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.
Have U.S. presidents used national emergencies or disaster declarations to move funds during federal shutdowns and what were the legal outcomes?
Executive Summary
Presidents have sometimes tried to shift or tap federal funds outside of regular appropriations during shutdowns or crises, but the practice is legally contested and politically charged; courts and Congress have at times constrained those moves and forced partial rollbacks or limited judicial endorsements. Recent cases show administrations can and do use contingency or emergency authorities to move money, but legal outcomes depend on the statute invoked and active judicial orders [1] [2] [3].
1. What claim are we verifying and why it matters — the money-movement allegation exposed
The central claim is that U.S. presidents have used national emergency or disaster declarations to shift federal funds during government shutdowns. This claim matters because shifting funds circumvents Congress’s power of the purse and can materially affect eligibility and delivery of programs like SNAP or infrastructure spending, raising separation-of-powers questions and immediate impacts for recipients. Reporting noted that administrations have limited flexibility during shutdowns but will reallocate available funds to keep critical operations running; that same reporting also tied the controversy to prior uses of emergency powers, such as the border-wall declaration, to illustrate legal and political consequences [4] [1]. Recent news specifically documented judicial orders and executive commitments tied to SNAP payments during a 2025 shutdown episode, showing the practical stakes [2] [3].
2. Past example: emergency declaration for border funding set a precedent and a fight
The Trump administration’s 2019 national emergency to finance a border wall showed how an emergency declaration can be used to redirect funds originally appropriated for other purposes, and it provoked sustained legal challenges and political debate. Coverage framed that declaration as emblematic of broader executive attempts to reroute money outside Congress’s appropriations process, and it underscored the legal and constitutional controversies that follow such moves [1]. That episode created a legal and rhetorical template invoked in subsequent disputes over whether an administration may invoke emergency or contingency authorities when appropriations are otherwise unavailable due to a shutdown.
3. Recent, concrete instance: SNAP funding and a court order in 2025
During the 2025 shutdown, the administration committed to partially funding SNAP by tapping a contingency fund after a federal court ordered the use of that fund to cover benefits; the government agreed to deplete that contingency to provide reduced benefits, and the move sparked debate over whether additional emergency funds should be used [2] [3]. The legal outcome was not a blanket endorsement of unrestricted executive reprogramming but a limited judicially compelled release of specific contingency funds, demonstrating that courts may channel executive flexibility rather than broadly endorse emergency transfers during shutdowns. Reporting highlighted timelines and practical limits, noting that additional emergency funding decisions could take months and remain politically contested [3].
4. What legal patterns emerge — conditional authority, litigation, and constrained use
Across these episodes reporting shows a consistent pattern: administrations claim statutory or emergency authority to reallocate funds; opponents challenge those claims; and courts sometimes allow specific, constrained uses while rejecting broader transfers. Legal outcomes therefore trend toward case-by-case adjudication rather than a sweeping precedent permitting unrestricted fund-shifting during shutdowns. Coverage emphasized that agencies have some ability to prioritize operations, but such prioritization does not equate to carte blanche for reallocating appropriated sums without statutory hooks or judicial relief [4] [1] [2].
5. Politics and optics: why declarations are weaponized and contested
Media analyses framed emergency and disaster claims as political tools as much as legal maneuvers: administrations cite emergencies to achieve policy goals stalled by Congress, while opponents characterize the tactic as executive overreach. This results in contested public narratives that influence congressional negotiations and judicial reception, since courts and legislators weigh both statutory text and the political context. Contemporary coverage of SNAP funding in 2025 shows lawmakers criticizing or pressuring executives not only on legal grounds but also for political signaling, reinforcing that legal outcomes are intertwined with political consequences [3] [5].
6. Bottom line — limited wins for executives, unresolved structural questions
The factual record shows presidents have pursued emergency or contingency routes to move money during shutdowns and other standoffs, and courts have at times approved narrowly tailored uses while resisting broad reallocations that bypass Congress. The overall legal outcome is mixed: administrations can obtain temporary, specific funding adjustments but not unfettered authority to reprogram appropriations during shutdowns, leaving the structural separation-of-powers question unresolved and subject to future litigation and legislative clarification [1] [2] [3].