The USDA has proposed that states share sensitive information of SNAP recipients, including names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and benefit amounts, with ICE by a specified deadline, prompting legal and political pushback.
Breaking: The USDA has ordered all states to hand over the Names addresses social security numbers and benefit amounts to ICE by the end of July.

FactVerify
Source: factverify.com
Key Evidence
California Attorney General Rob Bonta and other state AGs have publicly condemned the USDA's proposal to share SNAP recipients' sensitive data with ICE by a July deadline.
oag.ca.govoag.ca.govAttorney General Bonta Slams USDA Proposal to Share Sensitive Data of SNAP... The USDA's plan includes names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and benefit amounts as part of immigration enforcement efforts.
What the Evidence Shows
The claim breaks down into several components: first, that the USDA has issued an order or proposal requiring all states to provide detailed personal data of SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) recipients; second, that this data includes names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and benefit amounts; third, that the data is to be shared with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement); and fourth, that the deadline for compliance is by the end of July.
Official sources confirm that the USDA has indeed proposed sharing sensitive SNAP participant data with ICE as part of immigration enforcement efforts. This proposal has been publicly criticized by multiple state attorneys general, including California's AG Rob Bonta, who leads a coalition opposing the measure due to privacy and legal concerns.oag.ca.govoag.ca.govAttorney General Bonta Slams USDA Proposal to Share Sensitive Data of SNAP... While the term 'ordered' may overstate the current status, since this is a proposal subject to legal challenges and not yet fully implemented, the core factual elements about the USDA's intent and timeline are accurate.
The claim's urgency ('Breaking') aligns with recent developments in mid-2024. There is no evidence that all states have already complied or that this is a finalized mandate; rather, it is a federal proposal with a compliance deadline. The claim does not mention ongoing litigation or political opposition which provide important context.
Overall, the claim is largely accurate but would benefit from clarifying that this is a proposed rule subject to legal contestation rather than an unconditional order.