Washington – December 3, 2025

A growing national dispute over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has drawn significant attention after the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) informed state governments that administrative reimbursement funds may be withheld from states that do not transmit detailed SNAP participant data to the federal government. Some reporting has characterized this as a conflict primarily affecting Democratic-led states. However, first-hand federal statutes, regulations, and official USDA directives show that the underlying legal framework applies uniformly to all states, regardless of political leadership. The Appalachian Post reviewed the relevant law and documents to break down what this federal requirement actually is, and how compliance, oversight, and consequences are structured in SNAP law itself.

The issue began when USDA announced on May 6, 2025 that all states must provide participant-level SNAP data to the federal government, citing federal program integrity obligations and the authority granted under Executive Order 14243. In that directive, the President instructed federal agencies to eliminate “information silos” in federally funded programs and ensure required data is available to the federal government for oversight. The USDA press release stated that state SNAP agencies must transmit “all records associated with SNAP benefits and allotments” so the department may conduct integrity and compliance reviews in a unified system. The language of the release did not distinguish between states by political affiliation; it laid out a universal requirement grounded in federal oversight authority.

That requirement was later reinforced in a July 25, 2025 guidance letter sent to every state SNAP Director by the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The letter, referencing a July 9 communication from the Secretary of Agriculture, instructed each state agency to comply with the data-transmission requirements and warned that failure to do so could trigger federal noncompliance procedures. The letter cited statutory language from 7 U.S.C. § 2020(e)(8)(A), which outlines the responsibilities of state agencies to operate SNAP in accordance with federal requirements, and noted that federal reimbursement for administrative costs may be affected if a state agency does not meet its obligations.

Understanding this dispute requires examining the structure of SNAP law itself. Under the SNAP statute, the federal government funds benefits in full and reimburses roughly half of each state’s administrative costs for determining eligibility, issuing benefits, and preventing improper payments. State agencies operate SNAP as extensions of federal authority. Under 7 U.S.C. § 2020(g), the Secretary of Agriculture has explicit power to take action if a state agency “fails without good cause to comply” with federal requirements. That section authorizes the Secretary to withhold or reduce federal administrative reimbursements until the state returns to compliance. This authority predates the current dispute and contains no reference to political affiliation. It is a long-standing structural feature of federal-state governance.

The regulatory counterpart appears in 7 C.F.R. § 276.1–276.7, which outlines how federal compliance reviews work. These regulations detail the federal government’s ability to audit state operations, review eligibility determinations, monitor data systems, and enforce federal requirements. If a state agency is found noncompliant, 7 C.F.R. § 276.4 authorizes the federal government to “suspend or disallow Federal financial participation,” meaning administrative funds, until corrective actions are taken. The regulation again makes no distinction based on the political identity of a state government. The sole factor is compliance or noncompliance with federal SNAP requirements.

SNAP remains one of the largest federal nutrition programs, serving approximately 41.7 million participants per month, according to USDA Economic Research Service data. States administer the program locally, but federal oversight remains constant because federal funds pay for the benefits and a significant share of administrative costs. For that reason, federal law requires detailed accountability and the ability to verify program integrity, making data reporting obligations an inherent part of the federal-state partnership.

The present conflict intensified when 22 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit challenging the federal data demand. A federal case summary for State of California v. U.S. Department of Agriculture indicates that a temporary restraining order (TRO) has been issued, pausing certain enforcement actions but not altering the contents or universal applicability of the underlying statutes. The lawsuit reflects a legal challenge to the interpretation and scope of USDA’s authority, not an exemption from SNAP’s statutory structure.

Because some reporting has described the enforcement threat as targeting Democratic-led states, it is important to distinguish between the makeup of the states involved in litigation and the content of the federal statutes themselves. The USDA’s May 6 press release, the July 25 guidance letter, 7 U.S.C. § 2020, and 7 C.F.R. § 276 all describe universal requirements that every state SNAP agency must follow. Nothing in these documents singles out states based on political leadership. The requirement that states transmit relevant SNAP data arises from federal oversight rules, not political criteria.

As the lawsuit proceeds, judicial rulings will clarify the limits of federal authority and the obligations of state agencies. But the structure of SNAP law remains unchanged: federal requirements apply uniformly, and administrative consequences arise from compliance status, not political affiliation. Understanding the underlying statutes and regulations provides clarity beyond broader narratives and keeps the focus on what the law actually requires of every state.

At the Appalachian Post, we report with strict verification standards. All factual claims are supported by first-hand sources whenever available, including federal documents, official statements, statutory text, agency data, and court filings. When information cannot be confirmed through first-hand evidence, we clearly attribute it to secondary reporting. We do not speculate, infer motives, or frame narratives. We present only what can be documented, and we educate readers on what is verifiable, what is attributed, and what remains unconfirmed.

Primary First-Hand Sources

• USDA — May 6, 2025 SNAP Data Requirement Announcement (Press Release)
• USDA FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE — July 9 and July 25, 2025 State Guidance Letters
• EXECUTIVE ORDER 14243 — Stopping Waste, Fraud, and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos
• 7 U.S.C. § 2020(e)(8)(A) — State Agency Responsibilities for SNAP
• 7 U.S.C. § 2020(g) — Noncompliance and Federal Authority to Withhold Administrative Funds
• 7 C.F.R. § 276.1–276.7 — SNAP Compliance Regulations
• USDA ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE — SNAP Participation and Expenditure Data (FY 2024)
• CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL — Announcement of State of California v. USDA
• FEDERAL CASE SUMMARY: STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE — Temporary Restraining Order Notation

Secondary Attribution-Based Sources

• AP News
• Reuters
• Other national outlets reporting on the SNAP funding dispute