A retired engineer in Minnesota says he was able to receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits despite being a millionaire, highlighting what critics argue is a loophole in the system as lawmakers weigh reforms amid wider concerns over fraud and oversight.
Rob Undersander, who volunteers helping seniors navigate government assistance programs, said he first became aware of the issue during training sessions. He learned that eligibility for SNAP in Minnesota was determined by income rather than assets, meaning savings and property owned were not taken into account.
Because his retirement income was modest, he realized he could still qualify for food benefits, despite having substantial savings and property.
Undersander's experience is now being cited as lawmakers consider tightening eligibility requirements. On Tuesday, he testified before the Minnesota House Public Safety Committee during a hearing on a SNAP reform bill introduced by Republican State Representatives Pam Altendorf and Nolan West.
The proposed legislation would introduce stricter verification measures, including checks on both income and assets before applicants are approved for benefits.
The push for stricter rules also comes amid broader scrutiny of fraud in Minnesota's welfare system. Democratic Governor Tim Walz has faced criticism over several high-profile fraud scandals involving taxpayer-funded programs, including cases involving food aid.
Curious about how the rules worked in practice, Undersander applied for benefits in 2016 in Stearns County and was approved within weeks. He later said he collected thousands of dollars in assistance over more than a year, and that this was donated to charity.
"I have purchased lobster and filet mignon on my EBT card," Undersander told Fox News Digital. "Isn't that crazy?"
SNAP benefits are designed to help households buy food for home preparation, including essentials like fruits, vegetables, meat and dairy, as well as snack foods and nonalcoholic drinks.
"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," he said. "One might call the current eligibility rules fraud by design. And given the current climate of fraud and abuse of taxpayer-funded benefits in Minnesota, I'm hoping that there will be a new bipartisan effort to reduce and eliminate both."
At the center of the debate is a policy known as Broad Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE), which allows states to expand SNAP eligibility beyond federal standards.
"Through BBCE, states waive SNAP's traditional asset tests and adopt higher income limits, which can result in greater enrollment and erroneous payments," Altendorf said on the introduction of the bill in February. "My bill closes the BBCE loophole in Minnesota."
According to the Cato Institute, 38 states have abolished SNAP asset tests as a result of BBCE.
Matt Schmid, health and harvest campaign director at the America First Policy Institute, who also testified during Tuesday's hearing, argued that the policy limits the ability of caseworkers to detect inconsistencies or potential fraud.
"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 wrote in a testimony document. "This isn't about taking help away. It's about making sure SNAP works the way it was intended to."
Closing the BBCE loophole would improve verification processes and reduce payment errors by ensuring applicants provide financial data earlier in the process, he argued.
"SNAP is meant to help needy Minnesotans put food on the table, not to subsidize people who already have significant financial resources," said Schmid.
"It's unacceptable that under Minnesota's current system, even millionaires and lottery winners can qualify for taxpayer-funded benefits. That is a fundamentally broken system," he added.
The debate comes as SNAP spending has surged. The program cost about $101.7 billion during fiscal year 2025 -- 1.4 percent of all federal spending. In 2019, total spending was $76 billion. While SNAP is paid for by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, its administration is up to the states and local authorities.
According to Altendorf's office, improper payments account for around $77 million of all SNAP spending in the state. There are around 460,000 SNAP recipients in the North Star State.