By Alexis Sterling / Nation of Change / Dec.5, 2025
A new confrontation between the White House and blue states raises concerns about the political use of food assistance programs
The Trump administration is poised to block key federal funds tied to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program as part of an escalating dispute with Democratic-led states over data demands involving millions of low income households.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins told President Donald Trump during a Cabinet meeting Tuesday, Dec. 2, that the Department of Agriculture would begin halting federal transfers next week for states that have not turned over detailed information on SNAP recipients. The move has triggered legal challenges, sharp criticism from lawmakers, and questions about whether the administration has the authority to interrupt a program that helps 42 million people afford food.
Rollins said on Tuesday that the administration had requested state data earlier this year to address what she called “rampant” fraud in the program. She said most states complied, but 21 states, nearly all governed by Democrats, refused. A USDA spokesperson later suggested that the department lacked data from 22 states. Rollins told the president, “As of next week, we have begun and will begin to stop moving federal funds into those states until they comply, and they tell us and allow us to partner with them to root out this fraud and to protect the American taxpayer.”
The administration’s position was reiterated in a second statement that closely mirrored her remarks. Rollins said, “So as of next week, we have begun and will begin to stop moving federal funds into those states, until they comply and they tell us and allow us to partner with them to root out this fraud and to protect the American taxpayer.” These comments marked the first time the administration stated publicly that the flow of federal money to noncompliant states would be cut off.
A USDA spokesperson listed 28 states and one territory as having complied with the request. That left 22 Democratic-led states as noncompliant, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin. The spokesperson argued that blue states were shielding wrongdoing, saying the states were choosing to protect “bad actors, including criminals and immigrants in the country without legal status, over the American taxpayer.” The same spokesperson added, “We have sent Democrat States yet another request for data, and if they fail to comply, they will be provided with formal warning that USDA will pull their administrative funds.”
The data request seeks information on eligibility verification and personal details including Social Security numbers. According to a separate description, the request also covers “recipients’ names and immigration statuses.” Court records show that USDA issued a new request for data on November 28 and demanded a response within seven days. That letter appeared in litigation brought by the 22 states, which argue that the department’s actions are unlawful.
It is unclear whether USDA has legal authority to withhold funding. SNAP benefits are funded entirely by the federal government, while states share administrative costs. Congress appropriates the money, and USDA has not identified a statutory basis for withholding funds from states that refuse to provide recipient data. When asked directly about the legal authority for blocking money, the department did not answer.
Democrats on the U.S. House Agriculture Committee said the threatened cutoff would violate the law. An official committee account posted, “Yet again, Trump and Rollins are illegally threatening to withhold federal dollars. SNAP has one of the lowest fraud rates of any government program, but Trump continues to weaponize hunger.” The committee’s lead Democrat, Angie Craig of Minnesota, issued a statement accusing the administration of spreading misinformation and abusing its authority. She said Rollins “continues to spew propaganda.” Craig added, “Her disregard for the law and willingness to lie through her teeth comes from the very top — the Trump administration is as corrupt as it is lawless, and I will not sit silently as she carries out the president’s campaign against Americans struggling to afford food in part because of this president’s tariffs and disastrous economic policies.”
Other Democratic officials condemned the threat. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul asked on X, “Genuine question: Why is the Trump Administration so hellbent on people going hungry?” Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison described the move as an attempt to “punish … political rivals.” He said, “It’s nothing short of ridiculous that the Trump administration is once again trying to withhold SNAP funding over data sharing after a court clearly barred them from doing so.”
Earlier this fall, a federal judge in San Francisco issued a preliminary injunction blocking the administration from withholding SNAP funding from states that refuse to provide the requested data. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the 21 states and the District of Columbia. The court noted that USDA could appeal, but the judge denied a request from the administration to pause the injunction if it does so. The department has until December 15 to decide whether it will appeal.
For years, the Trump administration has targeted SNAP for cuts or administrative restrictions. During the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, SNAP funding lapsed, and many households went without food assistance until the shutdown ended on November 12. Shortly afterward, Rollins suggested in interviews that she would force all recipients to reapply for benefits, a change experts warned would overwhelm state systems and reduce enrollment. The most recent Republican taxes and spending law added new work requirements and tightened eligibility in ways advocates say will significantly reduce benefits. The law also shifts some SNAP benefit costs to states and increases their share of administrative expenses, which could push states to reduce services.
Fraud allegations have played a central role in the administration’s justification for the data demand. USDA’s November 28 letter states that early review of data from 28 states and Guam “indicates an estimated average of $24 million per day of federal funds is lost to fraud and errors undetected by States in their administration of SNAP.” The department said that preventing such losses could save “up to $9 billion per year.” Yet existing national data does not support claims of widespread program abuse. A 2023 USDA report found that about 26,000 applications, “roughly 0.1%” of enrolled SNAP households, were referred for administrative or criminal review. People in the country without legal status have never been eligible for SNAP. Katie Bergh, a senior food assistance policy analyst at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, said in a November interview, “The long-standing data sources indicate that intentional fraud by participants is rare.”
The 22 suing states argue that the demand for detailed personal information is part of a broader push by the administration to gather sensitive data that could be shared with immigration enforcement agencies. They cite previous arrangements in which the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services agreed to share data with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Their lawsuit contends that the SNAP data request is meant to “amass Americans’ sensitive, personal data and misuse that data for unauthorized purposes.”
The administration’s threats have immediate implications for millions of families. If administrative funds are frozen, states could see delays in processing applications, reduced staffing, and barriers to accessing benefits. During the fall shutdown, funding lapses forced many families to go without food. Advocates warn that the new threat could replicate that harm even if benefits themselves are not formally cut.
As the legal battle intensifies, the administration continues to argue that states are obstructing the fight against fraud. Democratic officials contend instead that the White House is attempting to use hunger as political leverage. The federal judge’s injunction protects states for now, but with a December 15 deadline for USDA to appeal, the conflict is far from resolved. At stake is not only the stability of a major anti-poverty program but also the question of whether SNAP can be used as an instrument of political pressure.
