California EBT Card (Photo – cdss.ca.gov
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has approved a motion to protect the privacy of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) applicants, following a controversial federal request for sensitive personal data.
By News Desk
The motion, authored by Board Chair Pro Tem and First District Supervisor Hilda L. Solis, authorizes the County to initiate or join legal efforts opposing the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) mandate.
In July 2025, the USDA requested that states submit detailed information on SNAP applicants from the past five years. The data sought includes names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, mailing addresses, and even shopping histories. The agency also warned that failure to comply could jeopardize federal funding for the program.
Solis condemned the federal request, stating, “The County of Los Angeles, as the safety net for our most vulnerable communities, has a duty to uphold its promise to protect the privacy of its residents. It’s clear that while our federal government seeks to further erode public trust, we must stay united and ensure that every resident, regardless of immigration status, is able to safely access the essential services they have a legal right to.”
Los Angeles County currently serves nearly 1.5 million SNAP recipients, including non-citizens and parents applying on behalf of U.S. citizen children. Advocates warn that the USDA’s demand has already discouraged eligible individuals, particularly immigrants, from seeking aid amid heightened immigration enforcement and shifting federal policies.
Historically, both state and federal laws have safeguarded the confidentiality of SNAP applicants. However, the recent directive has sparked nationwide backlash. California has joined 21 other states in a lawsuit against the USDA, arguing that the data demand violates existing federal privacy protections.
The motion passed by the Board directs County Counsel to collaborate with the Department of Public Social Services and the Department of Public Health to explore all available legal avenues. These may include supporting the ongoing state lawsuit or initiating separate legal action to resist the federal mandate.
Leave a Reply