Vermont Complies with Federal SNAP Data Demand Amid Nationwide Legal Battle Over Privacy and Executive Power
The deputy commissioner at DCF noted that Vermont faced the risk of "unspecified sanctions," which could include withholding of federal funds that cover half of the state's SNAP program costs.
In a move that highlights a growing national conflict between federal executive power and state autonomy, Governor Phil Scott's administration has complied with a sweeping Trump administration demand for five years of personal data on all Vermonters receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.
The decision places Vermont in a small group of states that have acquiesced to the directive. Meanwhile, a coalition of 22 states and territories, led by California and New York, has filed a federal lawsuit to block what they decry as an "unprecedented and illegal" data grab that they argue violates federal law and threatens the privacy of millions.
The Federal Mandate: An Executive Order and an Unprecedented Demand
At the center of the controversy is President Trump's March 20, 2025, Executive Order 14243. The order, titled "Stopping Waste, Fraud, and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos," directs federal agencies to ensure they have "unfettered access to comprehensive data from all State programs that receive federal funding." The Trump administration argues this access is necessary to root out "waste, fraud, and abuse" in government programs.
Following this directive, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) instructed all states to transmit a vast trove of personally identifiable information on every member of every household that has received SNAP benefits since 2020. According to USDA guidance sent to states, the required data includes:
Names
Social Security numbers
Dates of birth
Home addresses
Immigration or citizenship status
Employment history and income sources
Data on food purchases made with Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards
According to a memo from USDA Secretary Brooke L. Rollins, this data collection is essential for gaining "insight into real-time data" to ensure "appropriate and lawful participation in SNAP."
The National Resistance: A Lawsuit to Block the "Illegal Data Grab"
The federal demand was met with immediate and fierce resistance. A coalition of 22 state attorneys general, including those from California, New York, Massachusetts, and Maine, filed a lawsuit—California et al. v. U.S. Dep't of Agriculture et al.—to block the order.
Their legal complaint argues that the USDA's demand is unlawful on multiple grounds:
It violates the Food and Nutrition Act. This federal law, which governs SNAP, contains strict confidentiality rules (7 U.S.C. § 2020(e)(8)) that limit the sharing of recipient data to purposes "directly connected with the administration or enforcement" of SNAP and other specified assistance programs. The lawsuit contends that sharing data for broad, undefined anti-fraud efforts or potential immigration enforcement is not a permitted use.
It violates the Privacy Act of 1974. The lawsuit argues that the proposed uses for the data are not "compatible with the purpose for which it was collected" (i.e., providing food assistance) and that the USDA failed to follow proper procedures in establishing this new, massive system of records.
It is an unconstitutional use of federal power. The states argue that threatening to cut off SNAP administrative funding to coerce compliance violates the U.S. Constitution's Spending Clause, which requires Congress to be unambiguous when placing conditions on federal funds.
"This is not about program integrity; it's an illegal data grab and part of a broader campaign to create a culture of fear," said California Attorney General Rob Bonta in a statement.
Vermont's Position: A "Difficult Situation"
In Vermont, the Scott administration's legal counsel concluded that the USDA has the authority under federal law to demand the data. According to Miranda Gray, deputy commissioner at the Department for Children and Families, the state faced the risk of "unspecified financial sanctions," which she clarified could include the withholding of federal funds that cover half of the state's administrative costs for the SNAP program.
"While Vermont recognizes and shares the concern there might be over protecting personally identifying information, the SNAP funds are federally sourced, and we have an obligation to provide data as required by the USDA," Gray stated. Last year, SNAP distributed approximately $200 million in food benefits to over 64,000 Vermonters.
This stance has put the administration at odds with Vermont's Democratic Attorney General, Charity Clark. While Clark stated she is a "data privacy advocate" and "absolutely" would have fought the order, she noted that the decision to comply was made by the Scott administration, which implements the SNAP program. "They are approaching this in a way that prevents me from being able to join a lawsuit," Clark said.
The Fraud Justification: Examining the Data
The Trump administration has framed the data demand as a crucial tool to combat SNAP fraud. However, the data on fraud presents a more complex picture.
According to a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, the national SNAP "improper payment rate" in fiscal year 2023 was approximately 11.7%, or $10.5 billion. However, this rate is not a measure of fraud. It includes overpayments, underpayments, and payments to ineligible households, which are often the result of administrative errors or families' fluctuating income levels, not intentional recipient deception.
The USDA's own data has shown that the actual SNAP recipient fraud rate is much lower, historically around 1.5%. Furthermore, Vermont has one of the lowest rates of reported SNAP fraud in the country. Critics of the administration's plan argue that existing anti-fraud measures, such as data cross-matching with other benefit programs, are already robust and that the new database is a disproportionate and invasive response to the problem.
The "Chilling Effect": Fears of Immigration Enforcement and Undermining Trust
Food security advocates and civil liberties groups express grave concerns that the federal data collection will have a "chilling effect" on SNAP participation, particularly among mixed-status families. These are households that often include non-citizen parents (who may be undocumented) and U.S. citizen children who are legally entitled to SNAP benefits.
The fear is that personal data on all household members, including immigration status, could be shared with agencies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This concern is heightened by the administration's parallel efforts to gain access to IRS and Medicaid data and its public statements about using all available tools for mass immigration enforcement.
"The biggest downside for all of us is the undermining of trust that we as residents place in state systems that are designed to protect our privacy and serve our needs," said Anore Horton, executive director of Hunger Free Vermont. She argued that when immigrant families or other vulnerable Vermonters fear that applying for food assistance could put them at risk, the program itself ceases to function as an effective safety net.