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.
Has any administration used executive action to fund SNAP during a shutdown before 2018 or 2019?
Executive Summary
The claim asks whether any administration used executive action to fund SNAP during a government shutdown before the 2018–2019 lapse; the balance of evidence shows that SNAP benefits did not lapse in prior shutdowns, but historical continuity resulted from agency funding mechanisms and statutory carryovers, not novel presidential orders—scholars and agency accounts frame those as administrative actions rather than discrete new executive orders. Contemporary reviews find no clear precedent of a president issuing a standalone executive order to create new SNAP funding before 2018–2019; instead, USDA and Treasury practices relied on contingency reserves, apportionment authorities, and existing appropriations language to keep benefits flowing [1] [2] [3].
1. Why SNAP never stopped in past shutdowns — the mechanics that mattered
Historical accounts and analyses emphasize that SNAP has repeatedly been shielded during lapses in annual appropriations by statutory and agency mechanisms rather than by headline-grabbing presidential directives. Policy reviews note that SNAP’s funding continuity across decades relied on multiyear carryover balances, contingency reserve funds coded into program law, and administrative apportionments that agencies used to meet monthly obligations [2] [4]. Researchers and USDA documents reviewing the 2018–2019 episode describe the mechanism that permitted February 2019 payments as language in a then‑expired continuing resolution and long-standing fiscal practices; these are presented as agency-level implementations of existing statutory authorities rather than a novel executive action created to substitute for appropriations [4] [1]. Scholars who surveyed prior shutdowns identify USDA’s use of contingency and carryover funds as the repeated instrument that prevented benefit interruption [3].
2. Where analysts disagree — framing “executive action” versus “agency implementation”
Some sources characterize USDA and Treasury steps as executive action because they are discretionary administrative uses of available funds; other sources draw a sharp distinction, reserving that term for affirmative presidential orders or transfers of funds outside statute. Commentaries asserting prior administrations used executive action cite decades-long USDA practice of advancing benefits or tapping contingency reserves during short appropriations gaps [3] [5]. In contrast, policy explainers and advocacy pieces stress that those measures were statutory or regulatory authorities already in place—not unilateral presidential appropriations—and explicitly note a lack of evidence for a standalone presidential move prior to 2018–2019 [2] [1]. The difference is consequential: calling an agency’s statutory contingency tap “executive action” broadens the term beyond direct presidential orders, while strict definitions exclude routine administrative fund management.
3. The 2018–2019 shutdown as a focal point — what happened and why it’s different
The 2018–2019 lapse crystallized public attention because USDA used a specific provision of the expired continuing resolution and administrative scheduling to advance February payments, prompting debate over the limits of executive or agency discretion under prolonged shutdown conditions [4] [1]. Legal and journalistic accounts from that period examine whether the administration’s steps amounted to creative reuse of authority and whether similar tactics would be lawful or feasible in future shutdowns; some later reporting frames those maneuvers as an unprecedented intensity of administrative response, while others place them in a continuum of past practice [6] [5]. The episode generated litigation and policy analysis that clarified the distinction between agency operational authorities and the political framing of those decisions as “executive” moves [7] [6].
4. The documentary record — what primary sources show and what they don’t
USDA memos, congressional summaries, and policy reviews compiled after the 2018–2019 shutdown document use of contingency reserves and apportionment authority but do not cite any prior instance of a president issuing a standalone executive order to create SNAP funding during an earlier shutdown [5] [4]. Retrospective analyses that surveyed shutdowns back to the 1980s conclude SNAP benefits have not lapsed and attribute continuity to statutory funding mechanisms and agency implementation rather than presidential fiat [3]. Where secondary sources claim earlier administrations “used executive action,” they typically rely on a broader definition encompassing agency-level financial management; primary agency records and contemporaneous legal analysis do not present clear evidence of a distinct presidential executive action before 2018–2019 [2] [1].
5. Bottom line and implications — how definitions shape policy debates
The factual bottom line is that SNAP benefits did not stop in prior shutdowns because agencies used authorized reserves and administrative tools, and there is no clear record of a president issuing a distinct executive order to fund SNAP before 2018–2019; disagreements hinge on whether those agency maneuvers count as “executive action” [3] [2]. For policymakers and litigants, the practical takeaway is that reliance on contingency funds and apportionment authorities is an established fallback, but prolonged closures expose limits and legal risks that courts and Congress may later scrutinize; debates should therefore focus on statutory fixes and explicit contingency funding rather than semantic disputes about what to call routine agency financial management [6] [1].