USDA Draws Fire Over Attempt to Obtain SNAP Recipient Data Through Private Contractors
In a development stirring national debate, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is facing mounting criticism after pressuring states and private contractors to release the personal information of millions of Americans enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The department’s move—seen by privacy advocates as an alarming overstep—has ignited a firestorm of concern regarding potential data misuse, legal violations, and ethical breaches in governance.
At the core of the controversy is a sweeping demand made by the USDA last week, seeking detailed records of SNAP recipients dating back to January 2020. The requested data includes names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and home addresses. Instead of asking state agencies directly, the USDA sent its directive to the electronic benefits transfer (EBT) processors—third-party vendors contracted by states to administer benefits.
Critics say this roundabout strategy is a clear attempt to bypass traditional legal channels, setting a precedent that could permanently alter how the federal government accesses sensitive state-held data.
Behind the USDA’s Request: A Presidential Executive Order
The USDA’s data acquisition efforts stem from a new executive order signed by President Donald Trump in March 2025, titled “Stopping Waste, Fraud and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos.” The order instructs federal departments to dismantle bureaucratic walls between agencies and obtain necessary data from state-run programs that receive federal funding—even when the data is maintained by private companies.
Supporters of the order argue it aims to streamline operations, reduce fraud, and enhance federal oversight over taxpayer-funded assistance programs like SNAP. But opponents contend that the USDA’s latest push crosses legal boundaries and opens the door to unchecked surveillance.
“The spirit of the executive order may be efficiency,” said constitutional law scholar Dr. Lena Kershaw. “But its implementation here raises red flags about privacy rights and federal overreach.”
Private Contractors in the Spotlight: FIS, Conduent, and Solutran
The USDA’s unusual strategy relies on state contractors who manage EBT infrastructure. Chief among them is Fidelity National Information Services (FIS), which provides EBT processing services for numerous states. Internal communications reviewed by news organizations reveal that FIS has indicated it may comply with the USDA’s request, pending approval from individual states.
An internal email from FIS reportedly urged states to grant written authorization by May 14, stating that the company considers itself obligated to hand over data as a federal contractor. The message has alarmed civil rights organizations and data privacy experts, many of whom argue that outsourcing the delivery of public services should not give federal agencies a backdoor into confidential information.
So far, FIS has declined to provide a public statement or clarify how much data it collects or intends to share. Other SNAP payment processors, including Conduent and Solutran, have either acknowledged the request without confirming compliance or remained silent.
Civil Liberties Groups Fight Back
The USDA’s demands have triggered swift action from a coalition of legal and civil rights organizations. Groups including Protect Democracy, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), and the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) have jointly issued warning letters to EBT vendors, asserting that compliance would likely violate several federal privacy statutes.
According to the letters, the USDA’s request infringes upon the Privacy Act of 1974, which restricts federal agencies from collecting personal data without a clear and legal justification. They also cite potential breaches of the Paperwork Reduction Act and multiple state-level privacy laws.
Nicole Schneidman, a senior counsel at Protect Democracy, described the USDA’s move as a “backdoor data grab.”
“If vendors like FIS or Conduent comply, they’re essentially opening the floodgates for future federal requests without court orders or legislative checks,” Schneidman warned. “That could affect not just SNAP but any state-managed program with a federal funding component.”
States Push Back — But Face Federal Threats
As the USDA’s deadline loomed, several states began voicing concerns and reviewing their legal options. The Illinois Department of Human Services issued a public statement confirming it was evaluating the legality of the USDA’s demand and the possible ramifications of allowing third-party vendors to disclose resident data.
“We’re committed to protecting our constituents’ personal information,” said department spokesperson Summer Griffith. “Our legal team is carefully assessing the situation and considering all measures to ensure compliance with both state and federal laws.”
Yet, the USDA’s letter to states came with an implicit warning: refusal to authorize contractors to share data could be considered noncompliance with federal guidelines—potentially jeopardizing a state’s access to funding or program participation.
