USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins didn’t mince words.
At a press conference carried by Forbes Breaking News, Rollins said SNAP has become “so bloated, so broken, so dysfunctional, so corrupt” under the last administration that the scale of problems is “astonishing” when you dig in.
She framed the moment as a national wake-up call and promised aggressive reform, from eligibility to enforcement.
That tone set the stage for a bigger fight over what SNAP is – and what it should be.
What Rollins Says Is Broken
Rollins laid out three main moves.
First, she said the USDA notified governors that “no more illegal aliens on SNAP. Period.” The program is administered through the states, and the department is pushing uniform enforcement.
Second, she described a new push on fraud investigations. According to Rollins, recent cases led to dozens of arrests, including examples of a single person registering for benefits in six different states and benefits paid to deceased recipients.
She also pointed to dollar figures in the tens of millions tied to alleged schemes.
Third, she said USDA requested state data – for the first time, in her telling – to verify how taxpayer dollars are spent. Red states largely complied, Rollins said, and two blue states – Colorado and North Carolina – also “leaned in.”
Other blue states, including California, Oregon, New York, and Washington, sued to block the data request, according to Rollins’ account.
Her bottom line was simple: return SNAP to its original intent – a targeted safety net for the truly needy – while cutting off abuse.
A Partisan Split Comes Into Focus
House Speaker Mike Johnson stepped to the microphone to widen the frame.
Johnson argued the debate highlights a “stark contrast” between parties. He described Republicans as focused on rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse to keep safety-net programs sustainable, and he cast Democrats as obstructing oversight, citing the lawsuits against USDA’s data request.
Johnson also took aim at able-bodied adults without dependents on means-tested programs, claiming they were never intended to be covered and that abuse drains resources from the elderly, the disabled, and pregnant women who need help most.
He added that non-citizens were never meant to receive these benefits.
His message: SNAP must remain a temporary bridge, not a permanent lifestyle. And accountability is the only way the program survives.
A Different Lens From the Farm Channel
On his investigative video, homesteader and agriculture commentator Charlie Rankin of Yanasa TV agreed with part of Rollins’ critique – especially about accountability – and then hit pause.
Rankin said he likes Rollins and thinks the spotlight on SNAP is overdue. He cited figures she has shared in various interviews: hundreds of thousands of accounts removed, thousands of fraudulent cases identified, and more than a hundred arrests tied to investigations.
He also noted the claims of benefits going to the dead and multi-state registrations, which he called indefensible.
But Rankin stressed a critical caveat: the long arc matters. Looking at data back to the 1990s, he argues that SNAP participation surged during crisis periods – the 2008 financial crisis and COVID – and that the share of Americans on SNAP grew most in those eras, not just recently.
He said spending has doubled since COVID, driven by policy changes like permanent benefit increases and inflation adjustments, even while participation rates stabilized below peak.
He also pointed out something technical: after 2008, many states loosened asset tests and raised income thresholds, sometimes moving around federal guardrails to speed relief.
Technology then made applying easier – and verifying harder – creating more “frictionless” enrollment with fewer checks.
His thesis isn’t that fraud doesn’t exist. It’s that the policy design and crisis-era exceptions snowballed into today’s spending spiral. If we want a durable fix, he says, start by acknowledging that history.
Fraud vs. Privacy: The Line Everyone Argues About
Rankin also brought up a tension people on both sides feel in their gut.
He shared that his family used SNAP during a medical hardship – then left the program early because of the constant financial scrutiny that came with it.
He’s blunt about a tradeoff: accept public aid, and you sacrifice some privacy. But he warns against drifting into a surveillance state under the banner of accountability.
His ask is practical. Build systems that verify, not spy. Publish numbers, not names. Link states with secure, real-time checks to block duplicates. Use targeted enforcement to chase crimes, not people.
That’s a crucial reminder. Most Americans want clean books and compassionate help, not dossiers and dragnet monitoring.
What the Numbers Mean – and Don’t
Here’s how these threads fit together.
Rollins says the program ballooned with “zero accountability”, and she cites real examples of abuse. If those cases are representative, data sharing, cross-state matching, and eligibility re-verification should be non-negotiable.
No one should be able to draw benefits in multiple states or after they die.
Johnson argues programs collapse without guardrails. That’s true. Any means-tested benefit needs clear rules, periodic checks, and work requirements calibrated for able-bodied adults without dependents. Otherwise, the “temporary bridge” becomes a parking lot.
Rankin reminds us that the big driver isn’t just today’s politics. It’s the policy ratchet from 2008 onward, the permanent features added during emergencies, and a user experience designed for speed that sometimes sacrificed verification.
Spending can spike even if headcount doesn’t, especially after a permanent benefit increase layered on top of inflation.
All three points can be true at once.
Where Reform Should Start (And How to Keep It Fair)
So what would a fix look like that answers Rollins, speaks to Johnson, and passes Rankin’s smell test?
First, intelligent data. States and USDA should run real-time cross-checks to stop duplicate enrollments, out-of-state stacking, and deceased-recipient payouts. That’s baseline financial hygiene.
Second, narrow audits. Aim audits at outlier patterns – sudden multi-state sign-ups, extreme household changes, or merchant anomalies – rather than blanket surveillance of everyone. Keep it targeted, documented, and appealable.
Third, restore calibrated guardrails. Re-evaluate asset tests and income thresholds adopted during crises.
Carve out hardship exceptions that sunset automatically unless deliberately renewed. If the emergency is over, the exceptions should be too.
Fourth, work where it makes sense. For able-bodied adults without dependents, tie ongoing benefits to job search, training, or community work, with real-world flexibility for caretakers and those in medical or geographic hardship.
Fifth, publish clean stats. Regularly release aggregate fraud findings, overpayment recoveries, and compliance rates. Sunlight builds trust and keeps both states and feds honest.
Finally, timelines and transparency. If states resist data-sharing, set clear federal standards and deadlines. If USDA overreaches, set statutory limits to protect privacy. Balance is the only way this holds.
A Program Worth Saving – But Not As Is
I think Rollins is right about one big thing: you can’t fix what you won’t measure.
If states won’t share data, taxpayers can’t know whether dollars go to families in crisis – or to ghosts and duplicates. That’s not politics. That’s accounting.
Johnson’s point also lands. SNAP only survives if the public believes it’s temporary for most, targeted for the vulnerable, and protected from gaming. That social contract is fraying.
Rankin pushes us to remember how we got here. When the economy breaks, safety nets stretch. But those temporary stitches have a way of becoming permanent seams.
If we don’t unwind crisis-era shortcuts and modernize verification, costs will keep creeping, even if caseloads don’t.
SNAP remains a lifeline when paychecks vanish, babies arrive early, or illness wrecks a budget. That mission deserves competent stewardship – not rhetoric, not stonewalling, and not surveillance theater.
Fix the pipes. Publish the numbers. Keep the bridge open – but make sure it goes somewhere.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
Gary’s love for adventure and preparedness stems from his background as a former Army medic. Having served in remote locations around the world, he knows the importance of being ready for any situation, whether in the wilderness or urban environments. Gary’s practical medical expertise blends with his passion for outdoor survival, making him an expert in both emergency medical care and rugged, off-the-grid living. He writes to equip readers with the skills needed to stay safe and resilient in any scenario.