Imagine finding out that hundreds of thousands of people who’ve passed away are still “receiving” monthly food assistance. Or that the same person is somehow collecting benefits in multiple states at once. Sounds like a bad movie plot, right? Except it’s not. It’s exactly what came to light when nearly thirty states finally opened their books earlier this year.
Now the federal government has drawn a line in the sand: share the data so we can clean this up, or lose the money that keeps the program running in your state. Twenty-one states just got the ultimatum—and they’re digging in. The showdown is officially on.
A New Sheriff in Town at USDA
When the new administration took office, one of the first quiet moves was a simple letter sent to all fifty governors: please send us your full SNAP recipient files. Not tomorrow, not next quarter—now. The goal was straightforward—match records against Social Security death records and cross-state databases for the first time ever.
Twenty-nine states, mostly led by Republican governors, complied quickly. The results were jaw-dropping.
- Roughly 500,000 duplicate benefit cases across state lines
- More than 186,000 deceased individuals still listed as active recipients
- Thousands of Social Security numbers belonging to people over 110 years old (there are fewer than 100 centenarians that age in the entire country)
Let that sink in for a second. That’s not loose change. At current benefit levels, we’re talking billions of dollars a year flowing to people who either don’t exist anymore or are gaming the system from multiple addresses.
The Holdouts Dig In
Meanwhile, twenty-one states—mostly Democratic strongholds like California, New York, Illinois, and Minnesota—flat-out refused. Their public excuse? Privacy concerns. They claim turning over names, addresses, and immigration status would violate recipient rights and state laws.
Behind closed doors, the calculus looks different. These states have some of the largest SNAP rolls in the country. California alone accounts for roughly one out of every eight food-stamp recipients nationwide. Any serious cleanup effort would almost certainly shrink those numbers dramatically—and with them, a significant amount of federal money flowing into local economies.
There’s also the uncomfortable political reality: many advocacy groups that helped elect the governors now in office depend on maximized enrollment numbers to justify their budgets and influence. Less fraud = fewer “clients” = smaller empire.
“If a state won’t share data on criminal use of SNAP benefits, it won’t get a dollar of federal SNAP administrative funding. It really is that simple.”
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, December 2025
What “No Money” Actually Means
Most people hear “withholding SNAP funds” and picture families suddenly losing grocery money. That’s not what’s happening—at least not yet.
The money being cut is administrative funding: the cash Washington sends states to pay the staff who process applications, run the EBT card systems, investigate fraud claims, and keep the lights on in county social-services offices. Benefit dollars that go directly to recipients are still fully funded (for now).
But here’s the catch: without administrative dollars, states have to either eat those costs themselves or let the system grind to a halt. Long wait times, broken card readers, unprocessed applications—things get messy fast.
| State Type | Compliance Status | Known Issues Found |
| 29 Cooperating States | Full data shared | 500k duplicates + 186k deceased |
| 21 Holdout States | Refused | Data still sealed |
| Impact if funds cut | N/A | Administrative operations at risk |
In short, the USDA is betting that governors care more about keeping their welfare bureaucracies running smoothly than they do about shielding questionable recipients. It’s a high-stakes game of chicken.
Why This Matters Beyond Politics
I’ve always believed that a decent society takes care of its truly vulnerable. Kids, the disabled, seniors who fall on hard times—nobody should go hungry in the richest country on earth. But when the system gets gamed on an industrial scale, two things happen.
First, the people who actually need help get crowded out. Wait lists grow. Benefit amounts get squeezed. Public support erodes.
Second, taxpayers—many of whom are one paycheck away from needing assistance themselves—start asking why they’re funding ghost accounts and double-dippers. Trust collapses, and the entire safety net becomes politically radioactive.
We saw this movie before with welfare reform in the 1990s. Clean up the rolls, impose work requirements, and suddenly a program everyone assumed was permanent became politically possible to overhaul. The same dynamic could play out again.
What Happens Next?
The deadline is approaching fast. States have until early 2026 to comply or face zeroed-out administrative budgets. Some analysts think a few blue-state governors will cave quietly rather than explain to voters why grocery stores can’t process EBT cards.
Others predict court battles. California and New York have already signaled they’ll sue, claiming the USDA is overstepping its authority. Whether federal judges side with Washington or the states could set the stage for a Supreme Court showdown over federal leverage versus state sovereignty.
In the meantime, expect the rhetoric to heat up. One side will talk about compassion and privacy. The other will talk about accountability and fairness. Both will claim the moral high ground.
My take? Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If a state has nothing to hide, open the books. If the data really is clean, they’ll come out looking like heroes. Refusing to share it only feeds suspicion that there’s something ugly is being protected.
The American people deserve to know exactly where their money is going. And if that means a few politicians have to squirm, well… maybe that’s long overdue.
Whatever happens in the coming months, one thing is clear: the era of unlimited, unquestioned growth in social spending is over. The new administration is willing to use every lever at its disposal to force transparency. Whether that’s good governance or dangerous precedent depends on where you sit.
Either way, the fight over these 21 states is just getting started. And the stakes—for taxpayers, for the truly needy, and for the future of the social safety net—are enormous.
