States file lawsuit against Trump administration over efforts to collect SNAP recipients' data
The data demand comes as the Trump administration has sought to collect private information on mostly lower-income people who may be in the country illegally. It has already ordered the Internal Revenue Service and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to share private information with the Department of Homeland Security to aid in deportation efforts.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture told states last week that it had until Wednesday to hand over the data for those enrolled in its Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which serves more than 42 million people nationwide. The USDA said the data will help it combat waste, fraud and abuse.
The states' lawsuit seeks an injunction to block the data transfer. In the meantime, state attorneys general in the SNAP lawsuit said they will not disclose what they consider to be private information of recipients - including their immigration status, birthdates and home addresses - because they believe it would be a violation of privacy laws. "It's a bait-and-switch of the worst kind," California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a Monday afternoon news conference announcing the lawsuit. "SNAP recipients provided this information to get help feeding their families, not to be entered into a government surveillance database or be used as targets in the president's inhumane immigration agenda."
In May, the department announced it was seeking the data as part of President Donald Trump's executive order to obtain data from state programs to help root out fraud and waste. "For years, this program has been on autopilot, with no USDA insight into real-time data," USDA Secretary Brooke L. Rollins said in a statement at the time. "The Department is focused on appropriate and lawful participation in SNAP, and today's request is one of many steps to ensure SNAP is preserved for only those eligible." USDA officials declined a request for comment on the suit.The USDA did not mention immigration enforcement in the announcement or later notices. It is not clear why USDA officials believe the data will help it weed out fraud and abuse. The agency claims the program is already "one of the most rigorous quality control systems in the federal government." Immigration advocates noted that the Trump administration has used the same argument to obtain other sensitive data, only to later admit it would be using the information to enhance its deportation operations. Trump administration officials, for example, initially claimed they were seeking state Medicaid data to fight fraud. Last week, a top immigration official conceded they would be utilizing that same information to locate immigrants.Agency officials have threatened to withhold SNAP funding if states fail to comply with their demand for data.While immigrants without legal status are ineligible to receive SNAP benefits, they can apply on behalf of their children who are U.S. citizens or those who are part of a mixed-status household.Under the program, formerly known as food stamps, the federal government pays for 100% of the food benefits, but the states help cover the administrative costs. States are also responsible for determining whether individuals are eligible for benefits and for issuing those benefits to enrollees.
Immigration and data privacy advocates expressed alarm at the Trump administration's efforts to obtain sensitive SNAP data maintained by states.
"The administration has all but told us that their intention is to comb this data and use it for unlawful purposes that include immigration enforcement," said Madeline Wiseman, an attorney with the National Student Legal Defense Network, which filed a lawsuit in May with privacy and hunger relief groups that are also challenging USDA's efforts for SNAP data. (AP)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
a minute ago
- Time of India
Trump vs Schumer: Fiery clash over nominee deal ends in chaos, ‘Go to hell' outburst stuns Senate
Trump torpedoes Senate deal on nominees after fiery Truth Social rant against Schumer, accusing him of demanding $1B in 'political extortion.' Trump tells GOP to 'GO TO HELL' and walk away. Schumer hits back in a midnight press conference, slamming Trump's tactics as chaos. This Capitol Hill showdown leaves Washington stunned. Show more Show less
Mint
a minute ago
- Mint
Why India may not stop buying Russian oil amid US tariff threat: Explained
In a major setback for India, US President Donald Trump announced Thursday a 25% tariff on the import of Indian goods and an additional "penalty" for buying the "vast majority of their military equipment from Russia." Trump said India is Russia's "largest buyer of ENERGY, along with China, at a time when everyone wants Russia to STOP THE KILLING IN UKRAINE — ALL THINGS NOT GOOD!". He also cited "massive trade deficit with India" as the reason behind the high tariff rate of 25%. He added that US has 'done very little business with India, their Tariffs are too high, among the highest in the World.' But a day later, the US President informed that tariff talks with India are still on, raising hope of a respite. "I understand that India is no longer going to be buying oil from Russia. That's what I have heard. I don't know if that's right or not. That is a good step. We will see what happens...," he said on Thursday. There has been no official indication yet if India will stop buying oil from Russia. However, Indian government sources told Reuters on Saturday that India will keep purchasing oil from Russia, and there would be no immediate changes. Not giving in to Trump's pressure, these sources cited the following reasons for buying oil from Russia: 1. "These are long-term oil contracts," one of the sources said. "It is not so simple to just stop buying overnight," they added. 2. Justifying India's oil purchases from Russia, a second source said India's imports of Russian grades had helped avoid a global surge in oil prices, which have remained subdued despite Western curbs on the Russian oil sector. 3. "Unlike Iranian and Venezuelan oil, Russian crude is not subject to direct sanctions, and India is buying it below the current price cap fixed by the European Union," the source said. 4. Meanwhile, sources told news agency ANI that India's energy decisions have been guided by national interest but have also contributed positively to global energy stability. "India's purchases have remained fully legitimate and within the framework of international norms,' they added. 5. These sources said, 'Had India not absorbed discounted Russian crude combined with OPEC production cuts of 5.86 mb/d, global oil prices could have surged well beyond the March 2022 peak of US$137/bbl, intensifying inflationary pressures worldwide.' 