US states sue Trump administration over demand to collect Snap recipients' private data
The data demand comes as the Trump administration has sought to collect private information on mostly lower-income people who may be in the country illegally. It has already ordered the Internal Revenue Service and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to share private information with the Department of Homeland Security to aid in deportation efforts.
The US Department of Agriculture told states last week that it had until Wednesday to hand over the data for those enrolled in its Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or Snap, which serves more than 42 million people nationwide. The USDA said the data will help it combat waste, fraud and abuse.
The states' lawsuit seeks an injunction to block the data transfer. In the meantime, state attorneys general in the SNAP lawsuit said they will not disclose what they consider to be private information of recipients – including their immigration status, birthdates and home addresses – because they believe it would be a violation of privacy laws.
'It's a bait-and-switch of the worst kind,' said Rob Bonta, California's attorney general, in a Monday afternoon news conference announcing the lawsuit. 'Snap recipients provided this information to get help feeding their families, not to be entered into a government surveillance database or be used as targets in the president's inhumane immigration agenda.'
In May, the department announced it was seeking the data as part of Donald Trump's executive order to obtain data from state programs to help root out fraud and waste. 'For years, this program has been on autopilot, with no USDA insight into real-time data,' said Brooke L Rollins, the USDA secretary, in a statement at the time. 'The Department is focused on appropriate and lawful participation in Snap, and today's request is one of many steps to ensure Snap is preserved for only those eligible.'
USDA officials declined a request for comment on the suit.
The USDA did not mention immigration enforcement in the announcement or later notices. It is not clear why USDA officials believe the data will help it weed out fraud and abuse. The agency claims the program is already 'one of the most rigorous quality control systems in the federal government'.
Immigration advocates noted that the Trump administration has used the same argument to obtain other sensitive data, only to later admit it would be using the information to enhance its deportation operations. Trump administration officials, for example, initially claimed they were seeking state Medicaid data to fight fraud. Last week, a top immigration official conceded they would be utilizing that same information to locate immigrants.
Agency officials have threatened to withhold Snap funding if states fail to comply with their demand for data.
While immigrants without legal status are ineligible to receive SNAP benefits, they can apply on behalf of their children who are US citizens or those who are part of a mixed-status household.
Under the program, formerly known as food stamps, the federal government pays for 100% of the food benefits, but the states help cover the administrative costs. States are also responsible for determining whether individuals are eligible for benefits and for issuing those benefits to enrollees.
Immigration and data privacy advocates expressed alarm at the Trump administration's efforts to obtain sensitive Snap data maintained by states.
'The administration has all but told us that their intention is to comb this data and use it for unlawful purposes that include immigration enforcement,' said Madeline Wiseman, an attorney with the National Student Legal Defense Network, which filed a lawsuit in May with privacy and hunger relief groups that are also challenging USDA's efforts for Snap data.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
12 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on the other Afghan scandal: countries are forcing refugees back to Taliban rule
The British public discovered only very belatedly that an enormous accidental data breach by an official three years ago put up to 100,000 Afghans at risk of torture and death. Some of them had worked with British forces in Afghanistan. The result was that thousands were secretly relocated to the UK. A superinjunction covered up the story for almost two years. But the shocking security lapse is far from the only example of Afghans being failed since Kabul fell to the Taliban in 2021. Many more are now at risk because the countries to which they fled are pushing them out. The mirage of a more moderate Taliban was soon shattered by their imposition of gender apartheid and the brutality faced by minorities. Three-quarters of the population struggle to meet their daily needs. Women are particularly vulnerable. Humanitarian support is being slashed. A drought and now the loss of overseas remittances are deepening the crisis. Yet almost 2 million Afghan refugees and migrants in neighbouring countries have returned or been forced to return home this year alone – thousands of them unaccompanied children, according to UN experts. More than 1.5 million Afghans have returned from Iran in 2025, with Iran accelerating expulsions after the war with Israel, which fed suspicion towards migrants. Pakistan began deporting unregistered Afghans in late 2023, after attacks by militants in border areas, but has widened its campaign to those who hold documents. More than two-thirds have never lived in Afghanistan, according to the International Crisis Group; their families fled conflict decades ago. In some cases, security forces are forcibly repatriating Afghans. In others, threats, harassment or intimidation have chased them out. The Trump administration has announced the removal of temporary protected status from almost 12,000 Afghans in the US, though an appeals court has for now blocked it from doing so. The US said that conditions in Afghanistan no longer merited the status. Tajikistan has also ordered Afghans to leave. UN experts have warned that former officials, including judges and lawyers, human rights defenders and journalists and other critics of the Taliban, along with religious and ethnic minorities, are at particular risk if they are returned. Women and girls are being deported to a country where they can no longer attend secondary school or university and are prohibited from letting their voices be heard outside the house, and where the EU has estimated that basic health services are available to just 10% of women. By driving women out of jobs and severely restricting their movements, the Taliban have ensured that female-headed households face destitution. The prospect of return is particularly frightening for women's rights activists who face imprisonment or death for their work. Pakistan and Iran should not force Afghans home – endangering lives and ending education for girls. But other governments too bear responsibility for this crisis. Poorer nations have been left to shoulder the strain of a high number of refugees, some of whom are in limbo due to Germany's closure of a humanitarian admission programme, and the bureaucracy surrounding a similiar programme in Australia. This has been a triple failure: a failure to welcome Afghans with a strong case for resettlement; to support them in countries which have accepted them; and to help those who are returning to Afghanistan. Western countries must live up to their promises to the Afghan people.
