As the federal government maintained a 43-day shutdown, marking the longest government shutdown in American history, the largest growing concern was the plausible depletion of SNAP benefits. A good portion of American citizens and a select number of politicians spoke out on behalf of the nation’s population relying on food stamps who wouldn’t receive them if the government remained closed. Now that Congress has voted to reopen the government and the distribution of SNAP benefits is starting back up, it might be time to unpack the context of this issue.
WHAT IS ‘SNAP’
SNAP stands for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that “provides food benefits to low-income families to supplement their grocery budget so they can afford the nutritious food essential to health and well-being” (according to the USDA). Basically, SNAP benefits are food stamps but in the form of electronic benefit transfer cards that can be used at any authorized location.
The program is federally funded through the Farm Bill and administered by each state. The money that people receive is not allowed to be spent on things like tobacco, alcohol, nonfood items and takeout – things not considered essential as food for one’s health and well-being.
Around 40 million people (1 in 8 Americans every month) receive such benefits that are intended to help families in light of rising food costs and dire economic situations. $1 in SNAP benefits is the equivalent of $1.50 in economic activity. SNAP operates in all 50 states as well as Guam, D.C., and the Virgin Islands. In 2023, 22.5% of Guam’s population relied on SNAP, 19.9% of the population in the Virgin Islands, 20% in D.C., and New Mexico ranked as the highest receiving state with 21.5% of its population relying on SNAP.
As of May 2025, Pew Research recorded that 41.7 million people received SNAP benefits. From October 2024 to May 2025, 42.4 million received monthly benefits. Within the first eight months of FY 2025, the federal government has spent $65 billion on SNAP, which is 4.7% more than what was spent during the same period in FY 2024.
In 2023 alone, there were around 23 million recipients who received SNAP benefits. Here is the demographic data for all recipients:
- 65% were adults and 35% were children
- 86.6% were born in the United States and 13.4% were born in other countries
- 61% were unemployed
- 44.2% were white adults, 24.8% were white children
- 27% were black adults, 32.3% were black children
- 24.2% were Hispanic adults, 40.7% were Hispanic children
The income qualifications for SNAP are also set in stone. If one’s gross monthly income meets or is below 130% of the federal poverty level (~$1,695/mth for a 1-person household and ~$3,483/mth for a 4-person household) and their net monthly income meets or is below 100% of the federal poverty level (~$1,200 for a 1-person household and ~$2,475 for a 4-person household), they qualify for SNAP. If a household contains an individual that is 60+ years old, they must only meet the net income requirement.
Aside from income qualifications, applicants from 16-59 years of age who aren’t disabled must fulfill work requirements. These include whatever specific requirements are established in the state they reside in, a record of them working ~30 hr/wk, and they must register with either their state SNAP agency or their employment office. For any applicant that is a non-disabled adult without dependents, they must show proof of work, participate in a work program for 80 hr/wk, or participate in a state workfare program.
SHUTDOWN IMPACT
As the government shutdown carried on, people began to worry about how much longer states would be able to administer SNAP benefits before federal funding was impacted. When the Big Beautiful Bill was passed, it issued an $186 billion cut to SNAP extending over the next 10 years. The bill’s provisions also increased work requirements now instated and eliminated federal funding for certain costs which effectively re-shifted the cost burden to states.
During the shutdown, the Trump administration initially stated that they would be restricting benefits to salvage the funding that remained until a new funding bill was passed in Congress. This would’ve meant that only half of the normal amount would be paid out. Then on October 31st, federal judges delivered a ruling that forced the administration to use money left in the Department of Agriculture’s contingency fund that only had $4.65 billion available for an $8 billion monthly payment. The department’s contingency fund is intended for emergencies and natural disasters.
Now that Congress has passed a funding bill and reopened the government, federal funding for SNAP has restarted. Feeding American Action reported on November 14th that people may still apply for SNAP benefits but the process for application review and distribution will most likely be delayed in most states. From December 2025 to January 2026, it is projected that benefits will be distributed on time and in full, although some states have already issued benefits in full according to their specific administrative processes.
HISTORY
The program originated as the First Stamp Program (FSP) in 1939. It was established so people on relief (living off of welfare due to poverty or unemployment) could purchase colored stamps that equate value to food products that would normally be purchased for groceries.
Orange stamps could be used for any food product in a store, while blue stamps could only be used for food products that the Department of Agriculture deemed in surplus in stores. A $1 orange stamp was equivalent to 50 cents-worth of blue stamps.
