Republican Senators have voted 12 times to fund SNAP. Democrat Senators have voted 12 times to NOT fund

1. The “12 times” line: whose message and what it means

The specific “12 times” phrasing appears in USDA and administration messaging accusing Senate Democrats of repeatedly opposing votes that, according to the USDA, would have funded SNAP — a banner that was noted and quoted by FactCheck.org and Newsweek ^{[1] [2]}. That phrasing reflects a political framing of a series of votes or procedural objections; reporting does not present a single, simple roll-call tally showing each party voting exactly as the meme implies across identical funding measures ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Multiple, different votes — funding bills, CRs and targeted SNAP bills

News coverage shows several different legislative vehicles were in play: full continuing resolutions (CRs) to reopen the government, standalone targeted SNAP bills like Sen. Josh Hawley’s Keep SNAP Funded Act, and nonbinding measures such as Sen. Jeff Merkley’s attempt to declare the administration obligated to pay benefits. Republicans and some Democrats backed different targeted bills; Democrats generally argued a clean CR was the way to fully fund SNAP and other programs ^{[5] [6] [7] [8]}.

3. Contingency funds, math and legal/operational constraints

Nonpartisan and watchdog reporting notes Congress had allocated contingency reserves across fiscal 2024–25 totaling roughly $5–6 billion that could be used for SNAP, while full monthly SNAP costs are larger — estimates put a full month near $8–9 billion — so reserves alone might not cover all November benefits ^{[1] [3] [8]}. FactCheck.org and Snopes also point out that some contingency money was intended for administrative costs and might not be fully available for direct benefits under USDA shutdown plans ^{[1] [3]}.

4. Court rulings and executive guidance changed the picture on payments

As the standoff continued, federal judges ordered the administration to use contingency funds or other authorities to provide partial or full benefits; the USDA at different times directed states to issue partial payments, later sought to fund full payments after court orders, and even faced a temporary Supreme Court stay that reversed a lower-court order — a sequence covered by POLITICO, CNN, NPR and others ^{[9] [4] [10]}. That shifting legal and administrative posture complicates a clean partisan tally.

5. How senators actually voted — mixed bipartisan movement, not an even 12/12 split

Reporting documents bipartisan efforts: a GOP group of senators backed Hawley’s targeted bill with one Democratic co-sponsor, and some Democrats later voted to restore funding in broader packages; other Democrats opposed specific Republican measures because they were tied to other priorities ^{[5] [11] [7]}. Coverage does not support a literal, symmetrical count of “Republicans voted 12 times to fund, Democrats voted 12 times to not fund” as a complete accounting of every relevant roll call ^{[5] [11] [7]}.

6. Politics and messaging: who benefits from the simple line

The “12 times” message is politically useful because it condenses a pro-administration argument that Democrats blocked discrete procedural opportunities to fund SNAP; independent outlets and advocates countered that the administration could have used contingency authorities or that bills on the floor were tied to other policy demands ^{[1] [3] [7]}. Both sides used selective framings: Republicans highlighted procedural defeats or Democratic opposition to specific Republican bills, while Democrats emphasized Republican control of the chamber and the need for a full government re-opening to resolve SNAP long-term ^{[1] [7]}.

7. What reporting does not say (limits and open questions)

Available sources do not provide a single, authoritative roll-call list showing twelve identical votes where every Republican voted one way and every Democrat the other; instead, coverage describes multiple votes, procedural moves, and competing bills with mixed bipartisan support ^{[1] [5] [7]}. Detailed vote-by-vote accounting across all procedural steps is not assembled in the cited stories and fact checks ^{[1] [3]}.

Bottom line: the “12 times” claim is rooted in real messaging and rounds of congressional action, but reporters and fact-checkers say the story is more complicated — it involves different bills, contingency fund math, court rulings and shifting administration guidance — and cannot be reduced to a simple equal-and-opposite 12–12 party tally without more granular vote records ^{[1] [3] [7]}.