A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The "Ending Stolen SNAP Benefits Act of 2026" aims to help households replace supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits stolen through identity theft or skimming. It requires the Secretary to create regulations to identify these thefts and reissue benefits while minimizing the burden on victims. The bill also provides for reports to Congress on the prevalence of theft and the feasibility of chip-enabled EBT cards. Additionally, it offers a 90 percent cost-sharing match for State agencies to transition from magnetic-stripe cards to chip-enabled EBT cards. This cost-sharing provision is set to end on September 30, 2031.
Yes· 3 of 25
- Scored +10
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Directly restores food assistance benefits stolen from the most vulnerable households.
- Scored +7
Is this likely to lift people out of poverty?
Prevents low-income households from losing critical food assistance due to theft.
- Scored +5
Would children be better off under this?
Ensures children in SNAP households maintain access to food benefits if stolen.
The opposite
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill increases federal spending by providing a 90 percent cost-sharing match for states to upgrade EBT cards.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Recovery of Stolen Benefits: Households can have benefits reissued that were stolen by identity theft or typical skimming practices (Section 2).
-
Reduced Burden for Victims: The Secretary must establish criteria for identifying stolen benefits in a way that minimizes the burden on victim households to prove the theft occurred (Section 2).
-
Improved Card Security: The bill encourages the transition to chip-enabled EBT cards, which are designed to be more secure than traditional magnetic-stripe cards (Section 2 and Section 3).
-
Maintained Benefit Access: State transition plans for new cards must include steps to ensure recipients keep access to their benefits without interruption (Section 3).
-
Accessible Outreach: Funding is provided for education and outreach regarding new cards in language that is accessible to all households (Section 3).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No Negative Impacts Listed: Based on the provided text, there are no specific provisions that describe negative consequences or burdens for individuals.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Directly restores food assistance benefits stolen from the most vulnerable households. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Positively impacts minority groups disproportionately reliant on SNAP benefits. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Positively impacts minority groups disproportionately reliant on SNAP benefits. Would children be better off under this? — Ensures children in SNAP households maintain access to food benefits if stolen. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Positively impacts minority groups disproportionately reliant on SNAP benefits. Would men be better off under this? — Protects food assistance benefits for men in low-income households. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Protects SNAP benefits for middle-aged adults from theft. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Positively impacts minority groups disproportionately reliant on SNAP benefits. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Ensures people with disabilities in SNAP households do not lose benefits to fraud. Would retired people be better off under this? — Protects food assistance for low-income retirees. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Protects food assistance benefits for rural SNAP recipients. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Protects SNAP benefits for seniors from theft and identity fraud. Would students be better off under this? — Protects food assistance for students who qualify for SNAP. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Addresses skimming issues which are often prevalent in urban retail environments. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Protects food assistance benefits for veterans who are SNAP recipients. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Protects any SNAP recipient regardless of race from benefit theft. Would women be better off under this? — Protects food assistance benefits for women in low-income households. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Protects SNAP benefits for young adults from theft.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Minimizes the burden on victims to prove theft for the reissuance of stolen benefits. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires regular public reports to Congress on the prevalence of stolen benefits. Does this give the federal government more power? — Grants the Secretary authority to establish regulations for benefit reissuance and card standards.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Prevents low-income households from losing critical food assistance due to theft.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Protects SNAP recipients from financial loss due to identity theft and skimming. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill increases federal spending by providing a 90 percent cost-sharing match for states to upgrade EBT cards.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this better protect the country from computer attacks? — Upgrades EBT cards to chip technology to combat skimming and identity theft.
- Education And Technology
- Does this give people more control over their personal data? — Addresses identity theft and enhances card security through chip technology.
- 6/18/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
Brian FitzpatrickRepublican · Pennsylvania