Attorney General Tong and Coalition Push Back Against USDA’s SNAP Data Grab
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong has joined with twenty-one other states and the District of Columbia to ask a federal court to stop the Trump Administration from forcing states to hand over the private data of millions of SNAP participants. The coalition is seeking immediate relief because the U.S. Department of Agriculture has demanded that states surrender five years of sensitive personal information—including Social Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, and even grocery purchase histories—under threat of cutting off the very federal funding that makes the program function.
SNAP is a lifeline program that helps tens of millions of low-income Americans afford groceries. It has existed for sixty years with a clear understanding that personal information would only be used for eligibility verification, not stockpiled in a federal database with few limits on how it might be shared. In July 2025, USDA abruptly demanded that states upload virtually all SNAP records within three weeks, threatening “noncompliance” penalties if they refused. By mid-August, governors were warned that consequences were imminent. Connecticut alone has nearly 490,000 participants whose information would be swept into this new federal trove.
Attorney General Tong blasted the demand as both reckless and unlawful. “Groceries are way too expensive right now, and Trump’s needless tariff wars are only making things worse. This is the worst possible time to yank federal food assistance, and we’re not going to let Trump get away with it,” he said. He emphasized that fighting fraud does not require combing through years of grocery lists for hundreds of thousands of Connecticut families, and that long-standing laws protect their privacy.
The coalition’s motion filed in federal court is not just political rhetoric—it is a carefully structured legal attack. The states are asking for a preliminary injunction under Rule 65 or a stay under §705 of the Administrative Procedure Act. They argue that USDA’s demand violates the SNAP Act, which only allows the Secretary to inspect and audit records necessary to confirm compliance, and only subject to data-security protocols agreed upon with the states. By demanding bulk transfers of every participant’s personal data, USDA is exceeding its statutory authority. The SNAP Act never contemplated federal warehousing of every individual record, especially not without negotiated safeguards.
The motion also raises procedural flaws. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, USDA cannot create a new collection of information without submitting an Information Collection Request to the Office of Management and Budget. Requiring every state to transfer millions of records into a new federal database is unquestionably a new collection, but USDA tried to pass it off as a minor tweak. Similarly, the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act requires specific steps before cross-checking one federal database against others with matching algorithms. USDA’s own Privacy Impact Assessment admitted that such cross-matching was part of the plan, yet the prerequisites were not satisfied.
On top of the statutory claims, the states argue that USDA’s move is arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The agency ignored cybersecurity risks—experts warned that a database containing tens of millions of names, Social Security numbers, and addresses would be a prime target for hackers. USDA itself acknowledged in other contexts that disclosure of PII could chill participation in SNAP, yet brushed aside the obvious risk that families might forgo benefits if they feared surveillance. The agency also ignored its own repeated statements that SNAP already has one of the most rigorous anti-fraud systems in government.
Irreparable harm is at the heart of the motion. If states comply, sensitive data will already be exposed. If they refuse, USDA’s threatened cuts to administrative funding—over $74 million in Connecticut this year alone—would cripple the program. States also face unrecoverable costs to retool systems and staff, since sovereign immunity bars them from clawing back damages. And participants themselves could lose access to food assistance or avoid applying at all if they believe their data will be warehoused in Washington.
The filing emphasizes the compressed and coercive timeline. A System of Records Notice previewed the new database on June 23, 2025. USDA demanded bulk data on July 9 with only weeks to comply. By July 25, it threatened penalties. On August 12 it warned governors again, extending the deadline only slightly to August 19. Within days the states sued, and now they seek emergency relief ahead of an October 3 hearing.
The broader stakes are constitutional as well. Using funding threats to coerce states into surrendering personal data raises classic Spending Clause and federalism problems. The Supreme Court has long drawn a line between conditions that are reasonably related to a federal program and coercive attempts to commandeer state systems. Here, the coalition argues, USDA has crossed that line.
This no-nonsense view of the case is simple: the federal government already knows SNAP is a tightly controlled, low-fraud program. Forcing states to ship millions of grocery shopping records, social security numbers, and addresses to a new federal warehouse does little to fight fraud but much to invade privacy, chill participation, and create cybersecurity risks. And doing it on a three-week clock, under the gun of losing hundreds of millions in federal funds, looks more like bullying than legitimate oversight.
Attorney General Tong and his allies are asking the court to hit pause. If the injunction is granted, USDA would be barred from enforcing the data demand or cutting funds while the case proceeds. That would protect state programs, preserve participant privacy, and give the courts time to rule on whether USDA has acted lawfully.
The fight over SNAP data is about more than one program—it is about the line between legitimate federal oversight and unconstitutional overreach, and about the dignity and privacy of millions of Americans who rely on SNAP to put food on the table. For Connecticut and the coalition of states, that line is clear, and they are drawing it in court.
IF YOU NEED A LAWYER CONTACT US