The U.S. Department of Agriculture is making headlines for something that’s not typically in its lane: finger-pointing.
Over the weekend, the agency posted a sharply worded message on its official website blaming Democrats for the looming suspension of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, or food stamps — a cutoff that could affect nearly 42 million Americans — as the government shutdown drags on.
It’s considered rare for a federal agency to issue such an overtly political statement, especially in the middle of a shutdown. Traditionally, agencies provide factual updates on program funding rather than assigning political blame.
The message is already raising legal and ethical questions under the Hatch Act, a little-known law designed to keep taxpayer resources from being used for political purposes. Here’s a closer look.
What did the USDA say?
On Saturday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture posted a new message on its website blaming Democrats for the looming suspension of food stamp benefits. The agency said the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) will stop issuing benefits starting Nov. 1 because of the government shutdown.
“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,” the unsigned message posted on the USDA’s official website reads.
The message goes on to accuse Democrats (without evidence) of prioritizing “healthcare for illegal aliens and gender mutilation procedures” over reopening the government — a strikingly political statement for a federal agency website.
Democratic leaders haven’t yet responded to the USDA’s statement. But they’ve pushed back on similar rhetoric in recent days: Earlier this month, a group of Democratic senators blasted Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem for requesting a 30-second video blaming Democrats for the shutdown be played in U.S. airports — as TSA agents and air traffic controllers work without pay.
What’s at stake?
The fight over food assistance is shaping up to be one of the most immediate and painful consequences of the shutdown.
On Friday, the USDA said in a memo that it would withhold 5 to 6 billion dollars in SNAP contingency funding if the shutdown continues into November. It claims that using the funding for a foreseeable event like a shutdown — rather than emergencies such as natural disasters — would violate the law. This contradicts an earlier shutdown plan, which has since been deleted, which read, “Congressional intent is evident that SNAP’s operation 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.”
SNAP is the nation’s largest federal nutrition assistance program. If benefits are halted on Nov. 1, millions of households could face immediate gaps in access to food, and states may be forced to scramble for emergency resources — and the USDA recently said it would not reimburse states for tapping into their own funding for food aid.
Prominent Democrats are slamming the USDA’s refusal to release the funds. “It is a disgusting dereliction of duty that the Trump administration would knowingly rip food out of the mouths of 42 million children, seniors, and veterans,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a statement. Sen. Amy Klobuchar also weighed in, calling the decision “unacceptable.”
What is the Hatch Act?
The Hatch Act of 1939 — named after its sponsor, Democratic Sen. Carl Hatch of New Mexico — is a little-known law that draws a clear line between government work and politics. It bars most federal employees — and some state and local workers whose jobs are funded with federal money — from using their official positions to influence an election. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel notes on its website that “except for the President and Vice President, all federal civilian executive branch employees are covered by the Hatch Act, including employees of the U.S. Postal Service.”
That means they can’t campaign, fundraise, or push political agendas while on the clock or in a government building. But they’re not completely shut out of the political process. They can still vote, share their personal opinions, and donate to candidates — just not in their official capacity. (For the record, some employees, like those at the Central Intelligence Agency or National Security Agency, face stricter limits and can’t take an active role in campaigns or political management.)
If someone breaks the rules, the independent U.S. Office of Special Counsel steps in to investigate. And the consequences can range from a slap on the wrist, like a formal reprimand, to more serious penalties like a fine of up to $1,000 or even losing their job.
While the Hatch Act of 1939 carries real penalties, enforcement often depends on who’s involved. For senior political appointees like White House-commissioned officers and Senate-confirmed presidential appointees, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel can only recommend discipline to the president, which often means violations go unpunished.
Has it been violated before?
If the USDA’s message is found to violate the Hatch Act of 1939, it wouldn’t be the first. Over the years, the law has been broken repeatedly, even by some of Washington’s most prominent figures, both Republican and Democrat.
In 2019, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel concluded that then-White House counselor Kellyanne Conway had violated the law multiple times by using her official position (including on her social media account and in TV interviews) to disparage Democratic presidential candidates such as Joe Biden, Cory Booker, and Elizabeth Warren. The OSC even recommended that she be removed from federal service, but Trump declined to act.
She’s far from the only one. In 2021, the OSC found that Conway and 12 other senior Trump administration officials — including senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — violated the Hatch Act in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election by taking part in political events on White House grounds during the 2020 Republican National Convention. But because they were political appointees, the OSC could only recommend discipline to the president and Trump took no action, meaning none of them faced penalties.
On the other side of the aisle, Kathleen Sebelius, Health and Human Services secretary under Barack Obama, was found to have violated the Hatch Act in 2012 after making “extemporaneous partisan remarks” during a speech in her official capacity. The Obama administration responded by reclassifying the event as political and reimbursing the government for its costs, and Sebelius faced no formal disciplinary action.
And in 2016, then-Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro was cited for praising Hillary Clinton’s campaign during an official interview. Like Sebelius, Castro received no penalty beyond a public rebuke, since the U.S. Office of Special Counsel can only recommend discipline for cabinet officials.
What’s next?
It’s unclear whether the USDA statement will trigger a formal investigation. But if the shutdown stretches beyond Nov. 1, millions of SNAP recipients could lose benefits almost immediately, turning up the heat on lawmakers to strike a deal.
