Some agencies that administer food assistance benefits have posted partisan messages on government websites as the federal shutdown drags on.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture informed states late last month that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP would be paused for November if the shutdown continued. Funding for the program, which serves nearly 42 million people each month, remains up in the air as a court battle over the frozen benefits continues.
Though SNAP is federally funded, each state administers the program differently – leaving it up to states to communicate about the pause. State agencies in Texas and Iowa linked to documents addressing frequently asked questions. In Michigan and Missouri, state agencies provided lists of food banks and nonprofits that could help SNAP recipients during the shutdown.
A few states took a more partisan approach in addition to providing information and resources.
A header on all web pages within the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services site includes a quote from Gov. Jim Pillen saying SNAP benefits will not be available in November “due to a failure by Democrats in the U.S. Senate.” The message was initially posted without attribution before quotation marks and Pillen’s name were added on Oct. 30. Department spokesperson Jeff Powell said the message was added “per consultation with Gov. Pillen’s office.”
“It has since been updated to eliminate any confusion about its source, which was Gov. Pillen,” Powell said.
In Illinois, a drop-down notice on the state’s Applications for Benefits Eligibility site previously referred to the “Republican federal government shutdown” and put the onus on “the Trump administration to reopen the government.” That language has since been softened, but it still directly names the Trump administration and the federal government.
“SNAP is 100% federally funded, and the Trump Administration delaying, reducing, or entirely eliminating payments affects all 1.9 million recipients in Illinois,” the website read as of Nov. 10.
Federal messaging
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has taken an even more partisan approach. The agency’s website displays a large banner that reads: “Senate Democrats have voted 14 times against reopening the government. This compromises not only SNAP, but farm programs, food inspection, animal and plant disease protection, rural development, and protecting federal lands. Senate Democrats are withholding services to the American people in exchange for healthcare for illegals, gender mutilation, and other unknown 'leverage' points."
That and other partisan language on federal websites have raised concerns about potential violations of the Hatch Act, a 1939 law enacted to limit the partisan speech of federal employees and prohibit public officials from using federal resources to endorse or campaign for a political candidate. Employees of state and local agencies who work with programs that are financed entirely by federal funds are also subject to the prohibitions of the Hatch Act.
Richard Painter, a professor at the University of Minnesota School of Law and the former chief ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush White House, said tying the language on the USDA website to attempts to influence an election might be a stretch. But he said the messaging may run afoul of federal anti-lobbying laws, which prohibit money appropriated from Congress from being used to influence lawmakers or other public officials to favor or oppose any legislation or policy.
“I think a lot of what’s been going on with the federal government violates the anti-lobbying law, and that’s the one I point people to first and foremost before the Hatch Act,” Painter said. “Because basically, you’re using federal taxpayer funds to try to influence Congress.”
Most states also have their own laws governing the political activities of state employees. In Nebraska, public officials are prohibited from using public resources to campaign for or against a candidate or ballot issue. Illinois has a similar statute, which restricts state employees from using state resources “for the benefit of any campaign for elective office or any political organization.”
A lawsuit in Nebraska
Two Nebraska women sued the state Department of Health and Human Services over the website language, claiming it violates state statute and “aids and promotes all Republicans running for office in November 2026,” according to the lawsuit. One of the plaintiffs is a SNAP recipient who said she received a text instructing her to ‘Learn more about how the federal government shutdown impacts SNAP’ and was taken to the website with the partisan message.
Vince Powers is the attorney representing the two women. He said he thinks state officials will defend the language by saying the statute is inapplicable because the quote is attributed to Pillen.
Even if the shutdown ends before the first hearing in the case, currently set for Nov. 21, Powers said the lawsuit will continue with the goal of determining how many people were involved in the decision to post the language and if taxpayer money was spent in the process.
“There’s no dispute these are public resources,” Powers said. “No dispute they’re trying to influence public support against Senate Democrats.”
Regardless of legality, Painter said people should be able to access important information on government websites without partisan messaging of any kind. He pointed to political neutrality policies for university websites as an example states could look to.
“We pay for services in our government,” Painter said. “We're not paying for lobbying firms, for a PR machine. We're paying for services.”
This story was produced in partnership with Harvest Public Media, a collaboration of public media newsrooms in the Midwest and Great Plains. It reports on food systems, agriculture and rural issues.