The Guardian
12 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Trump's tariffs: both a political and an economic threat
Donald Trump's 1 August tariffs deadline did what it was always intended to do. It kept the markets and the nations guessing amid last-minute uncertainty. It attempted to reassert the global heft of the United States economy to take on and master all comers. And it placed President Trump at the centre of the media story, where he always insists on being. In the event, there were some last-minute agreements struck this week, few of them fair or rational in trade terms, most of them motivated by the desire to generate some commercial order. Some conflicts are still in the balance. There were 11th-hour court challenges too, disputing the president's very right to play the trade war game in this way. Even now, no one, probably including Mr Trump himself, knows whether this is his administration's last word on US tariffs. Almost certainly not. That's because Mr Trump's love of tariffs is always more about the assertion of political clout rather than economic power. Mr Trump's antipathy towards the European Union drives one example. The pact agreed by Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland last weekend underlines that the EU's aspirations as a global economic superpower exceed its actual clout. The EU could not prevent Mr Trump making European goods 15% more expensive if they sell on US markets. Nor could it stop Mr Trump getting EU tariffs on US goods withdrawn. Equally eloquent about the global balance of economic power is that Mr Trump has not been able to force China to bend the knee in the manner of the EU. China has responded aggressively to Trump's tariff threats, retaliating with tariffs of its own and blocking the sale of commodities, including rare-earth minerals, that the US most covets. Unsurprisingly, this standoff has not produced one of Mr Trump's so-called deals. Friday's deadline has been reset for later in the month. It would be no surprise if it was eventually pushed back further. Mr Trump is not imposing tariffs on the rest of the world in order to promote global trade or even to boost the US economy. He is doing it, in part, because Congress has delegated this power to him, allowing the president to impose or waive tariffs at will. He uses this power for many purposes. These include raising government income without congressional oversight and also, because tariffs are regressive, shifting the tax burden away from the very rich, like Mr Trump himself, on to the middle and working class. But economics also comes way down the field in the list of reasons why Mr Trump is wielding the tariff weapon internationally. US talks with Brazil – with which the US runs a trade surplus, not a deficit – have been hijacked by Mr Trump's grievance over the prosecution of its former president Jair Bolsonaro for trying to overturn his 2022 election defeat. Talks with India are deadlocked because Mr Trump wants to penalise Delhi for buying energy and weapons from Russia. Those with Canada have been hit by Mr Trump's objections to Ottawa's plan to recognise Palestine. The ultimate test of the policy, however, will indeed be economic. For now, financial markets appear to have decided that Mr Trump's tariffs are manageable. If tariffs now raise the cost of goods on US high streets, slowing growth and feeding inflation, as they may, the wider market response could change quickly. In that event, the mood among American voters might even shift too.
Reuters
13 minutes ago
- Reuters
US securities regulator lays out sweeping plans to accommodate crypto
July 31 (Reuters) - The head of the U.S. securities regulator unveiled sweeping plans to overhaul capital markets regulations on Thursday to accommodate cryptocurrencies and blockchain-based trading, in a major win for the digital asset industry, which has long pushed for tailored rules. Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Paul Atkins said in remarks that he has directed commission staff to craft guidelines to determine when a crypto token is a security as well as proposals for a wide range of disclosures and exemptions. Atkins also said he has asked SEC staff to work with firms looking to offer tokenized securities -- blockchain-based shares of stocks or funds. "This represents more than a regulatory shift — it is a generational opportunity," Atkins said in a speech before the America First Policy Institute, a think tank that was created to support President Donald Trump's policy agenda. If enacted, Atkins' proposals would represent a broad shift for U.S. securities regulation, potentially enabling crypto to become more enmeshed with traditional finance. Details of his plans for crypto come just a day after a cryptocurrency working group formed by Trump called on the SEC to create new rules specific to digital assets and outlined the administration's stances on market-defining crypto legislation. In a landmark report, the White House encouraged the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to use their existing authorities to "immediately enable the trading of digital assets at the federal level." On the campaign trail last year, Trump courted crypto cash by pledging to be a "crypto president" and promote the adoption of digital assets. That is in stark contrast to former Democratic President Joe Biden's regulators, who, in a bid to protect Americans from fraud and money laundering, cracked down on the industry. The Biden administration's SEC sued exchanges Coinbase (COIN.O), opens new tab, Binance, and dozens more, alleging they were flouting U.S. laws. Trump's SEC has since dropped those cases.
