In July of 2025, Attorney General Nessel and 21 other attorneys general sued the Trump administration, arguing that the data demand violates federal law. The court ruled the federal demand was likely unlawful because, as Nessel’s recent press release says, “the Administration had stated its intent to disclose and use the demanded data for purposes unrelated to the administration of SNAP.”

Nessel got a preliminary injunction against Trump in October.

MORE NEWS: Michigan House Bill Hits ‘Mute’ on School Cellphones

Still, the Trump administration came back for round two in November – again threatening to cut off administrative funding to states that refuse to hand over private data. Now in January, AG Nessel and a multi-state coalition of attorneys general contend that the administration’s renewed demand for data defies the District Court’s existing order and remains unlawful for the same reasons as the original request.

Same demand, new label says Nessel

“This troubling pattern of willfully disregarding lawful injunctions is nothing new for the Trump Administration,” Nessel said in a statement. She added that the only real change between the Trump administration’s first data demand and its second one is that the newer version included a proposed data security plan (protocol). She went on to say that calling it “proposed” is misleading as the administration made it clear it wasn’t open to negotiation and said states should have no objections to it. When the group of states raised concerns about the plan, the USDA brushed them aside and quickly threatened to cut off funding.

Rooting out fraud.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said at a December 2025 cabinet meeting about the SNAP requirements, “We asked for all the states for the first time to turn over their data to the federal government to let the USDA partner with them to root out this fraud, to make sure that those who really need food stamps are getting them…but also to ensure that the American taxpayer is protected.”

Empty cupboards.

Michigan receives roughly $150 million a year to administer SNAP. Nessel argues even delays in that funding could have serious consequences for families who rely on the program. The Trump administration argues that expanded access to state data is necessary to detect fraud and protect taxpayers. The court will ultimately decide where the legal limits of federal authority lie in the administration of SNAP.