SNAP Benefits Update 2025: Why 21 States Are at Risk of Losing Federal Funding

SNAP Benefits Update 2025 : What the New Federal Warning to States Really Means

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is entering one of the most contentious periods in its modern history. With roughly 42 million Americans relying on the program each month, even small administrative changes can create widespread ripple effects. Now, a new confrontation—centered on state-provided data, federal oversight, and accusations of program fraud—has escalated into a direct warning from the Trump administration.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has notified more than 20 states, most of which are governed by Democratic administrations, that their federal SNAP administrative funding may be halted if they do not comply with new, expansive data-sharing requirements. Federal officials argue the additional data is necessary to combat what they describe as significant, ongoing program abuse. State leaders counter that the requests are legally questionable, risk violating privacy protections, and could destabilize nutrition support for millions of households.

SNAP Benefits Update 2025

Below is a clear, comprehensive breakdown—free of political spin—explaining what’s happening, why it matters, and what it may mean for SNAP recipients in the coming months.

Why the Warning Was Issued Now

USDA officials say they have spent the past several months requesting detailed administrative and identity-related data from states to help track potential fraud and improper payments. According to a USDA spokesperson, the agency created a “SNAP integrity team” to analyze incoming information and “scrub all available data” to identify what it describes as indiscriminate welfare fraud.

Federal officials report that 28 states and Guam have complied.
However, 21 other states—including California, New York, Minnesota, and others—have not.

The warning is the next step in escalating compliance pressure. USDA says states that still refuse to provide the requested data will receive a formal notification that the department intends to withhold administrative funding.

How SNAP Administrative Funding Works

Here’s where many explanations get confusing—and where many Americans understandably worry.

SNAP benefits themselves (i.e., the money loaded on EBT cards) are federally funded and cannot legally be withheld unless Congress changes the law.
What USDA is threatening to pull is administrative funding, which pays for:

• state eligibility workers
• fraud investigations
• EBT system operations
• call centers
• application processing
• office staffing and technology

In many states, federal administrative funding covers 50% or more of all SNAP operational costs. Without it, states would need to use their own budgets to keep the program functioning—or risk severe slowdowns and service interruptions.

Which States Are Affected and Why

USDA says the states that have not complied are “mostly blue states,” though the exact list spans a mix of political profiles.

States that already sent data include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

The remaining states object primarily on legal and privacy grounds, not on the existence of fraud detection efforts.

The Nature of the Data Requests

According to statements from USDA and officials including Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, the administration wants access to more granular state-level information about SNAP recipients, including:

• immigration status
• criminal activity associated with EBT card transactions
• interstate benefit usage
• identity and residency details
• administrative case management records

Some data elements are typically shared already—but states say the new asks are broader, more frequent, and more invasive than standard federal requirements.

SNAP Fraud Enforcement: What the USDA Says It’s Targeting

USDA says it is looking for:

• fraudulent EBT card trafficking
• duplicate benefit cases across states
• identity fraud
• misuse of benefits by unauthorized individuals
• cases involving “illegals and criminals,” according to a USDA spokesperson

While verified SNAP fraud exists, historically it represents less than 2% of program costs, according to past USDA Inspector General reports. USDA under the current administration argues that figure is artificially low due to incomplete data.

The “NO DATA, NO MONEY” Rule Explained

Secretary Rollins summarized the stance publicly:
“NO DATA, NO MONEY — it’s that simple.”

In short:

• States that do not comply
  → may lose federal administrative funds.
• States that do comply
  → maintain funding and remain in the fraud-monitoring initiative.

The warning does not threaten direct cuts to individual SNAP benefits, but operational disruptions could indirectly affect processing times and program stability.

Why Democratic-Led States Are Resisting : Concerns Over Federal Overreach

Multiple governors and state agencies argue that USDA is attempting to impose new data-sharing rules without going through formal rulemaking, which typically requires:

• public notice
• a comment period
• legal review
• cost-benefit analysis

Skipping these steps can violate administrative law.

