Listen to the article
The federal government’s effort to gather unprecedented levels of data on food assistance recipients has sparked a significant legal battle with nearly half of U.S. states, highlighting tensions between fraud prevention and privacy concerns.
The Trump administration has been seeking detailed personal information from states about their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) beneficiaries for several months. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 28 states and Guam have provided the requested data, while 21 states – predominantly those with Democratic governors – continue to resist.
At issue is a USDA directive issued in July 2025 that significantly expands traditional reporting requirements. While states have historically shared certain SNAP data with federal authorities, the July 24 letter demanded far more comprehensive information, instructing states to provide data from Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) processors to create what the agency described as a “complete and accurate database.”
What distinguishes this request from routine reporting is the breadth and sensitivity of the information sought. The USDA is demanding personally identifiable information on every SNAP recipient, including full names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, and home addresses – a level of detail never before required on a nationwide scale.
The unprecedented nature of this demand has prompted legal action. The 21 non-compliant states have filed a lawsuit against the federal government, arguing that the requirements constitute an overreach of federal authority and pose significant privacy risks.
“Never before has the federal government demanded that States turn over PII on their entire SNAP caseloads, much less home address, social security number, immigration status, and day-to-day grocery purchase information,” the states wrote in their amended complaint.
The lawsuit outlines several key concerns, including potential cybersecurity vulnerabilities when transmitting large quantities of sensitive data, fears that the information could be repurposed for non-SNAP initiatives like immigration enforcement, and allegations that the USDA is exceeding its congressionally authorized oversight powers.
It’s noteworthy that several states with the highest SNAP payment error rates – including California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Oregon – are among those refusing to comply, according to USDA data. This correlation raises questions about whether resistance stems partly from concerns about increased scrutiny of program administration.
The administration maintains that this enhanced data collection is essential for combating fraud and reducing payment errors. The resisting states counter that privacy concerns outweigh potential benefits and that the USDA lacks clear legal authority to demand such granular information.
As this legal dispute unfolds, SNAP remains one of America’s most extensive social safety net programs. In fiscal year 2024, it served approximately 41.7 million people monthly, with federal expenditures totaling $99.8 billion. The average monthly benefit per participant was $187.20.
SNAP eligibility criteria are federally determined, not state-controlled. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, households typically must have gross incomes below 130% of the federal poverty line – approximately $2,888 monthly for a family of three. Only U.S. citizens and certain legal immigrants, such as refugees and asylum seekers, qualify for benefits, while undocumented immigrants are ineligible.
Additionally, most able-bodied adults without dependents must work at least 80 hours monthly or participate in approved employment programs to maintain their eligibility.
The administration is reportedly considering financial penalties for states that continue to withhold the requested information, which could potentially affect program funding in non-compliant states.
This standoff raises fundamental questions about the balance between federal oversight and state autonomy, as well as the tension between program integrity measures and individual privacy protections. As the courts weigh these competing interests, the outcome could establish important precedents for federal-state relations and data privacy in social welfare programs.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
5 Comments
Balancing fraud prevention and privacy protection is always a tricky proposition. While I understand the government’s goals, the proposed SNAP data collection seems overly broad. I hope the states and federal authorities can find a compromise that addresses legitimate needs without unduly burdening beneficiaries.
As someone who relies on SNAP benefits, I’m concerned about the implications of this data collection effort. While fraud is an issue, the personal information being requested seems excessive and could deter eligible people from applying for assistance. I hope a middle ground can be reached.
This is an interesting clash between state and federal priorities. On one hand, the government has a duty to ensure SNAP funds are used properly. But the scope of the data demands raises valid privacy concerns. I’m curious to see how the legal battle unfolds and what kind of solution emerges.
This is a complex issue with valid concerns on both sides. While fraud prevention is important, the proposed data collection raises significant privacy concerns. I’m curious to see how this legal battle plays out and whether a balanced solution can be found.
The expanded SNAP data reporting requirements seem overly invasive. I understand the government’s desire to combat fraud, but this appears to go too far in violating beneficiaries’ privacy. I hope the states can reach a reasonable compromise with federal authorities.