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 President Donald Trump redirect tariff revenues to fund SNAP benefits in 2018 or 2019?
Executive Summary
President Donald Trump did not redirect tariff revenues to fund SNAP benefits in 2018 or 2019; contemporaneous records and later reviews show the administration used other authorities and contingency funds for assistance programs in that period, while tariff or Section 32 proceeds were used for different purposes and debated for later years. The closest contemporaneous actions were large USDA trade-aid and Market Facilitation payments to farmers and selective commodity purchases for food banks, not a formal redirection of tariff receipts to the SNAP entitlement in 2018–2019 [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What supporters and critics say — separating headline claims from record-checked facts
The central claim under review is that President Trump “redirected tariff revenues to fund SNAP benefits in 2018 or 2019.” Contemporary governmental accounting and journalism around those years show no documented, programmatic reallocation of tariff receipts into SNAP as an ongoing policy. Instead, the Trump administration’s responses to trade disruptions included the Market Facilitation Program and USDA purchase programs that delivered tens of billions in support to farmers and some commodity purchases for food distribution, but these were implemented under existing authorities like the Commodity Credit Corporation or specific USDA programs rather than an explicit transfer of tariff revenue into the SNAP entitlement [1] [2] [3]. Opponents of the administration sometimes conflated emergency food purchases or later discussions about using Section 32 authority with a past, formal redirection of tariff income into SNAP, but the documentary trail for 2018–2019 does not substantiate that specific claim [3] [4].
2. A detailed timeline: tariffs, farmer aid, and nutrition-program decisions in 2018–2019
From 2018 into 2019 the Trump administration imposed tariffs that increased federal tariff receipts and simultaneously launched substantial federal responses to trade retaliation that affected farmers. The USDA’s 2019 trade aid package included multiple programs — Market Facilitation payments, commodity purchases for distribution, and trade promotion assistance — totaling many billions to support agricultural producers and to purchase surplus commodities for food banks and related outlets; these moves were executed using existing USDA and CCC authorities, not by a declared transfer of tariff revenue into SNAP’s regular benefit stream [1] [2]. Independent reviewers and the GAO later documented the amounts paid to farmers and the authorities used; none documented a policy that rerouted tariff revenue into SNAP benefits as of 2018–2019 [3]. The administrative choice to buy commodities for food distribution is distinct from a policy to fund SNAP, a federal entitlement, through tariff receipts.
3. Why confusion arose — emergency purchases, contingency funds, and later debates
Confusion stems from several adjacent facts: the administration purchased surplus commodities for distribution to food banks (which intersects with anti-hunger efforts), large farmer-assistance transfers were highly visible, and later episodes in 2025 and reporting around shutdowns raised questions about using Section 32 tariff-related authority for nutrition programs. Critics and some news reports described available tariff-related funds or Section 32 balances as potential sources to avert benefit shortfalls during later crises, prompting retrospective claims that tariffs had been used earlier — but contemporaneous sources from 2018–2019 show the funding mechanisms used were different [1] [5] [4]. Those later debates about using tariff proceeds to fill SNAP gaps in shutdown scenarios reflect policy choices in different years and do not retroactively prove a 2018–2019 redirection.
4. Multiple viewpoints and possible agendas worth flagging
Advocates for increased anti-hunger spending and some Democrats criticized the Trump administration’s choices on emergency benefit timing and on not tapping certain funds during later crises, portraying the administration as withholding callable resources; this framing can create the impression of prior usage where none existed [5] [4]. Supporters of the administration point to the large sums spent supporting farmers and to commodity purchases that benefited food banks as evidence the administration was addressing food insecurity harms from trade tensions, which is factually correct but different in mechanism and intent from funding SNAP via tariff receipts [2] [3]. Fact-checking must therefore distinguish between purchases that aid food distribution, farmer assistance paid via other authorities, and a formal policy of reassigning tariff revenue into the SNAP entitlement.
5. Bottom line and where reporting still needs clarity
The bottom line: there is no substantiated evidence that tariff revenues were redirected to fund SNAP benefits in 2018 or 2019; the documented federal actions in those years were farmer support programs and commodity purchases executed under existing USDA and CCC authorities rather than a tariff-to-SNAP transfer [1] [2] [3]. Later discussions and 2025-era decisions around using Section 32 or other funds to address SNAP shortfalls are distinct episodes that have sometimes been conflated with the 2018–2019 record, producing misleading impressions [5] [4]. For readers seeking primary documentation, the USDA program descriptions and GAO summaries from 2019–2020 are the clearest contemporaneous records showing the actual authorities and funding flows [3].