Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Is there any proof that there is wide spread corruption with people receiving snap benefits
Executive Summary
There is clear, documented evidence that a substantial share of SNAP benefits were improperly paid, with federal audits estimating improper payment rates near double digits and totaling roughly $10–$11 billion in recent years; however, improper payments encompass errors, administrative mistakes, and deliberate fraud, meaning the data do not prove that widespread corruption by benefit recipients alone is the sole or dominant cause. Key federal oversight reports and subsequent USDA data show persistent payment integrity problems that have prompted investigations, prosecutions, corrective action plans, and targeted law enforcement operations, so the factual record supports a picture of meaningful program leakage and some organized criminal trafficking, but not an undifferentiated conclusion that most SNAP recipients are engaging in corruption [1] [2].
1. Hard numbers from federal audits: How big is the leak?
Federal oversight work establishes the scale of improper SNAP payments: a September 2024 Government Accountability Office audit estimated that 11.7% of SNAP benefits in fiscal 2023 were improper, roughly $10.5 billion, and follow-up USDA reporting for fiscal 2024 showed a national payment error rate near 10.93%, prompting corrective plans for dozens of states and financial sanctions for several [1] [2]. These figures are not anecdotal; they are national estimates produced under statutory frameworks for measuring payment integrity, and they capture both overpayments and underpayments, recipient errors, and trafficking. The government’s own measuring systems therefore provide quantifiable evidence of substantial improper payments that require policy and operational responses [1] [2].
2. Error versus fraud: Why the headline number can mislead readers
The improper-payment and error-rate metrics used by USDA and GAO deliberately aggregate multiple causes: administrative mistakes, eligibility errors, data-processing problems, recipient mistakes, retailer trafficking, and intentional fraud. That aggregation means a high improper-payment percentage does not equate to an equal rate of criminal behavior by recipients; a large proportion of improper payments reflect systemic administrative weaknesses rather than malicious intent [3] [4]. Analysts and watchdogs stress this distinction because conflating all improper payments with recipient corruption obscures where remedies are needed — improved caseworker training, IT modernization, data matching, or targeted criminal enforcement — and because policy responses differ substantially depending on the root causes identified [4].
3. Documented fraud and enforcement: Cases that prove theft, not universality
Separate from aggregate error estimates, law-enforcement investigations and USDA enforcement actions demonstrate real instances of trafficking and organized theft: recent operations have targeted electronic benefits (EBT) trafficking rings and retailers colluding to convert benefits into cash, with arrests and prosecutions reported in large jurisdictions, including a May 2025 operation in Los Angeles that federal officials described as involving international criminal networks redirecting funds [5]. These cases show organized criminal exploitation of SNAP mechanisms exists and can be substantial at local levels, but enforcement records demonstrate that such criminal acts account for a portion — not the entirety — of measured improper payments [5].
4. Fiscal context and partisan narratives: Money, growth, and interpretation
Observers across the political spectrum point to increases in program spending to argue different cases: some commentators highlight growth from roughly $63 billion in 2019 to higher totals in recent years to call for reforms or cuts, framing rising spending as evidence of expanded abuse; others focus on poverty dynamics and pandemic-era expansions [6]. The spending trajectory and large absolute dollar amounts amplify concerns about integrity, but raw spending growth alone does not prove corruption; instead, the interaction of higher participation, benefit levels, and measurement of errors explains much of the headline figures, requiring nuanced interpretation rather than simple attribution to widespread recipient malfeasance [6] [1].
5. State accountability and administrative fixes: Where the government is responding
Federal reports and USDA announcements indicate administrative remedies and state-level accountability are central responses: dozens of states were required to submit corrective action plans after high error rates, and several face financial sanctions for repeated noncompliance, reflecting the federal government’s view that operational lapses drive many improper payments [2] [7]. The GAO and Congressional Research Service have recommended strengthened oversight, improved payment-error measurement, and better retailer monitoring to reduce trafficking and systemic errors, showing policy consensus around fixing systems rather than assuming bad faith by most recipients [7] [4].
6. Bottom line: What the evidence supports and what it does not
The evidence supports three firm conclusions: first, SNAP experiences substantial improper payments worth billions annually; second, some portion of that leakage reflects deliberate fraud and organized trafficking, demonstrated by law enforcement actions; and third, the aggregate error rate does not by itself prove widespread corruption among benefit recipients because it mixes administrative error with criminality [1] [5] [3]. Policymakers seeking to reduce loss should prioritize targeted enforcement against trafficking, strengthen program administration, and improve measurement to distinguish error from fraud — steps the GAO, CRS, and USDA have recommended and partially implemented [4] [1].