Last updated 2 weeks ago ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The federal government entered a shutdown on October 1, 2025, after Congress missed its September 30 deadline to pass new funding. Nearly 42 million Americans who depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program now face losing their benefits on November 1.
SNAP, commonly known as food stamps, is the country’s main defense against hunger. The USDA managed to pay October benefits before the shutdown began, but has told states to stop processing November payments. Children, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities make up the majority of recipients. The cutoff comes weeks before Thanksgiving.
The standoff centers on health care. Republicans say they will negotiate once a funding bill passes. Democrats say they will vote for funding once health care provisions are included.
How the System Works
SNAP is legally an entitlement program. Anyone who meets income and asset requirements is entitled to receive benefits. Unlike discretionary programs with spending caps, SNAP is open-ended mandatory spending, authorized through the Farm Bill. In fiscal 2024, the program cost over $100 billion, or 1.5% of federal spending.
The problem is that while the benefit is mandatory, the money to pay for it must be approved by Congress every year. When Congress fails to pass appropriations bills or a continuing resolution, agencies lose their authority to spend money. This triggers a shutdown.
The Legal Trigger
The Antideficiency Act, a 19th-century law, forbids federal agencies from spending money without congressional approval. It exists to enforce Congress’s constitutional power over federal spending. When funding expires, agencies must stop non-essential work and stop services.
For SNAP, this means the USDA cannot send states the billions needed for next month’s benefits once appropriations expire. The entitlement remains on the books, but the mechanism to deliver it freezes. This gap between a guaranteed benefit and annual funding creates real risk for millions of households.
How Benefits Reach Recipients
SNAP operates as a federal-state partnership. Each month, the USDA sends federal funds to state agencies. By mid-month, states compile benefit amounts for every eligible household and send an electronic file to their EBT vendor. The vendor loads the benefits onto EBT cards, which work like debit cards at authorized stores.
October benefits went out because the USDA obligated the funds before September 30. But as the shutdown continued past mid-October, the agency had no authority to obligate November funds. It directed states to halt their files to vendors, breaking the chain that delivers benefits.
The Contingency Fund Debate
The USDA has a contingency fund with an estimated $5 to $6 billion. Whether this money can and should keep benefits flowing has become the central fight.
The Case for Using the Fund
Democrats and policy experts say the Trump administration has both the money and the legal authority to prevent a hunger crisis. The USDA’s pre-shutdown plan stated that contingency funds were available to fund benefits if appropriations lapsed. The law creating the fund says it can be used when necessary to carry out program operations.
The $5 to $6 billion would cover most of SNAP’s roughly $8 to $9 billion monthly cost. Legal analysts say the USDA could transfer funds from other accounts to bridge the gap. According to budget analysts, the State Child Nutrition Programs account holds over $30 billion. USDA declined to use approximately $5-6 billion in contingency reserves, claiming they lack legal authority to do so—a position disputed by 25 state attorneys general, legal experts, and USDA’s own September 2025 shutdown plan.
The strongest evidence comes from the administration’s own actions. The White House has already authorized tariff revenue and transferred $300 million to keep WIC, the nutrition program for women and children, funded indefinitely. Critics say refusing to do the same for SNAP is a political choice, not a legal constraint. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have historically found ways to sustain SNAP during shutdowns.
The Case Against
The administration and its allies argue their hands are tied. A USDA memo says the contingency fund can only supplement benefits when Congress has appropriated money but that money proves insufficient. Since fiscal 2026 appropriations have lapsed entirely, the legal requirement for using the fund has not been met. They say the fund is reserved for emergencies like natural disasters that trigger Disaster SNAP.
The administration emphasizes separation of powers. The Constitution gives Congress control over spending. Using the contingency fund in a way not explicitly authorized would, in this view, violate a core congressional power.
Politically, the administration has worked to blame Democrats. They argue Democrats are holding funding hostage to secure unrelated goals like extending ACA subsidies. A USDA spokesperson framed it as a choice: continue holding out or reopen the government so vulnerable people can receive benefits. This rhetoric defines the halt as a consequence of opposition intransigence rather than an administrative decision.
