Author name: moderat ereport

Factcheck.org

Democrats and Republicans Clash Over SNAP Contingency Funds

Republicans say funding for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits — formerly known as food stamps — will run out on Nov. 1 due to the federal government shutdown, and there’s nothing they can do about it. Democrats say there’s a contingency fund that could and should continue to fund regular SNAP benefits. And, in fact, that was the Republican plan up until at least a few weeks ago. Now, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers SNAP, says it can’t legally tap the contingency fund for that purpose. “There has to be a preexisting appropriation for the contingency fund to be used, and Democrats blocked that appropriation when they rejected the clean continuing resolution,” Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said at a press conference on Oct. 27. “The best way for SNAP benefits to be paid on time is for the Democrats to end their shutdown.” We can’t say whether the USDA is barred from tapping the contingency funds for regular SNAP benefits — ultimately that may be a decision for the courts — but the USDA position that Johnson cited has apparently changed in the past month. When the Trump administration’s USDA issued a “Lapse of Funding Plan” on Sept. 30, it stated that the contingency fund, estimated to be more than $5 billion, can and should be used to fund SNAP payments in the event of a shutdown. “In addition, Congressional intent is evident that SNAP’s operations should continue since the program has been provided with multi-year contingency funds that can be used for State Administrative Expenses to ensure that the State can also continue operations during a Federal Government shutdown,” the document states. “These multi-year contingency funds are also available to fund participant benefits in the event that a lapse occurs in the middle of the fiscal year.” That document has since been scrubbed from the USDA website, but it’s still available via the Wayback Machine archives. “It’s also important to note that the money currently exists within the Trump administration, including $5 billion in a contingency fund, specifically, for this kind of circumstance, to continue providing SNAP benefits to the American people, including 16 million children who might otherwise go hungry, if Donald Trump successfully withholds these SNAP benefits,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said on CNN on Oct. 29. “The Trump administration doesn’t need Congress to act in order to continue providing nutritional and food assistance to everyday Americans.” What’s at Stake? Democrats and Republicans have been locked in a stalemate over efforts to extend federal government funding. Democrats have insisted legislation should include an extension of the more generous Affordable Care Act subsidies, which were first enacted in 2021, and a repeal of some health care measures affecting Medicaid in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Republicans have balked at those demands, and have offered only a “clean” bill to temporarily extend current federal government funding levels. As a result, the government shut down on Oct. 1. Photo by jetcityimage / stock.adobe.com. Funding of SNAP benefits continued through October, however, because, as the since-deleted “Lapse of Funding Plan” explained, the Office of Management and Budget’s general counsel advised obligating fiscal 2025 funds to cover SNAP benefits in October in the event of a government shutdown at the start of the fiscal year (Oct. 1). But the USDA now says it has no way to continue funding SNAP benefits beyond October, jeopardizing food assistance used by nearly 42 million Americans each month. A banner at the top of the USDA Food & Nutrition website now states, “Senate Democrats have now voted 12 times to not fund the food stamp program, also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Bottom line, the well has run dry. At this time, there will be no benefits issued November 01. We are approaching an inflection point for Senate Democrats. They can continue to hold out for healthcare for illegal aliens and gender mutilation procedures or reopen the government so mothers, babies, and the most vulnerable among us can receive critical nutrition assistance.” (The votes cited in that message were votes on Republican funding bills that didn’t include the Democrats’ demands on health care funding changes.) Democratic leaders say the Trump administration could continue funding, but has chosen not to as a form of leverage in the shutdown standoff. Contingency Fund The SNAP program is funded through annual appropriations, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, allocated about $122 billion to fund food and nutrition programs (mostly SNAP benefits), in addition to $3 billion in reserve “for use only in such amounts and at such times as may become necessary to carry out program operations” through the end of September 2026. The reserve fund is good for two years, and together with funding from the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act of 2025, the contingency reserve totaled about $6 billion prior to the shutdown. The amount is now likely between $5 billion and $6 billion, as some of the reserve was tapped to pay administrative costs in October, according to the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. As we said, up until earlier this month, the USDA’s “Lapse of Funding Plan” envisioned tapping that reserve to pay regular SNAP benefits in the event of a shutdown. That has been the understanding guiding past administrations, as well. For example, the USDA’s 2021 contingency plan — cited in the run-up to a 2023 shutdown — assured that SNAP benefits would be paid during a shutdown, in part by tapping “multi-year carry over funds” and “contingency reserves.” That was also the guidance during Trump’s first presidential term, according to CBPP. During a shutdown in early 2019, the USDA assured that SNAP benefits would continue to be paid even “without an additional appropriation from Congress.” “At President Trump’s direction, we have been working with the Administration on this solution. It works and is legally sound. And we want to assure states, and SNAP recipients, that the benefits for February will be

