Does Trump need congressional approval to fund snap during a government shutdown

1. Court orders versus executive choices: judges forced action, not Congress

Federal judges in multiple jurisdictions issued orders compelling the Trump administration to fund SNAP benefits during the shutdown, explicitly directing the use of USDA contingency money to make payments that otherwise would have lapsed. The rulings framed the administration’s initial plan to halt or sharply reduce benefits as likely unlawful and required immediate remedial measures to prevent hunger among millions, including 16 million children cited by the courts ^[2]. These decisions demonstrate that the executive branch possesses administrative levers—contingency funds and emergency authority—to pay SNAP during a lapse in appropriations, and that courts can compel the executive to exercise those levers without new congressional legislation. The administration’s stated intent to appeal those orders underscores that the legal question of scope and limits of executive funding authority may be resolved only after prolonged litigation ^[2].

2. What the USDA actually did: partial payments, contingency accounting, and shifting percentages

Following litigation and internal agency decisions, USDA officials informed courts and the public that November SNAP allotments would be funded at partial rates using contingency funds—initially described as 50 percent, later adjusted to approximately 65 percent for many recipients after additional contingency resources were identified. The USDA’s contingency account balance figures—roughly $4–5 billion available against an estimated $8+ billion monthly need—shaped the partial-payment calculus and left states and recipients facing uneven outcomes ^{[1] [3] [4]}. The administration’s selective choice of which contingency pots to tap and how to calculate prorated payments materially affected benefit levels, producing a patchwork of outcomes and prompting further legal challenges and criticism that executive decisions rather than congressional appropriation choices were determining how much aid reached households ^{[1] [4]}.

3. Congress’s role: funding authority exists but wasn’t the immediate gating issue

Congress holds the power of the purse constitutionally and can enact appropriations to prevent any lapse; however, during the shutdown at issue, Congress had not passed the necessary continuing resolution or appropriations to cover SNAP. The practical question became whether the executive could lawfully fund SNAP during the lapse without fresh congressional action. Courts found emergency contingency funds Congress had already provided to USDA could be used to maintain benefits, meaning Congressional approval for a new appropriation was not strictly required to keep SNAP payments flowing when residual emergency funds exist ^{[5] [3]}. This distinction matters: courts compelled the executive to use existing statutory authorities and contingency balances that Congress previously authorized, rather than ordering new spending that would bypass Congress’s appropriations role outright ^[2].

4. Conflicting narratives and institutional incentives: administration strategy and judicial rebukes

The administration’s initial posture—reducing or pausing SNAP payments during shutdown negotiations—was presented as a budgetary and bargaining tactic; judges framed those choices as imperiling vulnerable populations and rebuked the administration’s motives. Advocacy groups and several courts emphasized the human impact of interruptions and ordered relief; the administration defended its approach as managing finite contingency resources and preserving funds for other priorities or future needs, announcing appeals to higher courts ^{[2] [5]}. These competing framings reveal institutional incentives: the executive can use funding choices as leverage in political negotiations, while courts emphasize statutorily mandated program continuity and the immediate welfare consequences of disruptions ^{[5] [2]}.

5. Bottom line and what remains unsettled: legal reality now, appeals next

The immediate legal reality in early November 2025 was that federal judges ordered the USDA to use contingency funds to resume and then fully restore SNAP benefits, and the USDA took steps to implement partial and then expanded payments based on available balances. Those court orders show the administration did not need a new congressional appropriation to make interim payments where Congress previously authorized contingency funds; however, the administration’s appeals and the differing calculations of available contingency money mean the ultimate legal boundaries—how much the executive can obligate without new appropriations and under what procedural constraints—remain subject to appellate review and potential further litigation ^{[2] [3]}. The litigation trajectory will determine whether courts ultimately limit or affirm the executive’s authority in future shutdown scenarios.