Fact check: Did the House of Representatives pass a 2025 continuing resolution to fund the federal government and SNAP?

1. Government funding: House action vs. Senate blockade — Who’s actually reopened the government?

Reporting from late October 2025 shows the House passed a funding measure, but the Senate did not clear it to reopen the government. Several accounts describe the Senate failing to advance a House-passed CR for the 13th time, noting only handfuls of Democrats voted to proceed and Senate Republican leadership conditioning negotiations on other issues ^{[1] [2]}. A contemporaneous live-update narrative frames the situation as House-passed legislation stalled in the Senate, producing a continuing partial shutdown rather than a funded government, which means the House vote alone did not restore appropriations or SNAP support ^{[5] [1]}. Statements by Senate leaders and the vote tallies are consistent across those reports ^[1].

2. Broad support for a clean CR — Coalition vs. Capitol reality

A press release and stakeholder summaries on October 28 describe bipartisan majorities and more than 300 organizations backing a clean, nonpartisan CR to reopen the government through November 21, portraying a strong constituency push to avoid service interruptions ^[3]. That advocacy contrasted with the Senate floor reality described in contemporaneous reporting: procedural maneuvers and partisan priorities kept the CR from advancing despite the external pressure. The juxtaposition of wide stakeholder backing and legislative impasse highlights a split between public, NGO, and some congressional majorities supporting a stopgap and the Senate’s procedural gridlock ^[3].

3. SNAP on the brink — Administrative limits and legal strategies

Multiple pieces report that SNAP benefits were at risk beginning November 1 because the USDA said it could not draw on a contingency reserve in this shutdown scenario; the department distinguished that reserve’s authorized use from the absence of appropriations ^[4]. States and Democratic attorneys general responded by pursuing litigation aimed at preventing cuts to SNAP during the lapse, emphasizing the immediate human impact of funding delays ^[6]. These administrative and legal developments show that even with a House-passed CR, operational rules and legal interpretations by USDA plus court actions were central to whether SNAP benefits would continue, independent of a single chamber’s vote ^{[4] [6]}.

4. Policy stakes: Prior House proposals and what a clean CR would avoid

Contextual reporting from earlier in 2025 shows the House had previously advanced budgetary changes and reconciliation measures proposing deep cuts to SNAP over a decade, signaling that some House proposals would have materially altered program size and eligibility ^[7]. The push for a clean CR by stakeholders and some lawmakers sought to avoid implementing partisan policy changes during a short-term funding fix, arguing a clean CR preserves current benefits and gives Congress breathing room ^{[3] [7]}. That debate illuminated competing objectives: immediate program continuity versus using CRs to enact longer-term policy priorities.

5. Synthesis and immediate reality as of late October 2025 — What the facts show

By October 28, the factual record shows the House voted for a CR, many stakeholders publicly supported a clean stopgap, and the Senate repeatedly blocked or failed to advance the House measure — leaving appropriations and SNAP funding unresolved going into November ^{[5] [1] [3]}. The USDA’s administrative stance and legal interventions by states underscored that a House vote alone did not guarantee benefits or avoid interruptions, and the public reporting contemporaneously called out the November 1 SNAP deadline as the immediate risk milestone ^{[4] [6]}. The aggregate picture: legislative passage in one chamber existed but did not translate into enacted funding.

6. What to watch and why it matters

The decisive factors moving forward—Senate floor action, possible negotiated deals, judicial rulings from state lawsuits, and USDA administrative decisions—determine whether SNAP benefits and federal operations would be restored or curtailed. Stakeholder pressure and bipartisan votes reported in late October signaled momentum for a clean CR, yet the Senate’s procedural refusals and competing policy aims kept the shutdown intact; the legal and administrative constraints made SNAP uniquely vulnerable even amid legislative back-and-forth ^{[3] [4] [6]}. Monitoring Senate votes, court filings, and USDA guidance after October 28 would reveal whether the House-passed CR ultimately resulted in funding and continuity.