This pressure has placed state officials in a precarious position, caught between protecting residents’ privacy and risking penalties from the federal government.
Data Collection or Surveillance? The Bigger Picture Emerges
The SNAP data request appears to be part of a growing trend in the federal government’s attempt to consolidate personal data across agencies. The newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—tasked with coordinating these efforts—has quietly built a digital infrastructure to facilitate inter-agency data sharing.
According to government records and whistleblower documents obtained by public interest groups, DOGE has already orchestrated data-sharing agreements between the IRS, ICE, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and others. In one highly controversial example, the IRS began transferring immigration-related tax records to ICE for deportation investigations—a move that a federal judge recently declined to halt.
Now, with SNAP in the crosshairs, watchdogs warn that this data centralization push could soon affect programs like Medicaid, housing assistance, and unemployment benefits.
“This isn’t just about SNAP anymore,” said Evan Royce, director at EPIC. “It’s about redefining the relationship between federal agencies and state privacy laws. And unless Congress steps in, that definition will be written unilaterally.”
Anonymous Data… or Dangerous Precedent?
Supporters of the USDA’s initiative argue that verifying eligibility and combating fraud require robust data tools. But even those sympathetic to fraud prevention goals admit the tactic of pressuring third-party vendors is problematic.
“The government has an interest in program integrity,” said Alan Choi, a former inspector general for the Department of Health. “But that interest has to be balanced against due process and the rights of individuals. Using contractors as a legal loophole is not how our system was meant to work.”
Many observers point out the risks of collecting and storing massive troves of sensitive information—particularly if those records end up in data warehouses vulnerable to breaches or misuse. With the U.S. government already a target of cyberattacks, increasing the number of repositories containing personal data of low-income citizens could create new national security liabilities.
Political Ramifications and Public Outcry
The data grab has already become a political lightning rod. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill, particularly members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and data privacy hawks, are demanding an investigation into the USDA’s handling of the request.
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), a longtime advocate of digital privacy, has called for an emergency Senate hearing. “This isn’t just a privacy issue. It’s a civil liberties issue,” he said in a press release. “People should not have to trade their dignity and data in exchange for putting food on the table.”
Even some conservative-leaning states have expressed skepticism. Officials in Texas and Florida, where privacy has become a key legislative priority, are reportedly reviewing their legal contracts with SNAP vendors and considering new language to limit federal access to state-managed data.
USDA Stands Its Ground
Despite the uproar, the USDA remains defiant. In a statement issued Tuesday, the agency claimed its data-sharing initiative is compliant with current law and driven by the imperative to ensure only eligible individuals receive benefits.
“Safeguarding taxpayer dollars while upholding program integrity remains a core mission,” said USDA spokesperson Kenneth Randle. “The data in question will be handled securely, and we remain committed to protecting recipient confidentiality.”
However, the agency did not respond to specific concerns about bypassing state oversight, nor did it address why the request was made through private vendors rather than directly to the states.
What Comes Next?
With mounting legal threats, bipartisan skepticism, and public backlash, the USDA faces an uphill battle. If states refuse to comply or contractors resist without ironclad legal backing, the issue could land in federal court—potentially setting landmark precedents on data privacy and state-federal relations.
Privacy organizations are also preparing contingency lawsuits aimed at blocking FIS and other vendors from cooperating with the USDA, arguing that such data transfers would violate contract terms and constitutional protections.
Meanwhile, SNAP recipients—many of whom are unaware of the controversy—may ultimately bear the brunt of the fallout. Advocates are now calling for more public transparency and notification mechanisms when personal data is requested for government use.
Final Thoughts
What started as a quiet bureaucratic memo has now ignited one of the most significant data privacy debates in recent years. At stake is not just the protection of SNAP recipients’ information, but the future of how federal agencies interact with state-run programs—and the private vendors who operate behind the scenes.
As watchdogs, state attorneys general, and advocacy groups gear up for legal showdowns, the USDA’s aggressive pursuit of personal data may become a defining case in America’s ongoing struggle between security, transparency, and privacy.