Politics

Pam Bondi’s push to prop up Trump’s lame appointee is pathetic

The Department of Justice filed a consolidated response on Monday night to former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James’ challenges to the wildly illegal and totally comical appointment of Lindsey Halligan, America’s favorite former real estate lawyer, as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Comey and James have challenged Halligan’s latest gig because she was shuffled into her U.S. attorney spot through the same sorts of ridiculous appointment contortions courts have already ruled were not valid.  Not just one court: Looking at you, Alina Habba in New Jersey. Not just two courts: Looking at you, Sigal Chattah in Nevada But three courts and counting: Looking at you, Bill Essayli in the Middle District of California. But, a-ha! Attorney General Pam Bondi has a trick up her sleeve, which boils down to “Haha, suckers! You challenged Halligan’s appointment as an interim U.S. attorney? Well, check out this order I wrote on Halloween that says Halligan is also a ‘Special Attorney’!! Betcha didn’t think of that!” Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks in the briefing room of the White House as President Donald Trump looks on. Yes, the DOJ filed with the court an order to nobody, allegedly written by Bondi on Oct. 31, where she retroactively appointed Halligan to her new special attorney role, effective back on Sept. 22, and claims that this ratified Halligan’s appointment “as an attorney of the Department of Justice going forward.” And, since Bondi can always appoint a special attorney to do whatever she wants, then it was totally fine, cool, and good that Halligan indicted Comey and James, because she was magically doing it as a special attorney. Retroactively.  Bondi’s rationale is that she has the power to appoint anyone she wants as a special attorney, in whatever role she wants. So, by making Halligan a special attorney retroactively, even if the court were to rule that Halligan was not legally in her role as interim U.S. attorney, then Bondi can appoint Halligan in a limited capacity, where she is handling only two cases—the prosecutions of both Comey and James.  Also according to Bondi, she reviewed the grand jury proceedings in both cases and then exercised the authority vested in her by law to “ratify Ms. Halligan’s actions before the grand jury and her signature on the indictments returned by the grand jury in each case.” Psych! Didn’t see that coming, didja? Since Comey and James are both arguing that their indictments are invalid because they were signed by Halligan, Bondi has now magically also signed them. Retroactively.  Law and Crime called this “one simple trick” to save the flailing prosecutions, but it’s really more “one weird trick,” the legal equivalent of skeevy ads you see at the bottom of tacky news sites offering a cure for toenail fungus that somehow involves a banana peel.  Bondi also says that even if Halligan gets tossed, her terrific work in getting those indictments shouldn’t get thrown out, as that is not an “appropriate remedy for “what is at most a procedural misstep.” Now, if the DOJ had a shred of credibility, it would have to disclose that this is the same approach Bondi tried to save Alina Habba’s gig as acting attorney for the district of New Jersey, and we know that didn’t work out so well there. Related | Whoopsie, Alina Habba isn’t legal Also, Halligan’s appointment wasn’t a procedural misstep or some minor thing like a wrong date on a document. Halligan’s appointment was the result of the president of the United States demanding, via what he thought was a DM but was very much not, that Bondi install Halligan so she would prosecute his enemies.  Then, Trump fired Eric Siebert, the acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Then, Bondi appointed Halligan via the same shady mechanism courts had already ruled against. Then Halligan secured indictments before the grand jury, somehow only a few days after getting appointed. That’s not a procedural misstep.  One more thing, you rubes. Bondi says it’s no problem that Halligan signed those indictments solo, because even if she wasn’t the interim U.S. attorney, her role as a random DOJ attorney “can present a case to a grand jury or sign an indictment, and the Attorney General plainly possessed and exercised the authority to make Ms. Halligan a government attorney, as the Attorney General has now confirmed.” This is, of course, ridiculous. Bondi’s statement essentially means that any junior prosecutor anywhere in the DOJ and U.S. attorney offices is fully empowered to present anything they want to a grand jury and sign an indictment. If that were the case, a line-level prosecutor could head into a friendly Washington, D.C., grand jury and get them to indict Pam Bondi, and somehow the DOJ would then just throw up its hands and say “Welp, you got us! Anyone can bring charges!” Bondi bringing up her review of the grand jury proceedings may not have been the shrewdest move, given that one of Comey’s flurry of motions seeks to unseal the grand jury proceedings because of “Ms. Halligan’s likely motive to obtain an indictment to satisfy the President’s demands, the inaccuracies in the indictment, and the determination of every career prosecutor to consider the case that charges were not warranted.” As much as the Trump administration has scrambled to save Habba, Chattah, and Essayli, they’re going to throw far more effort at saving Halligan. She’s there specifically for Trump to exact revenge on Comey and James, and the DOJ is not going to let up.  Related | Trump team faces critical shortage of morally flexible lawyers

Scroll to Top