6. Meanwhile, Randhir Jaiswal, the official spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs, said on August 1 shed light on India's energy sourcing requirements. "You are aware of our broad approach that we look at what is there available in the markets, what is there on offer, and also what is the prevailing global situation or circumstances," he said. India is the second-largest importer of Russian oil after China. According to the New York Times, Russia is currently the source of more than one-third of India's oil imports, up from less than 1 percent before the war. The NITI Aayog's April-June (q1 FY2025) report revealed that in Q1 FY25, India recorded significant y-o-y import growth with Russia (19.69%). India imported about 1.75 million barrels per day of Russian oil from January to June in 2025, up 1 percent from a year ago, according to data provided to Reuters by sources. Meanwhile, Trading Economics cited the United Nations COMTRADE database on international trade as revealing that India's imports from Russia of crude oil was US$52.73 billion during 2024. In 2023, Russia was among the top trading partners of India. According to Trend Economy, Russia contributed 26% (58 billion US$) to India's imports (of "Mineral fuels, mineral oils and products of their distillation; bituminous substances; mineral waxes). While India is among the top importers of Russia and China, the country is among the top exporters to the US. India remains a substantial exporter of refined petroleum products and other mineral fuels. "The primary destinations for these exports include the Netherlands, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States," Niti Aayog's report said. The USA is among the top importers of Indian goods, accounting for almost 33% of the total merchandise exports, according to NITI Aayog's report. It showed that the USA is India's top export destination in these categories: Minerals fuels & products, Natural or Cultured pearls, Electrical machinery & Equipment, Nuclear reactors, Pharmaceuticals products. NITI Aayog's April-June (q1 FY2025) report This contradicts Trump's 'little business with India' claim. The report also revealed that 'there is significant potential for Indian service exporters to expand their presence in major export markets such as the USA.' Tariffs are taxes imposed by a government (the US government in this case) on goods and services imported from other countries. They are simply an extra cost added to foreign products when they enter the country. Foreign goods get relatively more expensive, possibly driving up demand for domestic products. "Tariffs give a price advantage to locally produced goods over similar goods that are imported, and they raise revenues for governments," according to the World Trade Organization (WTO). However, some domestic industries may rely on imported materials and parts. In this case, the rise in prices of imported materials and parts would lead to face higher costs of production (by domestic producers). "If the domestic producers pass higher costs of production onto consumers, it will also push up prices of domestically produced goods," Oxford Economics explains. There's a possibility of lower export demand in the country (India) where the tariffs are imposed, since their goods have become relatively more expensive in the importing country (US).
Time of India
a minute ago
- Time of India
Trump's America First biodiesel policy could cost US companies, consumers, trade groups warn
The Trump administration's push to discourage the use of foreign feedstocks in domestic biodiesel could lead to higher energy prices for US consumers and restricted domestic production, according to some refining and biofuel trade groups. The warning reflects ongoing friction between President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency and the administration's traditional allies in the energy and agriculture industries over biofuels policy. Trump has promised to slash consumer energy costs, but is also trying to advance his America First agenda to support domestic production through trade protectionism - which can often make costs go up instead. At issue is a proposal from the EPA in June that would for the first time allocate only half as many tradable renewable fuel credits to biodiesel that is either imported or made with foreign feedstocks. Under the Renewable Fuel Standard, refiners must blend large volumes of biofuels into the US fuel supply or purchase the credits, called RINs, from those that do. While meant to help domestic farmers and producers, the new proposal - set to be finalized this autumn - would place unprecedented demand on domestic raw materials needed to make biodiesel like soybean oil, used cooking oil, and animal fat, in a market that currently must look abroad to meet its needs. Meanwhile, restricting the number of RINs that can be generated through such imports will raise credit prices, with a potential spillover impact on diesel and home heating oil, according to the industry groups. "This credit restriction ... will jeopardize the economic viability of renewable fuel production assets and raise overall compliance costs for all obligated parties, which ultimately harms US consumers," Chet Thompson, head of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers group representing refiners, said in a July 25 letter to top Republican lawmakers. The Advanced Biofuels Association also said the policy could mean ramped up consumer costs, by putting a $250 per metric ton premium on domestic versus imported feedstocks, according to a study it commissioned. "Economic analysis shows this would impose significant costs on US biorefineries, raise fuel prices for millions of Americans, and benefit only a narrow set of stakeholders," ABFA President Michael McAdams said in a statement. The White House and EPA declined to comment directly on the price concerns, saying the administration is still seeking public comment on the proposal until August 8. Others in the biofuel industry backed the proposal. "American farmers need all the demand they can get. We should be developing our capacity here, rather than relying on imported used cooking oil from China, or giving Brazilian feedstocks preferential treatment at the expense of US producers and their farm partners," said Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy. However, US companies such as ADM, Bunge and Cargill that have global assets and process US soy, as well as foreign companies with significant US operations, will likely see negative effects. That includes Australia's Nufarm , which contracts with farmers in South America to grow new oilseed crops. Uncertain numbers The biofuel industry had not been seeking the import shift in EPA's June proposal, according to multiple renewable fuel lobbyists and company officials. The White House has since held several meetings with industry officials to hear about potential unintended consequences of the changes, according to multiple sources. The EPA's proposal in June was meant to set out biofuel blending mandates for the next two years. It included a quota of 7.12 billion biomass-based diesel RINs for 2026 - a measurement of the number of tradable credits generated by blending the fuel - and projected that mandate would lead to the blending of 5.61 billion gallons. The biofuels industry and the American Petroleum Institute, an oil trade group, had banded together to lobby the administration to set biomass-based diesel mandates to at least 5.25 billion gallons. The mandate was just 3.35 billion gallons in 2025. Still, there are scenarios in the EPA's accounting that could lead to a lower volume outcome. If all the biodiesel and renewable diesel used in the US next year came from domestic feedstocks, for example, the RIN mandate would yield just 4.45 billion gallons, according to several industry analyses reviewed by Reuters. Ditching the penalty on imported feedstocks could help raise that number, according to the analyses. "That probably aligns with what the administration was trying to do in terms of supporting the agricultural side and farmers," said one industry analyst, who asked to remain anonymous to speak candidly.
