Bridging the gap: Lessons from state responses to SNAP pause during federal shutdown
By ICS team members Alexis Herschkowitsch, Megan Carolan, and Aimée Drouin Duncan
Among the more severe ramifications of the historically long government shutdown in Fall 2025 was the suspension of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the cessation of its associated benefits. Nearly 42 million Americans rely on SNAP to help feed themselves and their families. Of these SNAP recipients, approximately 39% are children. For weeks, the SNAP program was subject to ever-changing policy and legal announcements, often leaving recipients unable to access SNAP funds or unclear of what would happen to their benefits. While the federal government re-opening mitigated much of this uncertainty, the SNAP situation demonstrated important lessons for the future.
State responses to the SNAP pause
Given the lack of a coordinated response at the federal level, states were left to find their own solutions. The Institute for Child Success (ICS) reviewed media coverage of responses to the shutdown situation from all states as well as U.S. territories. The responses were varied, but fell into six primary categories.
Note: Information on 55 U.S. states and territories and Washington D.C. were collected largely during the first week of November. Many states utilized multiple approaches. Subsequent updates may not be reflected.
State contributions to food aid organizations
Two-thirds of US states and territories provided state funding directly to food banks and food aid organizations in their state/territory. The amounts varied by state and population; for instance, the state of Maine delivered $1.25 million to food assistance programs; whereas, California directed $80 million in state funding to local food banks.
Direct state funding to individuals
Nearly a quarter of US states opted to directly fund SNAP themselves. Some, such as Hawaii, used unspent funds from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to do so. Others, such as Louisiana, took a targeted approach, prioritizing the elderly, disabled, and children. (More discussion about funding sources is included in the Takeaways section.)
Additional approaches
15% declared a state of emergency, a move that is often required to unlock funding across various streams; 7% activated the National Guard to help with food distributions.
Finally, a few states took an innovative approach wherein the state played an organizing role. For instance, the governor of Iowa directed Volunteer Iowa to recruit and deploy volunteers to help with food distribution. South Carolina activated its One SC fund, a public-private partnership that helped centralize donations and ensure ease of grant-making; the fund has previously been used after natural disasters.
No response
24% of states and territories did not take official measures in response to the SNAP pause.
Takeaways from the SNAP pause
1. Be willing to explore funding flexibility.
Most state budgets cannot absorb the full cost of SNAP benefits or extend new investment in food bank support on such short notice, especially without legislative approval. In an attempt to quickly fill the gaps for children and families, states used several funding sources in creative ways. Examples include:
- Flexible federal sources: Hawaii, Missouri, Ohio, and Rhode Island all reported using TANF funds in their responses as an allowable use for “nonrecurrent, short-term (NRST) benefits.” These benefits could be rolled over from unspent balances in previous years. Arizona utilized remaining funds from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA).
- Unique state funding streams: Alaska funded support through its Village Safe Water and Wastewater Infrastructure program, which works with rural communities to develop sustainable sanitation facilities.
- Unspent funds in state programs: Tennessee utilized $5 million identified in savings from the state’s Medicaid funding. Guam used $13.1 million in “unobligated excess revenue” collected in the fiscal year 2025.
- Emergency funds: Several states including Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Oklahoma, and Washington used “rainy day” or other contingency funds. Notably, Illinois had only recently created it Budget Reserve for Immediate Disbursements and Governmental Emergencies (BRIDGE) in response to concerns about reduced federal funding to state governments.
These funding responses stress the need for deep knowledge of needs and a willingness to get creative among state elected officials, executive agency staff, and policymakers, and advocates to address these types of situations.
2. Non-financial support is also crucial.
Even among non-financial responses, many states took action in ways their systems were not originally designed for. One example is how the National Guard was mobilized in new capacities: the National Guard is most traditionally used for natural disasters, but it was identified as a critical resource for support during this time in several states (California, New Jersey, and Iowa). The National Guard provided valuable logistical support in connecting food banks and pantries with material donations, often transporting and unloading deliveries. States that organized charitable funds (South Carolina and Virginia) lifted some of the burden from individual food banks and pantries to conduct their own fundraising at a time when their populations experienced such a massive exigent demand.
3. Change is constant. Collaboration is essential to navigate it.
Nearly as soon as SNAP benefits began flowing, the national conversation turned to potential large-scale loss of benefits related to eligibility changes for scores of enrollees. Under the July 2025 federal reconciliation bill, large changes impact how SNAP is funded and implemented:
- Effective immediately, many lawfully-present immigrants are no longer eligible for SNAP benefits, including refugees, asylees and individuals granted withholding of removal/deportation, as well as certain survivors of domestic violence or human trafficking.
- As of December 2025 in most places, SNAP’s “able-bodied work requirements” will be extended to a larger group of enrollees including adults without dependents up to age 64 (up from the previous age 54) and parents whose children are not younger than 14.
- Starting October 1, 2027 (FY28), states will begin paying a significant share of SNAP costs which were previously paid by the federal government. Experts estimate approximately 300,000 enrollees will lose benefits as state struggle to fund the increased fiscal responsibility.
How ICS can help
ICS is one of many policy intermediary groups (such as the National Center for Children in Poverty and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities) following federal policy changes closely, to understand the current and future challenges to services for children and families. We have created resources such as a deep-dive investigation of federal funding streams in South Carolina (data available upon request) and other tools to assist communities navigate a complex financial landscape. Please connect with ICS to discuss how our data and analysis can support your organization.