Published April 16, 2026
The proposed House Farm Bill provides no meaningful avenue to restore or strengthen the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Instead, it advances provisions that weaken long‑standing statutory protections by undermining merit‑based staffing requirements and opening the door to privatization. Section 4103, titled “SNAP Staffing Flexibility,” if approved, will amend Section 11 of the Food and Nutrition Act (7 U.S.C. § 2020) to authorize states to contract with private entities to perform SNAP certification and other core administrative functions. As the Farm Bill heads to a floor vote, advocates should stay informed and actively oppose the current proposal.
What the Proposed Farm Bill Does
It seeks to allow state SNAP agencies to hire private contractors to perform SNAP certification and related functions that are legally reserved for trained civil servants. While the provision includes nominal safeguards — such as prohibitions on financial conflicts of interest and requirements that contractors not be explicitly incentivized to delay or deny benefits — it fundamentally seeks to alter existing law by allowing non‑merit personnel to engage in functions traditionally and legally reserved for merit staff.
The proposal further seeks to limit federal oversight by specifying that the use of contractors does not constitute a “major change” in state agency operations, thereby shielding these actions from existing approval and review requirements. Taken together, these provisions significantly narrow the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) ability to oversee and enforce merit‑staffing protections.
Why Merit Staffing Matters
SNAP eligibility determination is a complex, legally consequential process governed by intricate federal and state rules. For decades, Congress has required that these functions be performed by merit‑based public employees. The Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 and SNAP’s statutory and regulatory framework explicitly assign eligibility interviews, certification, benefit calculations, and case actions to civil servants hired under state merit systems. These requirements exist to protect program integrity, ensure accuracy, and safeguard participant rights.
Merit staff receive extensive training, are subject to performance standards, and operate under professional and ethical obligations that promote consistency, impartiality, and accountability. Their expertise enables them to guide households through complicated application and recertification processes, assess reported changes, and make legally sound eligibility determinations. This work cannot be meaningfully replicated by short‑term contractors or automated systems without substantial risk to accuracy and timeliness.
The Harms of Privatization
Permitting private contractors to handle SNAP certification functions introduces well-documented risks highlighted by USDA Food and Nutrition Service. Past efforts to privatize public benefits administration have consistently resulted in higher error rates, processing delays, increased costs, and harm to eligible households. Private contractors frequently lack deep program knowledge, operate under profit‑driven incentives, and introduce fragmented workflows that require additional oversight and correction by already overburdened state staff.
Moreover, privatization threatens core public values embedded in the merit system. It increases the risk of politicization, weakens accountability, and undermines public trust in program administration. Evidence from SNAP, Unemployment Insurance, and other economic mobility programs demonstrates that outsourcing eligibility decisions leads to improper payments, administrative backlogs, and interruptions in access to benefits for households with low incomes.
Take Action
SNAP agencies face real staffing challenges, many of which predate the COVID‑19 pandemic and were intensified by it. However, these challenges stem largely from chronic underfunding and workforce attrition — not from the merit system itself. Replacing trained public servants with contractors does not address the root causes of benefit processing delays, but instead, compounds administrative failures.
Members of Congress and advocates should be deeply concerned that the House Farm Bill prioritizes privatization over investment in public capacity. By weakening merit‑staffing protections, the bill risks repeating past failures that harmed both participants and taxpayers. Strengthening SNAP requires sustained funding, adequate staffing, and continued commitment to a professional, merit‑based workforce, not policies that erode the foundations of effective and equitable program administration.
Use the FRAC Action Network to oppose the proposed Farm Bill.