Privacy, Immigration Data, and State Legal Obligations

Some states say the data requests require them to disclose information that:

• state law protects
• could compromise the privacy of U.S. citizens and legal residents
• could expose families with mixed immigration status
• might be used for non-SNAP purposes

Privacy laws in states like California, Washington, and New York place strict limits on how agencies can disclose personal data without explicit statutory authority.

Lawsuits and Constitutional Tensions

Legal challenges are already emerging. States argue that threatening to withhold federal funds to force compliance may violate:

• the Tenth Amendment (state sovereignty)
• federal spending clause limits
• statutory boundaries of the Food and Nutrition Act

Courts have historically scrutinized federal attempts to attach new conditions to existing funding streams.

What This Means for SNAP Recipients

Could Benefits Be Interrupted?

USDA cannot unilaterally stop benefit payments—Congress controls that funding.
However, operational disruptions are possible.

If a state loses administrative funding:

• application processing may slow
• call center wait times could grow
• approval/recertification timelines may lengthen
• staffing shortages could delay case decisions

These are indirect impacts, but they can affect how smoothly families receive assistance.

Difference Between Administrative Funds and Recipient Benefits

To avoid confusion, here’s the key distinction:

Federal SNAP Funding Type	Can USDA Withhold It?	What It Pays For
Benefit funds (EBT money)	No — requires Congress	Monthly food benefits
Administrative funds	Yes — under certain conditions	State operations and case work

Households will not lose benefits because of this dispute alone, but they may face slower service.

How Many People Could Be Affected

States resisting the data requests include some of the nation’s largest SNAP populations. Combined, these states serve well over 20 million recipients, including:

• working families
• seniors
• individuals with disabilities
• low-wage workers
• children in food-insecure households

Program disruptions—even administrative ones—could disproportionately affect the nation’s most economically vulnerable communities.

Political Reactions and Public Messaging

Statements From Federal Officials

USDA officials have framed the issue as a fight against fraud. Some statements—including those referencing “illegals,” “criminals,” or “bribery schemes”—have drawn criticism for their tone. Critics argue the messaging obscures legitimate questions about:

• federal authority
• privacy protections
• accuracy of fraud estimates

Supporters of the policy argue that refusing data undermines accountability.

Responses From State Leaders

Democratic state officials say the dispute is not about avoiding oversight but about:

• ensuring data is used lawfully
• safeguarding resident privacy
• preventing mission creep into immigration enforcement
• minimizing unintended harm to legitimate beneficiaries

Several states are preparing litigation to block the funding threat.

Broader Debate Over the Future of SNAP

This clash fits into a larger national discussion about how public benefits should be:

• regulated
• audited
• modernized
• protected from fraud
• delivered efficiently
• shielded from political fluctuations

Statements from figures like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries reflect concerns about broader cuts or policy shifts affecting SNAP.

What to Expect Next

Possible Timelines

USDA has indicated that states will receive formal written warnings “next week.”
After that, they may have a defined window—typically 30 to 90 days—to comply before funds are withheld.

What States Must Do to Avoid Funding Loss

To maintain their administrative funding, states would need to:

1. Provide the requested data elements
2. Confirm ongoing data-sharing arrangements
3. Certify that information is accurate and complete

If states refuse outright, the conflict likely ends up in federal court.

Expert Predictions on Legal, Budget, and Operational Outcomes

Policy analysts expect several outcomes:

• Short term:
  Most states will attempt negotiation; some may partially comply while preparing lawsuits.
• Medium term:
  Courts may issue injunctions delaying the threat of administrative fund withdrawal.
• Long term:
  The case could reshape how much authority USDA has to demand data without formal regulation.

For recipients, the most important point is this: No immediate loss of benefits is expected, but access delays could occur if states experience administrative strain.