New Federal SNAP Database Notice is a Call to Action for Data Privacy Protections for Working Families, Immigrants, and Other Individuals
July 9, 2025
Overview
The USDA has announced the creation of a new federal SNAP applicant and recipient database. The stated purpose of the database is “to ensure the integrity of Government programs” and includes “verifying eligibility based on immigration status.” The database’s new routine uses become effective July 23, 2025, unless public comment prompts the USDA to make changes. As public health leaders and practitioners decide whether and how to comment on the notice and what public health data collection, sharing, and use practices may need to be reassessed, a few notes and resources may be helpful.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and operated by states, is one of the largest and most effective nutritional support programs for working families and individuals with low incomes. State-by-state overviews detail how SNAP lifts people, including children, older adults, and people with disabilities, above the poverty line and supports local businesses and the economy. This is because food access is a social determinant of health.
While most SNAP recipients identify as White Americans, research shows that SNAP participation reduces racialized disparities in food insecurity. In one study, while Black and multiracial households generally experienced higher rates of food insecurity than other racial groups, that was not the case for households with access to SNAP. In other words, SNAP participation is a great example of a race-neutral strategy that has successfully narrowed racialized nutrition disparities.
Still, as described in a 2022 report, A Community-Driven Anti-Racist Vision for SNAP, co-authored by the Community Partnership Group and the Center for Law and Social Policy, and a 2023 Health Affairs article by Leighton Ku, SNAP is deserving of a new look to improve its ability to create a racially just society. Research by the Migration Policy Institute also describes how a significant number of adults and children are unable to access SNAP because of their immigration status—an outcome exacerbated by the recently enacted budget reconciliation package, which limits SNAP eligibility to lawful permanent residents (people with green cards), certain Cubans and Haitians, and people residing under a Compact of Free Association, and now excludes refugees, asylees, and people granted withholding of removal (a temporary form of protection based on fear of persecution); certain trafficking and domestic violence survivors; and people granted humanitarian parole for at least one year.
Undocumented immigrants have always been—and remain—ineligible for SNAP benefits, but some immigrants are eligible based on federal law or state policy. For example, in households with different immigration statuses, children who may qualify for SNAP benefits cannot apply on their own and depend on other household members who may not be eligible to apply on their behalf.
The Trump Administration’s efforts to redefine America to exclude immigrant communities extended to SNAP beginning on May 6 with the USDA issuing a letter to SNAP state agency heads. The letter attempted to create a first-of-its-kind federal SNAP database and sought to implement Executive Order (EO) 14243 (Information Silos EO), which requires federal agencies to “take all necessary steps, to the maximum extent consistent with law, to ensure the Federal Government has unfettered access to comprehensive data from all state programs that receive federal funding, including, as appropriate, data generated by those programs but maintained in third-party databases,” by demanding personally identifiable information (PII), including names, birthdates, addresses and social security numbers, of SNAP applicants and recipients through states’ contracted payment processors.
This raised suspicions that it was part of the Trump Administration’s efforts to create a master database to surveil and track immigrants. And, despite the letter threatening to withhold funds from states that did not allow their contracted SNAP payment processors to assist USDA with the data consolidation, at least two states—Kansas and New Mexico—refused the Trump Administration’s demand. Other states, including Iowa, Ohio, and possibly Alaska, are working to comply with the demand.
On May 22, a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s attempt to create the SNAP database without the requisite notice requirements required by federal law was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit, filed by a coalition of student advocates, SNAP applicants and recipients, and nonprofit organizations, prompted a pause of the information collection. Additionally, on June 23, as required under the federal Privacy Act of 1974, the USDA published a new system of records notice (SORN or Notice) in the Federal Register that creates the new federal SNAP database and outlines 11 new “routine uses” of the data, or how the data will be used and with whom they will be shared.
Like the May 6 letter, the Notice cites the Information Silos EO and SNAP statutes and regulations as sources of legal authority for the database. The SORN also cites to EO 14218, the Public Benefits Access by Undocumented Immigrants EO, and elaborates on the database’s broad purpose of “ensur[ing] the integrity of Government programs, including by verifying SNAP recipient eligibility against federally maintained databases” and naming immigration status explicitly. The database’s new routine uses become effective July 23, 2025, unless public comment prompts USDA to make changes.
The Notice and other unprecedented Trump Administration actions that harm immigrant families require those of us in public health to (1) reassess our own practices related to striking the right balance between collecting, sharing, and using data for the public good with protecting individual privacy and (2) reinforce that public data are supposed to serve and protect us all, including immigrants and other underserved communities who are also part of the public good.
