With the national debt topping $36 trillion, Washington is pressured to curb federal spending. One area now facing fresh scrutiny is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, commonly known as food stamps. This lifeline program intended to help low-income Americans afford food is increasingly criticized for administrative waste and costly mistakes.
Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa and chair of the Senate’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) caucus, is leading a controversial new legislative effort to crack down on what she describes as a significant source of financial waste in SNAP. Her legislation, the Snap Back Inaccurate SNAP Payments Act, is designed to curb payment errors, penalize states for mismanagement, and save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
“Bureaucratic blunders are leaving billions on the table while Americans are starving to service the ever-expanding $36 trillion debt,” Ernst said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “SNAP is a vital source of food for families. We must reinvigorate its integrity by penalizing states with rising error rates, enforcing a zero-tolerance standard, and recouping overpayments.”
At the bill’s core is an effort to close what Ernst calls a “loophole of accountability.” Under existing law, states that cause overpayments under SNAP — a program often done through an error in administering eligibility tracking — don’t always have to pay back the full amount of lost funds. In most cases, only errors over a threshold, now $54, need to be reported or fixed. Ernst’s plan would scrap that tolerance level, requiring every overpayment to be tracked, reported, and recouped.
The measure would also require states to reimburse the federal government for the entire cost of any overpayments that result from such administrative error. This provision aims to place financial responsibility where Ernst believes it belongs: On the states executing SNAP distribution on the ground. Ernst contends that by enhancing accountability at the state level, the federal government can mitigate the overall and growing losses associated with mismanagement and motivate greater oversight.
According to estimates from Ernst’s office, the bill could save as much as $91 billion over the next decade. That number is based on historical overpayment rates and assumes state-level enforcement and recovery efforts will be much more aggressive once the new mandates are in place. If those savings do materialize, the legislation would mark one of the biggest cost-cutting moves made through the years under the SNAP program in recent memory.
But the bill is more than a numbers game — it also reflects an emerging frustration among taxpayers and policymakers who view increasing government debt as jeopardizing long-run economic stability. Ernst and other members of the DOGE caucus say they believe tightening current programs rather than cutting off benefits entirely is a more responsible and effective way to root out waste. It’s a message intended to appeal to fiscal conservatives and moderates who may support the idea behind SNAP but think the execution needs huge reforms.
Formed during the Trump administration, the DOGE caucus has quickly evolved into a platform of legislative action to eliminate inefficiency across federal programs. It was initially released amid splashy advisory appointments, like billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk and the biotech investor and former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. That having been said, the lineup is not without a recent shakeup: Ramaswamy is getting out of DOGE now that he’s eyeing a potential run for Ohio governor. Even under its new leadership, the caucus continues to offer a check against legislation that doesn’t meet its mission of eliminating waste within the federal government.
Ernst’s proposal arrives as SNAP faces heightened scrutiny for reasons other than fiscal waste. Recently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported discrepancies in how states determine whether applicants qualify for benefits and how they issue payments. In some states, the error rate in making payments is more than 5%, which is above the federal target of less than 2%. Among other things, these errors aren’t always related to fraud; in many cases, they stem from data-entry errors, delays in updating recipients’ income records, or misreading of eligibility rules.
In one of the cases cited by government auditors, a family who qualified for $300 a month ended up with over $1,000 for more than a year because a clerk had not input its income correctly. Not a fraud case, the mistake nonetheless resulted in thousands of dollars in overpayments — money that likely won’t be fully recovered given state and federal rules. Such incidents are exactly what Ernst says her legislation seeks to prevent.
Backers of the bill say state agencies are currently weathering staffing shortages and rising caseloads that the proposed changes would only heighten. Advocates for low-income families have expressed concern that a strict black-and-white zero-tolerance policy might delay states approving benefits for borderline cases, which could result in under-enrollment among those who need them. But Ernst argues that better accuracy won’t limit access but rather ensure that those who are really eligible are the ones who get help.
In defense of the bill, Ernst notes the balance of compassion and accountability. “This is not about punishing families,” she said. “We’re just trying to make sure the program works like it’s supposed to, and that it’s ultimately there for the people who need it most.”
The measure is likely to garner support from fiscal conservatives and government waste watchdog groups. Whether it can gain wider bipartisan support is an open question. Historically, efforts to change SNAP — particularly those that would tighten eligibility or increase oversight — have set off intense debate on Capitol Hill, with Democrats frequently raising alarms about harm to vulnerable populations.
Even so, with rising concern about federal debt and a political world increasingly focused on outcome-based governance, Ernst’s pitch could resonate with some. The measure’s $91 billion price tag will likely be used as a talking point during budget hearings and on campaign trails, particularly as lawmakers prepare for the next round of debt ceiling negotiations.
The Snap Back Inaccurate SNAP Payments Act will be reviewed by a committee. Still, its prospects will depend on whether lawmakers agree that better financial stewardship doesn’t require starving programs that help vulnerable people but ensures that those programs operate as effectively and honestly as possible.
In the interim, Ernst and the DOGE caucus indicate that this bill is only a start. More proposals targeting inefficiencies in other large-scale federal programs will likely follow in the coming months. For Ernst, it’s a simple message: the days of lax accountability are behind us, and every dollar matters.
