How common is SNAP benefit trafficking in the United States?

1. What analysts actually claim — the headline numbers that circulate

Multiple independent analyses present three recurring numeric claims about SNAP trafficking: an empirical study covering 2015–2017 found trafficking at about 1.6% of benefit value, equating to roughly $1.27 billion annually and a store violation rate near 12.7%; a conservative government‑focused account describes long‑term declines in trafficking from around 4% to about 1% over 15 years; and commentary from think‑tanks and media asserts larger annual losses in the billions or sudden surges exceeding $100 million in stolen benefits since 2023. These figures map to different sources and periods, and each frames trafficking in distinct ways — dollar losses, percent of benefits, and store violation rates remain the primary metrics cited ^{[1] [4] [3]}.

2. Mid‑2010s study: a measured prevalence, not mass collapse of the program

A targeted study of the 2015–2017 period quantified trafficking at 1.6%, with an annualized trafficking amount about $1.27 billion, and a 12.7% store violation rate. This study was thorough for its window and used transaction and case‑level evidence to estimate direct trafficking (selling benefits for cash). That finding implies trafficking was a small share of total SNAP outlays yet nontrivial in absolute dollars, supporting targeted enforcement rather than wholesale program dismantling. The study’s dated window matters: policy and criminal tactics change, so its central numbers are most authoritative for the mid‑2010s rather than later years ^{[1] [5]}.

3. Recent accounts: signs of a spike and contested interpretations

Reporting and policy briefs since 2023 document alleged increases: one analysis cites a 55% increase in fraudulent transactions late FY2024–FY2025 and more than $100 million in benefits stolen since 2023, while other materials estimate trafficking‑related annual losses of roughly $1.3 billion as part of broader overpayments approaching $10 billion by 2023. These more recent claims point to either a genuine uptick in trafficking or improved detection and reporting, and they have prompted new USDA and congressional attention. Distinguishing detection growth from incidence growth is central to interpreting those figures ^{[3] [2]}.

4. The program’s scale and why small percentages look big

SNAP serves roughly tens of millions of recipients and hundreds of thousands of retailers; thus even a low percentage of trafficking translates into large dollar amounts. Analyses emphasize program complexity — many retailers, card‑based transactions, and vast benefit flows — as a structural reason why policing is difficult and why absolute dollar losses can seem large even when incidence rates remain low. This scale also means policy responses range from targeted retailer enforcement to systemwide changes like card security enhancements, reflecting different risk‑management choices ^{[6] [4]}.

5. Enforcement, policy responses, and accountability — what’s being done

Agencies and commentators report stepped‑up efforts: USDA/FNS has pursued retailer investigations, recouped overpayments, and implemented fraud frameworks; lawmakers have proposed tighter EBT‑card security and targeted operations. Those measures aim to reduce both trafficking and broader improper payments, but their effectiveness depends on detection, state administration incentives, and resource allocation. Historical gains cited by FNS — improved payment accuracy and collections — are offered as evidence that enforcement and program integrity investments can lower prevalence over time ^{[4] [7]}.

6. Why numbers diverge — methodology, incentives, and possible agendas

Differences in estimates arise from methodological choices: sampling windows, definitions of “trafficking” (e.g., retailer vs. recipient fraud), and whether analyses count attempted scams, overpayments, or only confirmed trafficking. Media pieces emphasizing sudden thefts may reflect investigative reporting or selective incident aggregation, while government or academic studies using randomized sampling typically report lower prevalence. Stakeholders may emphasize figures that support policy goals: advocates for program integrity highlight rising dollar losses to justify stricter controls, while defenders point to low percentage rates to caution against punitive reforms that could harm beneficiaries. Recognizing these agendas clarifies why single headline numbers rarely capture the full picture ^{[6] [3] [2]}.

Bottom line: authoritative mid‑2010s evidence places SNAP trafficking around 1–1.6% of benefits, producing roughly $1–1.3 billion in annual losses at that time, while more recent reporting indicates spikes and larger dollar impacts that require careful separation of increased detection from increased incidence. Policy responses continue to evolve in response to both long‑term data and recent enforcement findings ^{[1] [3] [2]}.