Snopes Ownership Questioned as Congresswoman’s Endorsement Tweet Goes Viral

Congressional Showdown: Rep. Jacobs Cites Snopes in SNAP Funding Dispute

A long-simmering political battle over food assistance programs has erupted into public view, with fact-checking website Snopes finding itself at the center of a heated exchange between lawmakers. Democratic Representative Sara Jacobs of California ignited the controversy this week when she referenced Snopes in a viral social media post criticizing House Speaker Mike Johnson’s role in cutting federal nutrition programs.

“Don’t take it from me, listen to Snopes! Speaker Johnson signed a bill to cut $186 billion from SNAP. And again, it’s HIS party that won’t help millions of Americans put food on the table this month,” Jacobs wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.

The post quickly gained traction amid growing concerns about food security during the current government shutdown. Millions of Americans who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) face uncertainty about whether they will receive their benefits.

According to Snopes’ reporting, Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, endorsed President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” in July 2025. Following approval from both chambers of Congress, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the legislation would reduce SNAP funding by approximately $186 billion over the next decade. About one-third of these cuts would result from stricter work requirements for program participants.

The public debate has reignited interest in Snopes itself, with many questioning who operates the influential fact-checking platform. Founded by David Mikkelson, Snopes has long been considered a leading authority in debunking misinformation online. The site continues to function with a small editorial team dedicated to verifying claims and partnering with major platforms like Facebook to combat false information.

However, Snopes has weathered its own controversies. In 2017, the organization became embroiled in a bitter dispute between Mikkelson and Proper Media, the digital company that managed Snopes’ advertising. The conflict emerged after Mikkelson’s ex-wife Barbara sold her 50% stake in the company to five individuals connected with Proper Media following the couple’s divorce.

The dispute centered on ownership rights, with Mikkelson claiming that Proper Media was withholding essential advertising revenue and failing to fund Snopes’ operations. This financial strain prompted Mikkelson to launch a crowdfunding campaign that raised over $600,000 to keep the fact-checking site afloat.

Despite these internal challenges, Snopes has maintained its reputation as a reliable source for fact-checking in an increasingly complex information landscape. The site’s mention in a high-profile political dispute underscores its continued relevance in national discourse.

The current SNAP funding controversy represents a significant flashpoint in American politics, highlighting fundamental disagreements about the role of government in providing social safety nets. While Republicans have generally advocated for reduced spending and stricter eligibility requirements for assistance programs, Democrats typically support expanded access to food benefits, particularly during economic hardships.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has suggested that “the whole SNAP program needs to be reformed,” indicating the administration’s desire for substantial changes to the program’s structure and implementation.

As the government shutdown continues, the fate of SNAP benefits remains uncertain, leaving vulnerable populations in potential jeopardy. Food banks across the country are preparing for increased demand should federal assistance be disrupted.

The intersection of fact-checking, political messaging, and public policy illustrated by this controversy demonstrates how information sources themselves can become part of the polarizing ecosystem they attempt to clarify. While Snopes remains committed to combating misinformation, its prominence in this debate shows that even fact-checkers are not immune to becoming subjects of the very political discussions they analyze.