Despite Gov. Ned Lamont’s assurances that Connecticut would safeguard food-insecure residents, it remained unclear Tuesday whether he will replace all vanishing federal nutrition aid as sought by state legislators.

Specifically, Lamont wouldn’t say Tuesday whether he would approve spending the estimated $36 million — less than 1% of Connecticut’s reserves and projected surplus — needed to fund one-half of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for one month.

The governor said Monday he’d agreed with legislative leaders to reserve $500 million in state funds to temper the pain of stalled federal funding for SNAP and other human service programs. But the bill the General Assembly is expected to adopt later this month in special session reportedly would give the governor a lot of flexibility in deciding when to release funds for SNAP, and how much.

[RELATED: SNAP cuts to families in CT will hit harder than any other state]

President Donald Trump’s administration told a federal judge Monday it would resume paying SNAP benefits at about 50% of normal levels for roughly one month using a special contingency fund.

“We continue to have ongoing conversations with legislative leadership regarding ways to address the cuts and real impact from both the One Big Beautiful Bill and the ongoing government shutdown ahead of the upcoming special session,” Lamont spokesman Rob Blanchard said. “Gov. Lamont is committed to ensuring Connecticut families do not go hungry despite the dysfunction in Washington.”

But legislative leaders from both parties were far more specific Tuesday about what Connecticut must do to protect vulnerable families.

“This is about Connecticut protecting its own,” House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, said.

Ritter met with majority House Democrats in private caucus Monday and said members were pleased that Lamont agreed this week to reserve big state funds to respond to human service programs at risk.

But federal SNAP benefits officially stopped Nov. 1. And since it’s unclear when they might resume, and at what level, many House Democrats want Lamont to spend what’s necessary to restore them to full levels. Legislators also want to preserve benefits for other nutrition programs and for winter heating assistance.

Ritter added Tuesday that this sentiment is bipartisan, and leaders of the House and Senate minorities agreed with him.

“I think, especially going into the holidays, these programs need to be left whole,” said House Minority Leader Vincent J. Candelora, R-North Branford. Although some Republicans might object to state dollars being spent on federal programs, many in the House GOP caucus support stepping up temporarily.

“I would think that the majority of my caucus would support using some state funds, at least temporarily, to provide the full [SNAP] benefits to constituents,” said Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding, R-Brookfield.

A full month of SNAP benefits for Connecticut households would cost about $72 million. And half the bill is $36 million, which represents just 2% of the projected state budget surplus and less than 1% of that windfall and Connecticut’s rainy day fund combined.

“This is, in fact, the rainy day that we’ve been saving for for eight years,” Senate President Pro Tem Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven, said, referring to roughly $15 billion in surpluses Connecticut has amassed since aggressive budget caps were installed in 2017. “I believe that we should do everything we can to make sure the full [SNAP] benefits are paid.”

Sen. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague, co-chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, also said she believes majority Democrats want the roughly 360,000 Connecticut residents on SNAP to receive their full monthly benefit. According to state Department of Social Services officials, the average is $324 per household.

“I’m not interested in cutting people off,” Osten said.

Meanwhile, the federal role in the nutrition assistance program remains murky.

A partial federal government shutdown that started Oct. 1 began draining SNAP funds, and President Trump’s administration ended payments on Nov. 1.

Two federal judges ordered the Trump administration Friday to continue SNAP using a special contingency fund, which the White House says would allow benefits to be paid, at roughly half-size, for one month.

And while the president threatened early Tuesday in a social media post to withhold any benefits until the shutdown ends, the White House clarified later in the day that the administration would comply with the courts and issue partial SNAP benefits at some point this month, the New York Times reported.

[RELATED: CT, other states sue Trump administration over SNAP suspension]

Meanwhile, Lamont will face considerable pressure to keep SNAP benefits afloat this winter, or until the shutdown ends. The Democratic governor is expected to announce later this fall that he will seek a third term in 2026. But a significant portion of his base is demanding an aggressive state response to the federal shutdown and its impact on human service programs.

But the governor, a fiscal moderate, has traditionally objected to using state funds to supplement programs normally funded by the federal government.

Lamont faced bipartisan criticism from state legislators in 2023 when they designated $30 million to bolster winter heating assistance programs after Washington had dramatically cut federal resources to pay benefits. The Lamont administration set benefit levels cautiously, and none of the $30 million in state funds were paid out in the winter of 2022-23, even though requests for aid were up 24%.

The governor met late last week with the General Assembly’s Black and Puerto Rican Caucus, which indicated the $3 million in state funds Lamont donated to help food assistance nonprofits in Connecticut — though appreciated — won’t be close to enough to keep vulnerable households from a hunger crisis.

Sen. Gary Winfield, a New Haven Democrat and member of the caucus, noted half of a normal SNAP benefit amounts to about $40 per week.

“If we’re at the point of asking people to feed themselves on $40 … there’s something wrong with us,” he said.

“Any person who thinks that’s a question to be asked,” Winfield added, “should re-think being in a position to make that decision.”