Key Takeaways:
- The Trump administration is targeting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for major changes, citing data about the program it has demanded from the states that administer the program.
- Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has made a case for sweeping changes to SNAP, asserting that the agency has uncovered "massive fraud" in state data, but has not provided the underlying data or details.
- Food policy experts are concerned that Rollins’ talking points suggest a distorted view of the prevalence of SNAP recipients committing fraud, and seem to conflate fraud with payment errors of any kind.
- The proposed changes to SNAP could lead to millions of recipients losing benefits, and could disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, such as low-income families and individuals with disabilities.
- The USDA has not presented data to back up its claims of widespread fraud, and experts argue that the program’s existing recertification process is sufficient to prevent abuse.
Introduction to SNAP Changes
The Trump administration is proposing significant changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which currently helps almost 42 million Americans buy groceries. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has stated that the attention on SNAP during the government shutdown "has given us a platform to completely deconstruct the program" and has promised to release details about structural changes to the program. However, food policy experts are concerned that Rollins’ talking points suggest a distorted view of the prevalence of SNAP recipients committing fraud, and seem to conflate fraud with payment errors of any kind.
Concerns About Fraud and Abuse
Rollins has made a case for sweeping changes to SNAP by asserting that the agency has uncovered "massive fraud" in state data, but has not provided the underlying data or details. She has cited statistics suggesting wrongdoing, including 186,000 dead people receiving benefits and 500,000 Americans receiving benefits twice, but these claims have not been substantiated with evidence. Experts argue that these statistics are likely the result of payment errors or other legitimate explanations, rather than widespread fraud. For example, some deceased individuals may still be enrolled in the program because state officials have to verify the death and provide time for the household to respond before SNAP benefits are reduced or terminated.
Impact on SNAP Recipients
The proposed changes to SNAP could lead to millions of recipients losing benefits, and could disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, such as low-income families and individuals with disabilities. A draft of a regulation submitted to the Office of Management and Budget last month could provide a clue for one of the changes to SNAP the Trump administration could unveil soon. The draft calls for narrowing what is known as "broad-based categorical eligibility" for SNAP, which is currently used by more than 40 states to ensure welfare recipients can receive SNAP. Researchers estimate that a policy change like this could lead to nearly 6 million people losing SNAP benefits.
Lack of Transparency and Data
The USDA has not presented data to back up its claims of widespread fraud, and experts argue that the program’s existing recertification process is sufficient to prevent abuse. The agency’s demand for state data on SNAP recipients has been met with resistance from many states, and a federal judge has blocked the agency’s attempt to withhold funding from states that did not comply. The lack of transparency and data to support the administration’s claims has led to concerns that the proposed changes to SNAP are motivated by a desire to cut the program rather than to address any actual problems with fraud or abuse.
Expert Analysis and Criticism
Food policy experts, including Stacy Dean, executive director of George Washington University’s Global Food Institute, have criticized the administration’s approach to SNAP, arguing that it is based on a distorted view of the program and its recipients. Dean has stated that the administration’s talking points "risk setting a public narrative that this is a program that has more fraud than it actually does, or that the people who need it and use it to meet their very basic food needs are somehow committing a crime by seeking food assistance." Other experts, such as Lauren Bauer, a fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, have analyzed USDA data and found no evidence to support the administration’s claims of widespread fraud or abuse.
Conclusion and Future Implications
The proposed changes to SNAP have significant implications for the millions of Americans who rely on the program to access food assistance. The administration’s approach to SNAP, which is based on a distorted view of the program and its recipients, could lead to millions of people losing benefits and struggling to access basic necessities like food. As the administration moves forward with its plans to overhaul SNAP, it is essential that policymakers and advocates prioritize the needs and well-being of the program’s recipients, and work to ensure that any changes to the program are based on evidence and a commitment to addressing hunger and poverty in the United States.
