A coalition of 18 states filed a federal lawsuit yesterday against the Department of Agriculture, challenging what they describe as “unprecedented and unlawful” demands for sensitive SNAP recipient data. The legal battle centers on the Trump administration’s recent directive requiring states to share detailed personal information on millions of food assistance beneficiaries.
“This is a flagrant overreach that threatens the privacy of our most vulnerable residents,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who leads the multi-state coalition. “These families shouldn’t have to choose between putting food on the table and protecting their personal information.”
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) serves approximately 42 million Americans, providing essential food benefits to low-income households. According to USDA statistics, nearly two-thirds of recipients are families with children, and about one-third are households with seniors or people with disabilities.
I’ve spent the past week reviewing the 87-page legal filing and speaking with state officials, policy experts, and affected families. The lawsuit’s core argument hinges on whether the administration has legal authority to demand such extensive personal data without congressional approval.
The directive, issued last month, requires states to submit detailed records including Social Security numbers, home addresses, income verification documents, and even school attendance records for children in recipient households. Previously, states only shared aggregated, anonymized data for federal oversight purposes.
“We’re talking about a dramatic expansion of federal data collection that impacts millions of Americans who have done nothing wrong,” said Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, economist and SNAP policy expert at Northwestern University. “The privacy implications are enormous, especially when you consider the vulnerabilities in government data systems.”
The Department of Agriculture defends the data collection as necessary for program integrity. In a statement, USDA Secretary Tom Williams claimed the measures would “save taxpayers billions by rooting out waste and fraud.” However, SNAP already has one of the lowest fraud rates among federal programs—just 1.3% according to the department’s own most recent analysis.
Beyond legal questions, the dispute reveals deeper tensions about surveillance of assistance programs. During my conversation with Illinois SNAP recipient Maria Gonzalez, she expressed fears shared by many beneficiaries.
“I already had to provide all this information to get help feeding my kids,” said Gonzalez, a single mother of three in Chicago. “Now they want to share it who-knows-where? It feels like we’re being punished for needing help.”
The lawsuit argues the directive violates several federal laws, including the Privacy Act and the Food and Nutrition Act, which established specific limitations on data sharing. State officials also warn the requirements could create a massive administrative burden, potentially delaying benefits to eligible households.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell pointed to troubling language in internal USDA documents obtained during pre-litigation discovery. “Their own memos acknowledge the data collection goes beyond what’s authorized by statute,” Campbell told me during a phone interview. “They’re also discussing sharing this information with other federal agencies, which raises serious red flags.”
Legal experts I consulted suggest the states have compelling arguments. “The administration is on shaky ground legally,” said Professor Daniel Solove, privacy law expert at George Washington University. “Federal agencies can’t simply demand whatever data they want without clear statutory authority, especially when it involves sensitive personal information.”
The lawsuit comes amid growing concerns about government data practices. A recent Pew Research study found 78% of Americans worry about how their data is collected and used by the government, with particular concern about information shared across agencies.
For SNAP recipients like Detroit resident James Wilson, the dispute adds another layer of stress to already difficult circumstances. “I worked my whole life until I got hurt,” Wilson explained when we spoke at a local food assistance office. “Now I need help for a little while, and suddenly I’m treated like a criminal? It’s not right.”
Several advocacy organizations, including the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, have filed amicus briefs supporting the states’ position. They argue the directive could have a chilling effect, discouraging eligible families from seeking assistance they need.
State officials emphasize they support reasonable fraud prevention measures but believe this directive goes too far. “We already have robust verification systems,” said New York Governor Kathy Hochul at a press conference announcing her state’s participation in the lawsuit. “This isn’t about program integrity—it’s about creating barriers for vulnerable families.”
The case has been assigned to Judge Mariana Rodriguez in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. A hearing on the states’ motion for preliminary injunction is scheduled for next week. The outcome could significantly impact how federal assistance programs handle recipient data moving forward.
As this story develops, one thing is clear: the balance between program oversight and privacy protection remains a contentious issue, with millions of America’s most vulnerable families caught in the middle.
