Democrats are blaming Republicans for what they call the “Schumer Shutdown,” arguing that though the government is shut down, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has contingency funds available to keep SNAP benefits flowing past November 1. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has asserted that the administration has enough money to prevent hunger among vulnerable Americans, accusing Republicans of withholding needed funds to punish families, veterans and low-income households.

In response, Republicans—including Mike Johnson and Brooke Rollins—strongly reject the claim that SNAP will continue automatically. They emphasize that while a contingency fund (roughly $5 billion to $6 billion) exists, it is legally constrained and cannot cover the full cost of November’s benefits (about $9 billion) without a proper appropriation. They argue that Democrats are misleading the public about how SNAP funding actually works and that reopening the government is the necessary step to secure funding.

Meanwhile, two federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island have ordered the USDA to release its contingency funds or identify other available funds to keep SNAP from lapsing. For example, Indira Talwani ruled the USDA’s suspension of benefits “probably unlawful” because the agency misinterpreted its authority. John McConnell ordered that at least the contingency funds must be used for November payments or as soon as possible thereafter.

In short, the impasse highlights a deeper political and legal tug-of-war: Democrats say the funds exist and should be used immediately to protect millions of people; Republicans argue the contingency funds can’t legally be used to replace a full funding lapse without Congressional action. The outcome will affect not just this month’s benefits, but potentially how safety-net programs operate during future shutdowns.