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights’ Protection of Public Data campaign—focused on the erasure of public data and the needs of underserved communities—states, “[p]ublic data are the foundation for informed decision-making, common sense policies, and public trust. When data are manipulated or suppressed, communities are misrepresented, resources are misallocated, research and development are stifled, and everyone is affected.” Thus, public health leaders and practitioners must remain vigilant of, and engaged in guarding against, discriminatory uses of individual and public health data. This is especially true since only two states—Maryland and Minnesota—have comprehensive data privacy laws that explicitly prohibit using personal data to discriminate on the basis of protected characteristics.
As public health leaders and practitioners decide whether and how to comment on the SORN and what public health data collection, sharing, and use practices may need to be reassessed, a few notes and resources may be helpful:
- The Trump Administration’s sharing of state Medicaid data from four states with deportation officials at the Department of Homeland Security last month has prompted outrage from state officials in California, Illinois, and Washington with additional states and localities carefully evaluating other potential harmful misuses of public data. Erring on the side of protecting PII is warranted by states and localities, especially as courts work to reach a resolution in ongoing litigation. Jurisdictions may also want to revisit:
- whether public benefits payment processors can clearly separate SNAP data from other programs such as Summer EBT;
- the individual data they collect to determine if the data is necessary for their intended public health purposes (e.g. immigration status is not relevant to Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) eligibility in any state except Idaho where a court-issued temporary restraining order blocks only a portion of the new state law);
- whether there are other ways to collect information that also serve the intended purposes (e.g. does recent travel history satisfy infectious disease monitoring needs rather than country of birth and year of immigration?);
- existing data use or sharing agreement provisions related to permissible uses and disclosures, data elements to be shared, sensitive data, and minimum security requirements to determine what changes may be appropriate;
- relationships with legal counsel to identify relevant privacy protections for PII; and
- cultivating alternate funding streams that do not ask institutions to report individuals’ immigration data as described by HealthBegins.
- Commenting on regulatory notices and proposals and promoting data sharing for the public good while operating within legal privacy requirements by presenting data and research are generally not considered lobbying. The Alliance for Justice’s Administrative Advocacy fact sheet states that “under federal tax law, 501(c)(3) organizations can do as much advocacy on administrative rules, regulations, and other administrative actions as needed.” It also notes that “the definition of lobbying under state and local lobbying disclosure laws may vary [and that a]dministrative and executive branch lobbying may be reportable under lobbying disclosure rules at the state and local level.” The Network for Public Health Law (the Network) also describes how to learn what is considered lobbying in your state and outlines Michigan state laws and regulations governing lobbying and other political activity by government employees. While the SORN is not a rulemaking that requires the agency to respond to comments, consider sharing how the new SNAP database and routine uses are unnecessary, harmful, redundant, or otherwise contradictory to the stated purpose. For example:
- Some new routine uses reach beyond the stated purpose of “ensur[ing] the integrity of Government programs,” including permitting USDA to disclose information to essentially any authority claiming relevancy to its responsibility to implement, enforce, investigate, or prosecute any potential violation of law “whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto.”
- The sensitive nature of SNAP data and impacts of disclosing such information without appropriate protective measures, including discouraging eligible members from seeking benefits in mixed immigration status households.
- A May 12 letter from most of the plaintiffs in the May 22 lawsuit to major SNAP financial services providers details key federal and state privacy protections, including some of the federal laws catalogued by the Network in 2019. Of note, it reminds states of their ability to negotiate appropriate data and security protocols with the federal government and their requirement to “safeguard disclosure of information obtained from applicant households from any uses other than use in connection with SNAP administration and enforcement.”
- The May 12 letter also references a SNAP program integrity effort created in 2023, the National Accuracy Clearinghouse (NAC), that allows states to search each other’s recipient databases to combat fraud. The NAC and other SNAP quality control and anti-fraud efforts are also discussed in a letter from 35 Democratic members of Congress to the USDA Secretary. The Congressional letter seeks written responses from USDA to a number of questions about its planned SNAP data collection by June 30 as well as a staff-level briefing by July 14.
The Network is available to assist you in navigating and understanding the federal regulatory comment process as well as the law and policy landscape on this and other issues. For more information, contact Darlene Huang Briggs.
This post was written by Darlene Huang Briggs, J.D., Deputy Director, Special Projects, Network for Public Health Law.
The Network promotes public health and health equity through non-partisan educational resources and technical assistance. These materials provided are provided solely for educational purposes and do not constitute legal advice. The Network’s provision of these materials does not create an attorney-client relationship with you or any other person and is subject to the Network’s Disclaimer.
Support for the Network is provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). The views expressed in this post do not represent the views of (and should not be attributed to) RWJF.