The White House Is Withholding SNAP Funding — Why That’s Illegal and Cruel

 

— the stakes are simple: when the government threatens to cut off SNAP benefits, it’s not an abstract budget fight — it’s food on the table for roughly 42 million Americans. Many are children, seniors, or people with disabilities. Denying benefits because of a political standoff is both cruel and, as the law and long-standing practice show, unnecessary.

SNAP’s purpose and who depends on it

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the successor to the old Food Stamp Program, exists to make sure households with the lowest incomes can put food on the table. On an average month, SNAP reaches roughly 42 million people. Nearly 40% of those recipients are children. About half of the households include someone who’s elderly or disabled; many others include workers hit by a temporary job loss.

SNAP isn’t a luxury safety net — it’s a public-health measure. Proper nutrition supports people’s health, their ability to work, and children’s development. For decades, lawmakers of both parties have supported the program because it helps stabilize families and communities in ways that promote economic and social wellbeing.

Contingency funds were created for exactly this kind of crisis

Recognizing the risk that government operations and appropriations can be disrupted, Congress has long included contingency funds in the SNAP appropriation. Unlike most annual appropriations, those contingency dollars remain available after the fiscal year ends. They’re explicitly intended “for use only in such amounts and at such times as may become necessary to carry out program operations.”

Put plainly: Congress set aside money so SNAP could keep operating if regular appropriations lapse. As of October 1, the contingency account had billions set aside. The USDA has used parts of that money in the past to keep SNAP running during funding crises. When shutdowns were expected in 2013 and 2015, USDA guidance indicated contingency funds could cover benefits. During the 2018–2019 shutdown, USDA likewise noted limited funding was available from contingency reserves.

Given that context, the recent claim from the White House that contingency funds can only be used for disaster relief — and therefore cannot pay routine SNAP benefits during a shutdown — does not line up with the plain language of the appropriations and with prior practice. The law authorizes contingency funds to carry out SNAP operations generally, not to be limited to disaster zones.

There are other legal and practical pathways USDA could take

Even if the contingency funds were somehow off the table, the federal government has other legal tools to prevent a cutoff. Congress has granted USDA broad authority to transfer money among federal food programs when necessary. Earlier this year, for instance, the administration moved funds between child-nutrition programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) to address urgent needs — illustrating that transfers are both legal and practical.

Numbers matter. Child nutrition accounts began the fiscal year with tens of billions in appropriations; transfer of a few hundred million or a few billion would not erase those programs, and would buy time until Congress resolves appropriations. Acting to protect SNAP benefits in a shutdown is not some radical fiscal maneuver — it’s a reasonable application of authorities already on the books.

Holding food hostage is both harmful and avoidable

A government shutdown brings real hardship. But refusing to use contingency funding or available transfer authority to protect SNAP turns a solvable administrative problem into policy cruelty. The result is immediate and harsh: hungry children, stressed seniors, and households forced to make impossible tradeoffs between food and medication or utilities.

Beyond the human cost, there’s a legal duty at play. SNAP’s governing statute directs that benefits “shall be furnished to all eligible households who make application.” Keeping contingency funds idle while millions face hunger undermines that obligation and, arguably, the intent of Congress.

Conclusion — what should happen next

In an appropriations impasse, the right course is clear: use the contingency funds and existing transfer authorities to keep SNAP benefits flowing. Doing so protects public health, honors congressional intent, and prevents unnecessary suffering among the most vulnerable. Whether you follow this issue as a parent, an advocate, or a voter, pressure and oversight matter: policymakers must not allow food assistance to become collateral damage in political brinkmanship.