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.
Does the government have to be open to fund SNAP?
Executive Summary
The government does not strictly have to be fully “open” under a new appropriations law for SNAP benefits to be paid; federal law and agency practice allow the USDA to use contingency funds, multi-year carryovers, and OMB apportionment to keep benefits flowing during lapses in appropriations, and courts have ordered the department to release such funds when necessary [1] [2] [3]. Practical outcomes vary: some states have issued full monthly SNAP payments despite shutdowns while federal actions, court orders, and administrative decisions have created partial payments, delayed disbursements, or temporary disruptions for recipients [4] [5] [6].
1. Why SNAP can keep running even when Congress hasn’t passed funding — the legal and administrative mechanics that matter
Federal statute and USDA practice classify SNAP as an entitlement that is normally funded through annual appropriations but also supported by a dedicated contingency reserve and administrative authorities that allow benefits to continue when appropriations lapse. Agencies can rely on multi-year carry-over funds and OMB quarterly apportionments to sustain payments, and historical practice shows the USDA has used these mechanisms to avoid an immediate cutoff of benefits during shutdowns [1] [3]. Courts have intervened to require the use of emergency funds when plaintiffs argued that households faced imminent harm, and judges have ordered the USDA to disburse from contingency balances. That judicial oversight means that a shutdown does not automatically equate to a legal prohibition on SNAP payments; rather, the ability to pay depends on the remaining balances, legal rulings, and executive decisions about how to apportion limited federal cash [2] [7].
2. How courts and the executive branch have shaped outcomes — clashes over who pays and when
Recent events show the interplay of the judiciary and the executive strongly influences whether SNAP recipients receive full benefits during funding gaps. Federal judges have ordered the administration to release contingency funds to cover SNAP, and the administration’s public statements have sometimes contradicted legal filings and court orders, resulting in both partial payments and litigation over timing [2] [7]. The White House has at times announced partial funding approaches — for example stating it would cover roughly half of program costs in a given month — while courts have demanded full disbursement where plaintiffs demonstrated immediate need. These clashes create uncertainty for recipients and for states administering benefits, and they show that legal mandates can force payments even when the political branches do not agree on appropriations [2] [4].
3. What happened on the ground — state actions and immediate impacts for families
States do not all react the same way when federal appropriations lapse. Some states preloaded EBT cards or issued full monthly benefits using federal contingency funds or state-level approaches, while others experienced delays or only partial disbursement pending federal guidance and court outcomes [4] [6]. The immediate human impact has been evident in rising demand at food pantries and long lines for free meals in communities where SNAP issuance was delayed or uncertain. Those coping behaviors underscore that benefits already loaded on EBT cards remain usable, but households expecting new monthly allotments can face acute hardship if those payments are delayed or reduced, increasing reliance on charitable food providers [5] [6].
4. Points of disagreement and political signals — statements versus legal obligations
Public statements from administration officials can conflict with the legal reality that courts may enforce; for example, claims that benefits would not resume until congressional action contrast with judicial orders requiring the use of contingency funds to pay benefits as soon as possible [2] [7]. This divergence highlights a political calculation — using public messaging to pressure Congress — colliding with statutory entitlements and emergency judicial remedies designed to prevent immediate harm to beneficiaries. Analysts and advocates note that while executive messaging can shape expectations, it does not erase the USDA’s authority or judicial power to compel disbursement when law and precedent support it [2] [3].
5. Bottom line for policymakers, states, and recipients — what actually determines whether SNAP pays
Whether SNAP is funded during a government shutdown comes down to a combination of statutory entitlement rules, the size of contingency funds and carryovers, administrative apportionment choices by OMB and USDA, state administrative actions, and court rulings. A shutdown does not categorically stop SNAP, but it increases reliance on finite contingency funds and legal remedies; prolonged funding gaps risk exhausting those balances and producing real interruptions or retroactive payments. Policymakers seeking certainty must either enact appropriations or authorize explicit stopgap funding; absent that, recipients and states remain subject to administrative limits and judicial interventions that determine benefit timing and completeness [1] [3] [4].