Rob Undersander, a retired engineer and millionaire from Minnesota, qualified for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits through an eligibility loophole that uses income only — not assets — to determine qualification. He plans to testify before the Minnesota House Public Safety Committee on Thursday, urging lawmakers to close what he calls a "fraud by design" flaw in the state's SNAP system.
Undersander discovered the eligibility gap while volunteering to help seniors navigate government benefits. After learning that Minnesota's SNAP program bases eligibility solely on income, not assets or property, he applied for benefits in Stearns County in 2016 to test the system. He was approved within weeks.
Over more than a year, Undersander received thousands of dollars in SNAP benefits, which he donated to charity. He has since testified before Congress and become an advocate for reforming the program's eligibility rules.
"I strongly support SNAP benefits for truly needy individuals, but when we have nearly one in seven Americans receiving food support in the wealthiest nation on earth, with historically low unemployment rate, something is wrong," Undersander told Fox News Digital. "One might call the current eligibility rules fraud by design."
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive advocates and some Democratic officials maintain that SNAP serves a vital function in addressing food insecurity, particularly during economic disruptions. They argue that the program's broad eligibility helps ensure no one goes hungry and note that strict asset tests could disenfranchise eligible families who have temporarily fallen on hard times.
Supporters of the current system point out that SNAP is means-tested and serves primarily low-income individuals. They note that the majority of recipients are children, elderly individuals, or people with disabilities. Some progressive groups argue that focusing on fraud distracts from addressing the root causes of food insecurity, including wage stagnation and rising costs of living.
Democratic Gov. Tim Walz's administration has faced criticism over major fraud scandals in Minnesota's welfare system, including hundreds of millions in fraudulent food aid payments uncovered in recent years. However, progressive defenders note that fraud represents a small fraction of total benefits distributed and that administrative improvements can address misuse without restricting eligibility.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative lawmakers and reform advocates argue that the current SNAP eligibility rules are fundamentally broken and allow people with significant resources to receive taxpayer-funded benefits. They point to the Minnesota case as evidence of systemic flaws that need immediate legislative action.
GOP state Rep. Pam Altendorf has introduced a SNAP reform bill that would tighten eligibility by requiring stricter income and asset verification before recipients can enroll. "SNAP is meant to help needy Minnesotans put food on the table, not to subsidize people who already have significant financial resources," said Matt Schmid, America First Policy Institute Health & Harvest Campaign Director, who is also testifying at Thursday's hearing.
Schmid argued that states can reform SNAP and limit budget impacts by improving oversight and closing key loopholes. "Reintroducing basic guardrails like an asset test is a common-sense step to restore integrity, ensure benefits go to those who truly need them, and protect the long-term viability of the program," he said. "This isn't about taking help away. It's about making sure SNAP works the way it was intended to."
What the Numbers Show
Federal spending on SNAP reached record highs during the COVID-19 pandemic, climbing to $128 billion in 2021 and $127 billion in 2022, according to federal data. Last year, SNAP cost $99.8 billion, with participants receiving an average of $187 in monthly benefits.
In Minnesota, the increase has been dramatic. The state distributed nearly $725 million in benefits in 2020, but that total jumped to nearly $2 billion in 2021 — a 174% increase in just one year, according to Altendorf's office.
Earlier this year, a Minnesota woman was sentenced to about one year in federal prison for running a $325,000 SNAP fraud scheme with family members. Prosecutors said they used fake identities and fraudulent documents to obtain EBT cards, then withdrew and sold the funds for profit.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act would require states to manage SNAP more effectively or take on more of the cost burden, putting states like Minnesota at risk due to high error rates. Experts note that eliminating broad-based categorical eligibility would strengthen income and asset verification.
The Bottom Line
Thursday's hearing will examine whether Minnesota should adopt stricter asset-testing requirements for SNAP eligibility, joining a broader national debate over program integrity. Undersander's testimony provides a concrete example of the eligibility gap that reform advocates say needs closing, while critics warn that stricter requirements could prevent genuinely needy individuals from accessing food assistance.
The Minnesota legislature will weigh whether the current income-only system constitutes a design flaw that enables fraud, or whether it appropriately serves low-income residents who may have savings but insufficient income. The outcome could influence similar debates in other states facing comparable fraud challenges.