Tim Burchett (R-TN)
Stop Retail Food Store SNAP Trafficking Act of 2026
A Republican bill with no cosponsors
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 "Stop Retail Food Store SNAP Trafficking Act of 2026" aims to improve how the government estimates the trafficking of supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) benefits by retail food stores. It requires the Secretary to update assumptions and validate them using independent data. The bill also increases civil money penalties for trafficking violations. Additionally, it allows for permanent disqualification of stores to be accompanied by money penalties. Finally, the Secretary must provide reports to Congress on the progress and results of these measures.
Yes· 3 of 14
- Scored +4
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Requires updated national reports and reports to Congress on investigations and penalties.
- Scored +3
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Reducing trafficking ensures that SNAP benefits are used for food, benefiting the intended recipients.
- Scored +3
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Strengthening penalties and data accuracy for benefit trafficking improves the fiscal management of the SNAP program.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Store owners face significantly higher civil penalties and more frequent government audits.
- Scored -2
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
Increased penalties and more frequent reviews for high-risk stores create additional burdens for some business owners.
- Scored -1
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
Increases federal oversight and enforcement of SNAP program rules.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
More Accurate Trafficking Data: Section 2 requires the Secretary to evaluate and update assumptions and validate them with independent data, which improves the accuracy of estimates regarding benefit trafficking.
-
Increased Deterrents for Fraud: Section 3 increases civil money penalties from $100,000 to $250,000, which is intended to better deter violations of the law.
-
Stronger Enforcement: Section 3(b) ensures that permanent disqualification of stores that traffic benefits can be paired with civil money penalties.
-
Congressional Oversight: Section 4 requires a report to the House and Senate committees on investigations, disqualifications, and penalties, ensuring officials are accountable for implementation.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Increased Financial Burden on Store Owners: Section 3 increases the civil money penalties for trafficking violations to $250,000, which is a higher financial burden for those found in violation.
-
More Frequent Store Reviews: Section 2(1)(D) directs the assessment of more frequent reauthorization for stores at high risk of trafficking, which may increase the frequency of government reviews for those stores.
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? — Reducing trafficking ensures that SNAP benefits are used for food, benefiting the intended recipients. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Low-income demographics who rely on SNAP benefit from the integrity of the program. Would children be better off under this? — Protects the integrity of nutrition benefits that often support children in low-income households. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Low-income demographics who rely on SNAP benefit from the integrity of the program. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Low-income demographics who rely on SNAP benefit from the integrity of the program. Would retired people be better off under this? — Protects the nutrition benefits used by low-income retirees. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Protects the integrity of nutrition benefits used by seniors. Would business owners be better off under this? — Store owners face significantly higher civil penalties and more frequent government audits.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Strengthening penalties and data accuracy for benefit trafficking improves the fiscal management of the SNAP program. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Reducing trafficking ensures benefits are used for their intended purpose, benefiting legitimate consumers. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Better trafficking estimates and deterrence may reduce the loss of federal funds to fraud. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Reducing SNAP fraud helps preserve federal funds and potentially reduces waste in the budget. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Increased penalties and more frequent reviews for high-risk stores create additional burdens for some business owners.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires updated national reports and reports to Congress on investigations and penalties. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands the Secretary's authority to impose higher penalties and more frequent reviews. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Increases federal oversight and enforcement of SNAP program rules.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Ensuring SNAP benefits are not trafficked means they are more likely to provide nutrition to low-income families.
- 7/13/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
- Introduced in House