FSP officially ended in 1943 because the government determined that the conditions which mandated necessity (conditions like unmarketable food surpluses and widespread unemployment produced on behalf of World War II) no longer existed. However, a total of nearly 20 million people had been helped by FSP throughout its establishment.
Later on, former U.S. President John F. Kennedy expanded food distribution and established the first food stamp pilot program through his first executive order as president. A crucial difference with the pilot program was that there were no special stamps like the prior blue stamps that could be used for products the government determined were in surplus. Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon B. Johnson carried the momentum for the program into his administration.
In 1964, LBJ made the FSP a permanent program by bringing the pilot FSP under Congressional control and instating the program’s regulations as laws. States became certified to issue stamps as the federal government continued to fund the stamps and administrative costs, and retailers were given authorization to distribute them. In the following year, five million people participated in this revamped program. However, concerns began to surface regarding how the federal government was to continue balancing progressive access to the program alongside maintaining progressive accountability for the use of it.
In 1971 the Food Stamp Act Amendment was passed. Within it, a national standard of eligibility and the requirement for work registration were implemented; as well as the requirement for household purchases to be limited to 30% of their income. Then in 1973 the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act appeared to require that states expand the stamp program to every political jurisdiction. This act also included the creation of temporary eligibility standards for disasters, and a new section of purchase eligibility for seeds and plants that could produce food for consumption.
By 1974, 15 million people participated in the stamp program, and PL 93-347 was passed to authorize the Department of Agriculture to pay half of the administrative costs that states had to take care of. In 1977, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress presented bills to continue to amend the food stamp program.
Republicans’ bill sought to direct benefits to those most in need, simplify the administration of stamps, and tighten program controls. On the other hand, Democrats’ bill sought to increase access for those most in need and simplify the parts of the program that delayed the delivery of stamps. Severe budget cuts were implemented in the 1980s. The point of all of this is that SNAP benefits haven’t always been exactly what they are today, and the program has had quite an evolutionary history.
LBJ
It’s very important that we understand the background of the creation of such a widely accessed government program – it can tell us a lot about the political and philosophical context too.
Former U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson was a moderate Democrat from Texas. He was the first member of Congress to serve on active duty during World War II and was a staunch supporter of the increase of U.S. involvement in Vietnam in order to achieve widespread success in Southeast Asia. He believed strongly in the success of civil rights for all Americans, especially the underprivileged. In light of this, Johnson was a big supporter of government assistance programs.
Johnson is well-known for ‘The Great Society’, which was a name he coined for the version of the U.S. that he envisioned in a speech where he strongly advocated for the increase in delivering aid to underprivileged Americans. When he became president, Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law, centered most of his attention on social service programs, aside from expanding U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
Johnson had been a large supporter of former U.S. president FDR’s “New Deal”, which is where he drew inspiration for his vision of ‘The Great Society’.
LIBERALISM
The ideological framework behind government aid programs, especially those made permanent like SNAP, is that of liberalism. Although, this sort of liberalism is not the same sort that John Locke envisioned as the ideological foundation of America and the establishment of limited government according to a social contract.
Rather than limiting the intervention of the federal government to secure the rights and interests of Americans, a new liberalism arose with FDR’s New Deal in the early 1900s. Locke originally believed that welfare must strictly be the concern of states rather than the federal government. This would ensure that American citizens remain free from tyrannical oppression. This new adaptation, however, sought to necessarily expand government intervention in order to secure the rights and interests of Americans. This way, people will be free from oppressive tyranny as well as freely having the right to being educated, medically taken care of, and able to own property. This is the idea that LBJ instituted within his administrative pursuit to increase government aid.
The question remains – are our rights and interests as U.S. citizens better upheld by a limited or expanded federal government?
***
Katelyn Sims is a senior at Howard Payne University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts degree in social science with emphasis in American political studies, global studies and jurisprudence. She is also a student in the university’s Guy D. Newman Honors Academy, as well as a prominent member of the Student Speaker Bureau speech and debate team. Following graduation, Katelyn will pursue a career in the field of U.S. foreign policy.
Katelyn has worked as a news writer and marketing coordinator with Brownwood News since 2023. Her column The Truth Will Set You Free is intended for all people from all walks of life. Katelyn aspires to inform readers of major U.S. political and legislative activity with an unbiased analysis that engages with political ideologies on all sides of the aisle. She believes the public ought to exercise their free will to cultivate personalized opinions on controversial issues without the influence of mainstream media.