Key Arguments Compared
| Issue | Continue Benefits | Halt Benefits |
|---|---|---|
| Contingency Fund | Fund is legally available for program operations, including paying benefits | Fund can only supplement existing appropriation. With no appropriation, it cannot be used |
| Constitutional Authority | Administration has existing authority and precedent (WIC funding) to transfer funds | Executive branch cannot spend money not appropriated by Congress |
| Political Responsibility | Administration is choosing to create a hunger crisis as political tactic | Democrats are holding funding hostage for unrelated policy demands |
| Historical Precedent | Past administrations from both parties have always sustained SNAP during shutdowns | Current legal interpretation is correct. Past actions do not obligate repetition |
Who Gets SNAP
Nearly 60% of SNAP benefits go to households with children. The program supports 7.8 million elderly individuals and 4 million non-elderly people with disabilities who live on fixed incomes. About 1 in 8 U.S. residents receives assistance. In California, children and the elderly make up over 63% of participants.
The average monthly benefit is $187 to $188 per person. While the program’s name suggests it supplements other income, for many households living near poverty, it makes up most of their food budget. Losing it forces impossible choices.
A single mother in Maine explained she would delay paying electricity and credit card bills to feed her children. “My children won’t go hungry, but we’ll have to choose which bills can wait,” she said.
The November 1 cutoff falls weeks before Thanksgiving. Studies of past benefit disruptions have documented severe psychological effects on recipients, including stress, confusion, and erosion of faith in government.
Health Effects
Food insecurity leads to worse health. Hospital admissions for low-blood sugar among low-income adults with diabetes increase significantly at month’s end when food budgets run out. Losing SNAP benefits would likely worsen these trends and raise long-term health care costs.
For children, the consequences affect development. Adequate nutrition is critical for cognitive function and school performance. Food insecurity in childhood links to higher risk of developmental delays and chronic health problems later.
Economic Impact
Stopping the monthly $8 billion in SNAP spending would send shockwaves through local economies. SNAP benefits are one of the most effective forms of government stimulus because they’re spent quickly and locally on food.
A 2019 USDA study found that during a slowing economy, each additional $1 billion in SNAP benefits increases GDP by $1.54 billion and supports 13,560 jobs. Other estimates place the multiplier as high as $1.74 during recessions.
This happens because the money moves rapidly through communities. Families spend benefits at grocery stores, which use the revenue to pay employees, suppliers, and bills. Those workers and suppliers spend their income elsewhere, creating a ripple effect.
Retailers and Farmers
The National Grocers Association warned that halting benefits would harm communities and sales. SNAP supports hundreds of thousands of jobs. For smaller stores in rural and low-income areas, SNAP purchases can make up a substantial portion of revenue. Losing this customer base could threaten their survival.
Industry groups called the potential disruption an operational nightmare. Stores couldn’t accurately forecast demand for perishable goods like produce, dairy, and meat. This could cause both food waste from overstocking and empty shelves from understocking.
The effects would ripple up the supply chain to wholesalers, distributors, and farmers who grow the nation’s food.
Food Banks Can’t Fill the Gap
The nation’s network of food banks and pantries cannot replace SNAP. For every one meal provided by the entire Feeding America network, SNAP provides nine.
Charities are already stretched thin. They’ve been dealing with high food inflation, increased demand, and the end of pandemic support programs. In Philadelphia, one major food program cut its budget by 20% this year. A Colorado food bank serving 1,700 people daily said even emergency state funding would be a drop in the bucket compared to need from a SNAP shutdown.
How States Are Responding
The federal failure has created an uneven landscape of state responses. Whether someone gets help depends on their zip code.
States Taking Action
Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin declared a state of emergency to provide food benefits. Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry made it a priority to use state funds for seniors, children, and people with disabilities. New York Governor Kathy Hochul fast-tracked $30 million for food pantries. California Governor Gavin Newsom deployed the National Guard to food banks and made $80 million available. Louisiana’s House voted unanimously to use $150 million from the state budget. Vermont lawmakers pledged state coverage for at-risk food aid. For more information, visit Oregon SNAP updates.
States Saying They Can’t Act
Georgia has a $14.6 billion budget surplus but says it has no mechanism to put money on EBT cards. Tennessee officials say the same. The EBT system is federally controlled, and the USDA has specifically told states not to send their November files to vendors. This federal directive blocks states from using existing infrastructure to distribute their own funds.
