Did USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue or Treasury approve using tariffs for SNAP payments in 2019 2020?

1. What people were claiming — and what the documents actually say, clearly and simply

The central claim under examination is that Secretary Perdue or Treasury officials authorized or approved the use of import tariffs to fund or directly finance SNAP payments in 2019–2020. The documents provided consistently do not support that claim. USDA communications and summaries of 2019 activity highlight Secretary Perdue’s programmatic accomplishments and relief for farmers but make no reference to redirecting tariff receipts to SNAP. Congressional staff analysis of 2019 trade aid likewise describes the Market Facilitation Program for farmers and other farm bill elements, not any tariff-to-SNAP funding mechanism. The GAO review details how payments were administered for farmers under the Market Facilitation Program, with no mention of tariff-funded SNAP disbursements ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. Government reporting and oversight: agriculture aid vs. nutrition benefits

Contemporaneous oversight and explanatory reports separate agricultural trade assistance from nutrition program funding. The Congressional Research Service explained the 2019 trade aid package and related USDA programs focusing on Market Facilitation Program payments to farmers, without any indication that tariff collections were earmarked for SNAP. The GAO’s August 2020 review examined program administration and payment distribution for 2019 farmer assistance, which confirms the oversight community was scrutinizing farmer relief rather than novel funding for SNAP. USDA press materials from December 2019 reiterate program accomplishments and do not describe any Treasury or USDA action to use tariffs for SNAP benefits ^{[2] [3] [1]}.

3. Legal and institutional constraints that make a tariff-to-SNAP switch unlikely

The constitutional and statutory architecture separates tariff authority and federal benefit funding. Analyses of Congressional and presidential tariff authority emphasize the distinct roles of Congress and the President in imposing tariffs and in directing federal spending; appropriation and programmatic authority for SNAP rests with Congress and USDA program administration, not Treasury’s unilateral redeployment of tariff receipts into entitlement disbursements. The supplied legal overview underscores how tariff policy and budgetary allocations are handled through different processes, which would make a sudden administrative reallocation to SNAP without explicit legislative action legally and politically problematic ^[5].

4. Political context and notable omissions — where discussion occurred and where it did not

Political debate in 2019 and 2020 focused heavily on tariffs’ economic effects, farm relief packages, and SNAP eligibility and administration, but the supplied academic and policy reviews do not document any formal plan or approval to use tariff revenues for SNAP. Scholarship and CRS primers on SNAP and the 2018 Farm Bill address funding levels, participation, and administrative changes; they record discussions of executive and legislative measures affecting SNAP but do not record a tariff-to-SNAP policy. That omission is meaningful: major policy changes to SNAP funding would ordinarily appear in CRS primers, USDA press statements, or GAO reports if enacted or formally approved ^{[6] [4] [1]}.

5. Bottom line, uncertainties, and the kind of evidence that would change the judgment

Based on the provided sources, the responsible conclusion is that neither Secretary Perdue nor Treasury approved using tariffs to make SNAP payments in 2019–2020. The available records show farm-targeted assistance and separate discussion of SNAP, but no instrument or approval linking tariff receipts to SNAP disbursements. Remaining uncertainty would be resolved by a contemporaneous statutory text, Treasury or USDA order explicitly authorizing such a transfer, or Congressional appropriation language directing tariff revenue to SNAP—none of which appears in the supplied materials. The absence of such documentation across USDA, CRS, and GAO records is a strong indicator that the claim is unsupported by the available evidence ^{[2] [3] [4] [5]}.