not mention internal memos beyond the public filings and directives cited here.