Privacy questions arise after 27 states share sensitive food stamp records with the USDA
- Replies 0
In an age where privacy feels increasingly fragile, some stories still manage to rattle even the most cautious among us.
When government agencies begin to ask for more than what people expect them to have, the lines between protection and intrusion start to blur.
The quiet exchange of information—sometimes unseen, sometimes unquestioned—can alter how trust functions in society. Now, a new discovery has many wondering just how far that exchange has already gone.
At least 27 states have shared detailed personal data of millions of Americans receiving food assistance, according to NPR’s latest reporting.
The information, covering names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and even benefit amounts, was sent to the US Department of Agriculture at the Trump administration’s request.
Officials claimed the move was aimed at rooting out fraud and abuse in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which supports roughly 42 million people every month. Critics, however, argue it is an alarming overreach that exposes vulnerable households to risks they never agreed to take.
Most states that complied are led by Republican governors, while many Democratic-led states refused, citing legal and ethical concerns. The refusal led to a lawsuit now playing out in federal court, where a coalition of 21 states and the District of Columbia is challenging the USDA’s data demand.
On Wednesday, US District Judge Maxine M. Chesney ruled that the administration could not punish those states by withholding billions in SNAP administrative funds. “USDA, in demanding such data, acted in a manner contrary to law,” the judge wrote, signaling the states may ultimately prevail.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta applauded the ruling, calling it a defense against what he described as government overreach. “Let’s be crystal clear: The President is trying to hijack a nutrition program to fuel his mass surveillance agenda,” he said in a statement.
The USDA has yet to comment publicly, but internal filings reveal the agency has already begun processing data through a Department of Homeland Security system known as SAVE.
The tool, initially built to verify the immigration status of benefit applicants, now also checks citizenship records and other sensitive information.
Read also: SNAP rules are changing in 12 states—here’s what foods could soon be off-limits
As the legal battle unfolds, experts are questioning how such large-scale data aggregation fits into federal norms.
Political scientist Philip Rocco said the move is “so out of line with professional norms for how federal-state relationships work” that it represents a serious break from tradition.
In previous years, the federal government relied on auditing and sampling rather than centralizing personal data. Now, the USDA claims it has found “several types of fraud, waste and abuse” using the information—but has not provided full context for its findings.
Nebraska, for example, turned over more than 12 million lines of data, while Texas and Ohio each shared information on millions of residents.
Vermont confirmed it submitted Social Security numbers, birth dates, and addresses dating back to 2020. Together, the 27 states that complied represent nearly 38% of the SNAP population.
Yet many officials in states that refused the demand say they were given no clear answers on how the data would be used—or whether it would be shared beyond USDA.
For some recipients, the revelations are deeply unsettling. One Vermont woman told NPR she was “terrified” that her data had been shared without her consent, fearing she could be wrongfully accused of fraud.
She said the government’s explanation of fighting waste feels hollow, especially when wealthier Americans face far less scrutiny. “It’s not about preventing waste, no way,” she said. “Because we’re pennies to the dollar.”
Read also: When grocery trips raise warning signs: What SNAP recipients should know
At its core, the dispute over SNAP data is about more than policy—it’s about trust in government systems that touch nearly every part of people’s lives. With the court’s injunction in place, states have a temporary safeguard, but uncertainty lingers over what happens next.
Whether the USDA’s actions will stand up to deeper legal scrutiny could shape how far federal agencies can go in accessing personal data in the future.
For now, the nation watches as privacy and power collide once again in a courtroom battle with enormous human stakes.
Read next:
How do you feel about states handing over citizens’ personal data to the federal government, even in the name of fraud prevention? Share your thoughts in the comments and tell us whether you believe this kind of oversight protects the public—or goes too far.
When government agencies begin to ask for more than what people expect them to have, the lines between protection and intrusion start to blur.
The quiet exchange of information—sometimes unseen, sometimes unquestioned—can alter how trust functions in society. Now, a new discovery has many wondering just how far that exchange has already gone.
At least 27 states have shared detailed personal data of millions of Americans receiving food assistance, according to NPR’s latest reporting.
The information, covering names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and even benefit amounts, was sent to the US Department of Agriculture at the Trump administration’s request.
Officials claimed the move was aimed at rooting out fraud and abuse in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which supports roughly 42 million people every month. Critics, however, argue it is an alarming overreach that exposes vulnerable households to risks they never agreed to take.
Most states that complied are led by Republican governors, while many Democratic-led states refused, citing legal and ethical concerns. The refusal led to a lawsuit now playing out in federal court, where a coalition of 21 states and the District of Columbia is challenging the USDA’s data demand.
Privacy questions arise after 27 states share sensitive food stamp records with the USDA. Image source: Hanson Lu / Unsplash
On Wednesday, US District Judge Maxine M. Chesney ruled that the administration could not punish those states by withholding billions in SNAP administrative funds. “USDA, in demanding such data, acted in a manner contrary to law,” the judge wrote, signaling the states may ultimately prevail.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta applauded the ruling, calling it a defense against what he described as government overreach. “Let’s be crystal clear: The President is trying to hijack a nutrition program to fuel his mass surveillance agenda,” he said in a statement.
The USDA has yet to comment publicly, but internal filings reveal the agency has already begun processing data through a Department of Homeland Security system known as SAVE.
The tool, initially built to verify the immigration status of benefit applicants, now also checks citizenship records and other sensitive information.
Read also: SNAP rules are changing in 12 states—here’s what foods could soon be off-limits
As the legal battle unfolds, experts are questioning how such large-scale data aggregation fits into federal norms.
Political scientist Philip Rocco said the move is “so out of line with professional norms for how federal-state relationships work” that it represents a serious break from tradition.
In previous years, the federal government relied on auditing and sampling rather than centralizing personal data. Now, the USDA claims it has found “several types of fraud, waste and abuse” using the information—but has not provided full context for its findings.
Nebraska, for example, turned over more than 12 million lines of data, while Texas and Ohio each shared information on millions of residents.
Vermont confirmed it submitted Social Security numbers, birth dates, and addresses dating back to 2020. Together, the 27 states that complied represent nearly 38% of the SNAP population.
Yet many officials in states that refused the demand say they were given no clear answers on how the data would be used—or whether it would be shared beyond USDA.
For some recipients, the revelations are deeply unsettling. One Vermont woman told NPR she was “terrified” that her data had been shared without her consent, fearing she could be wrongfully accused of fraud.
She said the government’s explanation of fighting waste feels hollow, especially when wealthier Americans face far less scrutiny. “It’s not about preventing waste, no way,” she said. “Because we’re pennies to the dollar.”
Read also: When grocery trips raise warning signs: What SNAP recipients should know
At its core, the dispute over SNAP data is about more than policy—it’s about trust in government systems that touch nearly every part of people’s lives. With the court’s injunction in place, states have a temporary safeguard, but uncertainty lingers over what happens next.
Whether the USDA’s actions will stand up to deeper legal scrutiny could shape how far federal agencies can go in accessing personal data in the future.
For now, the nation watches as privacy and power collide once again in a courtroom battle with enormous human stakes.
Read next:
- SNAP retailers could see changes as USDA proposes new stocking standards
- New data-sharing rules for SNAP: What recipients need to know
