On Tuesday, during the last Cabinet meeting of the year, Rollins spoke about the ongoing lawsuit, which pits 21 states and the District of Columbia against the administration of US President Donald Trump.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Under Trump, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has demanded that states hand over identifying information about recipients who benefit from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Sometimes called food stamps, SNAP helps low-income families buy groceries. Approximately 41.7 million people were dependent on the program by fiscal year 2024, a number representing approximately 12 percent of U.S. residents.
The USDA order requires states to turn over information such as Social Security numbers, dates of birth and home addresses to federal officials. Critics fear that such data transfers could lead to privacy violations.
However, Rollins said at the Cabinet meeting that the information was needed to address alleged fraud and “protect the American taxpayer.”
“We asked all states for the first time to turn over their data to the federal government so USDA can partner with them to root out this fraud to ensure that people who really need food stamps are getting them,” he said.
He indicated that opposition to his demand was a question of partisan politics.
Rollins continued, “Thirty-nine states said yes. Not surprisingly, red states. And that’s where all the data about fraud comes from.” “But 21 states, including California, New York and Minnesota – blue states – continue to say no.”
As a result, according to Rollins, those Democratic-leaning states will no longer receive federal support for their SNAP recipients.
“Starting next week, we will stop transferring federal funds to those states until they comply,” he said.
an ongoing legal question
It’s unclear whether Rollins will be able to follow through on her threat.
In September, a US district court in Northern California issued a temporary restraining order to prevent the federal government from enforcing its data request. In October, another hearing was held on the issue and a temporary injunction was again granted.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, said in a statement after the October ruling, “Let’s be absolutely clear: The President is trying to hijack the nutrition program to promote his sweeping surveillance agenda.”
“We cannot let this happen – not on our watch, not in our communities.”
Tuesday’s announcement that there would be a suspension of federal SNAP funds in the states involved in the lawsuit drew outrage from some top Democratic leaders.
“The real question: Why is the Trump administration so intent on starving people?”. New York Governor Kathy Hochul posted on social media a link to Rollins’ comments.
Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee also released a statement condemning the Trump administration’s plan.
“Once again, Trump and Rollins are threatening to illegally withhold federal dollars. SNAP has the lowest fraud rate of any government program, but Trump continues to weaponize hunger,” the statement said.
But Rollins hit back on social media, accusing the states of trying to protect “their bribery schemes,” a charge made without evidence.
“No data, no money – it’s that simple,” he wrote. “If a state will not share data on criminal use of SNAP benefits, it will not receive a dollar of federal SNAP administrative funding.”
Taking advantage of SNAP?
Last year, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report that said 11.7 percent of SNAP benefits distributed in fiscal year 2023 were “inappropriate.” This was a mispayment of approximately $10.5 billion.
But some of those “improper” disbursements were overpayments and underpayments to legitimate recipients, the report said.
Tuesday’s threat also wasn’t the first time the Trump administration has sought to suspend SNAP funds.
During this year’s government shutdown, which lasted a record 43 days, the USDA announced it would not pay SNAP benefits for the month of November.
Critics accused the Trump administration of leveraging food aid to pressure Democratic lawmakers to pass the Republican-approved budget, and dozens of states sued.
Two federal courts sided with the states and ordered the federal government to resume its funding. The Trump administration then appealed to the Supreme Court, which stayed the lower courts’ decisions.
The standoff finally ended when the government shutdown ended on November 12.
<a href