The USDA has also warned states they won’t be reimbursed for any state funds spent to backfill SNAP during the shutdown. This puts the full monthly cost on state taxpayers. With no end to the shutdown in sight, many states won’t take that risk.
This federal control over both technical infrastructure and reimbursement reveals that the federal-state partnership is really a hierarchy. A failure at the federal level cannot easily be fixed by states.
State Response Summary
| State | Action | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Virginia | Declared state of emergency to provide food benefits | Governor’s executive action |
| Louisiana | Using state funds for seniors, children, and people with disabilities | Governor’s priority and unanimous House resolution for $150M |
| California | Deployed National Guard to food banks; $80M in emergency funding | Governor’s executive action |
| New York | Fast-tracking $30M for food pantries | Governor’s executive action |
| Georgia | Cannot fill gap despite $14.6B surplus | No mechanism to put money on EBT cards |
| Tennessee | Unable to use state dollars for benefits | No mechanism to load benefits on cards |
| AK, NM, ND | Considered using state funds but fear federal directive makes it impossible | Federal control of EBT system and USDA directive |
Past Shutdowns
The U.S. has had several major government shutdowns in the past decade. How SNAP was handled then provides crucial context.
2018-2019 Shutdown
The longest government shutdown in U.S. history lasted 35 days from December 2018 to January 2019. Facing a looming cutoff, the Trump administration used a legally dubious workaround. Using special authority from a previous continuing resolution, the USDA paid February 2019 benefits nearly a month early, around January 20. This avoided a complete halt.
The early payment created severe problems. It resulted in an unusually long gap of up to 50 days before the next benefit in March. A 2020 study in the journal Nutrients documented the human cost. Participants reported the extended gap made food insecurity worse, caused stress and confusion, forced them to divert money from other bills, and eroded their faith in government.
The Government Accountability Office later concluded the USDA’s actions were improper and relied on a flawed legal interpretation.
2013 Shutdown
The 16-day government shutdown in October 2013 under the Obama administration provides a different model. SNAP benefits continued without interruption. The USDA’s shutdown plan indicated the program was fully funded for October and had a $2 billion contingency fund available for state administrative costs. The theme during this and other near-shutdowns was an effort to ensure continuity of benefits.
The Current Approach
In both 2013 and 2018, administrations led by a Democrat and a Republican took steps to avoid halting SNAP benefits. They treated the program’s continuation as essential, even if the methods in 2019 were disruptive and legally questionable.
The current crisis takes the opposite approach. The Trump administration has a substantial contingency fund and has shown willingness to use creative funding for WIC. Its explicit decision not to do the same for SNAP represents the first time a complete, nationwide stoppage has been threatened as a direct consequence of a shutdown. This represents the first time SNAP has faced a complete suspension during a shutdown, unlike the 2013 and 2018-2019 shutdowns when benefits continued.
What Recipients Need to Know
Will existing benefits disappear?
No. Benefits already loaded onto your EBT card for October or previous months will remain and are safe to use. State agencies including Oregon, Connecticut, Mississippi, Hawaii, and Georgia have confirmed existing balances are not affected and can be spent as usual.
What if shutdown ends mid-November?
November benefits will be issued retroactively but delayed. Once the government reopens and funding resumes, states will issue missed benefits as quickly as possible. It will likely take several days for states and EBT vendors to process payments and load cards.
Should I still apply?
Yes. State and local SNAP offices continue to accept and process applications. If you’re eligible, apply. If your application is approved, benefits cannot be issued until the shutdown ends and funding resumes.
Do I need to complete recertification?
Yes. Continue to follow all normal SNAP rules during the shutdown. Submit renewal paperwork on time, report required changes in household circumstances, and complete scheduled interviews. Keeping your case current ensures benefits can be issued without further delay once the shutdown ends.
Where can I find emergency food?
Contact local food banks, food pantries, or community organizations. Call the 2-1-1 information hotline or visit their website. You can also use Feeding America’s locator. Many state and county social service websites are posting lists of local food resources.
Are other benefits affected?
Generally no. Other major federal benefit programs are funded differently. Social Security and Supplemental Security Income payments continue because they’re paid from a trust fund outside annual appropriations. State cash assistance programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families are expected to continue operating normally.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.