When Congress Fails: Government Shutdowns Reveal Structural Flaws in Vital Nutrition Programs

How government shutdowns expose gaps in programs that are not permanently funded: The widespread effects of government shutdowns

What caused the United States federal government shutdown on October 1, 2025?:

The federal government entered a shutdown at midnight on October 1, 2025, after Congress failed to pass funding legislation—the laws that fund government agencies and programs for the new fiscal year (FY). The impasse centered on whether to extend enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits as part of a short-term funding bill. The ACA offers subsidies that make marketplace plans, such as Obamacare, affordable; however, the enhanced premium tax credits were set to expire at the end of 2025. Consequently, the Republican Party insisted that those subsidies be debated after they agreed on a temporary spending plan, whereas the Democrats insisted that the subsidies be protected. This disagreement forced large parts of the federal government to halt operations. 

How did this government shutdown affect spending?

Congress did not pass the annual discretionary funding plan on time. Some people may assume this results in an instant halt of federal funds, but this failure does not mean all federal spending stops immediately. All mandatory spending funded by permanent law will continue. For example, Social Security benefits, Medicare, and Medicaid are paid because they are not dependent on annual appropriation lapses. Furthermore, programs such as SNAP are structured as entitlement benefits, meaning benefits are guaranteed by law for eligible individuals and families; however, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) needs appropriated funds to pay them. During the shutdown, following litigation over lapsed funding, the Trump administration used USDA contingency funds—a reserve set aside to cover unforeseen expenses—to provide only partial November SNAP benefits to existing recipients. There is also currently little funding available for new SNAP applicants, which was further worsened by delayed processing. SNAP serves over 40 million people, meaning partial benefits spell immediate hardship for one in eight Americans.

A government shutdown primarily affects activities that rely on appropriations (Congress-approved funding) and programs that don’t have any special legal protections. These activities are considered non-essential; they include national parks, some research projects, and federal offices that process permits, inspections, loans, and grants, which are consequently partially or fully suspended. Moreover, federal employees deemed "essential" must continue working temporarily without pay until funding is fully restored. Such employment includes air traffic controllers, TSA officers, certain law enforcement personnel, and active-duty military. As a result of unpaid labor, workers are depleting their savings, taking on debt, working second jobs, and risking diminished morale, which may undermine public safety. 

These disruptions in how people afford daily expenses heighten vulnerabilities for low-income families, making it especially important to address the added pressure on programs that support low-income households and young children. While SNAP benefits continued in part, programs like the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which depend on annual appropriations, lacked funding certainty. This instability in funding for nutrition assistance programs makes it especially important to examine the context of a shutdown, given their role in supporting early childhood development and protecting maternal health.

What is The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)?

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is an essential federal assistance program developed in the early 1970s to improve diet quality and infant health outcomes, such as birth weight and essential bodily maturation. WIC helps low-income pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women support their child's development during the most crucial stages of childhood, from birth to age five. WIC was initially authorized as a two-year “test and evaluate” program through an amendment to the Child Nutrition Act, enacted in response to several studies in the 1960s that revealed widespread malnutrition among low-income pregnant women and young children. After WIC's trial success, Congress made the WIC program permanent by passing legislation, Public Law 94-105 in 1975.

Why should we address how government shutdowns impact nutrition assistance programs?:

Unlike SNAP, WIC is a discretionary, capped grant program funded through annual appropriations. When funding is tight or disrupted, such as during government shutdowns, states can reduce benefits, cut services, or create waiting lists because they are only required to serve participants up to the level of available funds. Furthermore, WIC is distinct in how it delivers support. For example, WIC provides prescriptive food packages, nutritional education, breastfeeding counseling, and health referrals for pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children under five, when adequate intake is most closely correlated with cognitive growth, school readiness, and long-term productivity. Such disruptions are a direct consequence of the Antideficiency Act (ADA), a federal law that prohibits spending beyond available funds or before Congress appropriates funds. This means that when WIC’s annual appropriation lapses, USDA cannot legally continue issuing full benefits, regardless of how many pregnant women and young children depend on the program. The ADA, therefore, exposes a core flaw in WIC’s legal design for reaching eligible families. Why isn’t there a stable legal guarantee for mothers and early adolescents?

In this most recent shutdown, federal officials temporarily kept WIC operating by using limited contingency resources and Section 32 funds. Section 32 is a permanent appropriation created by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935, funded by a portion of customs receipts from imports, including tariffs and adjunct import fees, to support farm income by purchasing surplus commodities such as crops and livestock, and to boost specific child nutrition programs and other USDA initiatives.

WIC requires about $150 million a week to operate effectively. To avoid a WIC funding cut-off in most states, the Trump administration redirected about $300 million from Section 32 in mid-October and another $450 million on October 31st, compounding to $750 million in temporary transfers expected to cover only several weeks of benefits nationwide. Without these emergency transfers, WIC in various states would have started cutting people off in October or early November. Instead, clinics stayed open and continued to distribute benefits to over 6.5 million mothers, infants, and children. For example, California's WIC program is open, and its benefits can be relied on through the end of December 2025 due to such support. However, these measures act as temporary relief and do not guarantee funding if the shutdown persists in the long term. If Congress had continued to fail, Section 32 funds may have been depleted, and WIC would have been forced to reduce sustained support, cut services, and even halt benefits in some states. Such risks reveal that repeated or persistent shutdowns could lead to long-term losses and concern for those who rely on government and private support programs. 

To further emphasize these concerns, several studies suggest that children with limited access to quality nutrition are more likely to lack the human capital, health, or motivation to achieve effective educational and employment outcomes. Political failure to fund the government directly threatens families least able to absorb such disruptions and may negatively contribute to children's transition into adulthood, resulting in persistent poverty. Households already living paycheck to paycheck and depending on programs such as WIC face jeopardy during shutdowns because of destabilized benefits, resulting in unforeseen, immediate food insecurity, exacerbated by the harmful trade-offs between rent, bills, and nutrition. WIC must transition from a discretionary, capped program to either a mandatory program, like SNAP, Medicaid, or Social Security, or a program with strong funding protections during funding lapses. 

Conclusion:

The October 1, 2025, government shutdown reveals more than a mere partisan dispute—it exposes how a program designed to protect mothers, infants, and young children can still be put at risk by short-term political bargains. WIC remained open only because of temporary contingency funds and emergency transfers, not because its importance is fundamentally guaranteed. Treating early childhood nutrition as a non-essential federal discretion ignores its role in building the next generation's capital, earning power, and potential. If future government shutdowns occur, it is essential and humane to insulate WIC and similar early-childhood programs in economic policy from these disruptions. 

Note: 

On November 12, 2025, President Trump signed the Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act (H.R. 5371), formally ending the October 01, 2025, federal government shutdown, which stands as one of the longest in U.S. history. As part of this extensive legislative package, $8.2 billion in funds for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is provided through September 30, 2026. This represents an increase of about $600 million over the FY 2025 appropriation of $7.6 billion. This bill also replenishes the emergency resources used to sustain WIC during the shutdown—such as Section 32 funds. Such appropriations help ensure that benefits remain protected and the program operations may continue without interruption.