Millions Face New Hurdles as USDA Tightens SNAP Identity and Immigration Checks

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced new guidance on April 24, 2025, directing states to overhaul how they verify identity and immigration status for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as SNAP. The move aims to ensure that only eligible individuals receive benefits, responding to long-standing concerns about improper payments draining taxpayer funds. With SNAP serving millions of low-income Americans, the stakes are high for getting this right.

The guidance comes on the heels of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in February 2025, which called for federal agencies to tighten eligibility checks across public benefits programs. For SNAP, this means states must now demand more reliable identity documents, crack down on fraudulent Social Security number use, and lean heavily on the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system, known as SAVE. The goal is clear: keep benefits in the hands of those legally entitled to them.

Improper payments have plagued SNAP for years, with a 2023 Government Accountability Office report pegging the total at $10.5 billion, roughly 12% of the program’s budget that year. These errors stem from a mix of issues, including lax verification of applicants’ identities and immigration statuses. Federal officials argue that weak oversight has allowed some ineligible individuals, including undocumented immigrants, to slip through the cracks, though hard data on the extent of this issue remains scarce.

To address this, the USDA’s new rules encourage states to adopt practices like in-person interviews and advanced identification proofing. The SAVE system, now free for states to use, is touted as a key tool for verifying immigration status. Yet, the push for stricter checks isn’t just about numbers. It’s part of a broader effort to restore public trust in a program that supports nearly 40 million people annually, from single parents to elderly retirees.

While the intent is to safeguard resources, implementing these changes is no small feat. The SAVE system, though effective for many, struggles with complex immigration cases, such as those involving asylees or refugees. State officials and advocacy groups report that data mismatches or delays in SAVE can lead to wrongful denials, leaving eligible families without food assistance. For immigrants with limited digital records or credit histories, verifying identity can be especially tough, creating bottlenecks in the application process.

Beyond technical hurdles, the new rules could strain already overstretched state agencies. Requiring more in-person interviews and additional documentation risks slowing down approvals, particularly in rural areas or states with limited staff. Some worry this could deter eligible applicants, including U.S. citizen children in mixed-status households, from seeking help. Hunger relief organizations point out that SNAP’s current restrictions already exclude most undocumented immigrants, raising questions about the necessity of further barriers.

Supporters of the USDA’s guidance, including federal officials and some state leaders, argue it’s a necessary step to protect taxpayer dollars. They emphasize that SNAP is meant for vulnerable Americans, and any misuse undermines the program’s purpose. By leveraging tools like SAVE and tightening verification, they believe states can root out fraud without disrupting aid to those who qualify. The fact that improper payments have hovered in the billions for years only underscores the urgency, they say.

On the other hand, food security advocates and some state administrators warn that the new rules could do more harm than good. They argue that the focus on immigration status ignores the bigger drivers of improper payments, like administrative errors or outdated technology. For low-income families, especially those with limited English proficiency or complex immigration histories, navigating stricter requirements could mean delayed or lost benefits. The risk, they say, is increased food insecurity at a time when grocery costs remain stubbornly high.

The SNAP changes don’t exist in a vacuum. They align with a wave of 2025 executive actions aimed at reshaping federal programs, from curbing benefits for undocumented immigrants to boosting immigration enforcement. Daily detention quotas for Immigration and Customs Enforcement have jumped, and federal agencies are under pressure to align with stricter eligibility rules. These moves reflect a view that public benefits should prioritize citizens and lawfully present individuals, a stance rooted in decades-old laws like the 1996 welfare reform act.

Yet, history shows that tightening access to benefits often has unintended consequences. In the late 1990s, similar reforms led to sharp drops in SNAP participation among eligible immigrant families, driven by fear and confusion. Today, with immigration enforcement ramping up, some advocates worry that even eligible applicants may avoid SNAP out of concern over scrutiny. Balancing program integrity with accessibility remains a delicate act, one that states will need to navigate carefully.

As states begin implementing the USDA’s guidance, the real-world impacts will come into sharper focus. Federal officials are betting that tools like SAVE and better verification practices will curb fraud without sidelining those in need. But the success of these changes hinges on execution, from training state workers to ensuring systems can handle complex cases. Early feedback from states will be critical in spotting gaps and fine-tuning the approach.

For now, the debate over SNAP’s future underscores a deeper tension: how to protect public resources while ensuring no one goes hungry. With millions relying on the program to put food on the table, the path forward will require precision and care. As one advocate put it, the challenge isn’t just about closing loopholes, it’s about keeping the safety net intact for those who need it most.