A millionaire from Minnesota successfully obtained more than $6,000 in taxpayer-funded food stamps by qualifying under a little-known state regulation, revealing how the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) can extend eligibility beyond conventional income limits. Rob Undersander, a retired engineer who volunteers to assist seniors with government benefits, applied for assistance in 2016 in Stearns County and was approved within weeks, despite exceeding standard asset thresholds.
How a Brochure Led to Benefits Approval
Undersander went on to receive payments for 19 months, totaling over $6,000, after being issued a domestic violence services brochure. This basic informational pamphlet counted as a qualifying benefit under Minnesota state rules, allowing him to access SNAP funds. He stated that he applied to test the system after discovering during training that Minnesota eligibility could be based solely on income, permitting individuals with significant assets to qualify. His low retirement income made him eligible despite his savings, and he later donated the money to charity.
Undersander's Critique of the System
‘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 a historically low unemployment rate, something is wrong,’ Undersander told Fox News Digital. ‘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.’
He testified before the Minnesota House Public Safety Committee on March 24 during a hearing on a SNAP reform bill introduced by GOP state Representative Pam Altendorf. ‘I have purchased lobster and filet mignon on my EBT card,’ he added. ‘Isn't that crazy?’
Broader Context of Benefits Fraud in Minnesota
Undersander's case has drawn renewed attention as Minnesota grapples with a wider public benefits fraud scandal that officials warn could reach tens of billions of dollars, with lawmakers considering tighter eligibility rules. Under federal guidelines, individuals can access SNAP either by meeting financial thresholds or by qualifying for other welfare-related benefits. States have flexibility in determining what counts as a qualifying benefit, which can include non-cash services such as informational materials or access to support programs.
Historical and Policy Background
This flexibility stems from guidance introduced in 1999 under the Bill Clinton administration and later expanded during the Barack Obama administration. The policy, commonly referred to as Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility, is currently used in more than 40 states and Washington, DC. Government data shows that SNAP serves tens of millions of Americans annually, including working families, children, older adults, and people with disabilities. The program undergoes annual reviews to track payment accuracy, covering both overpayments and underpayments.
Financial Impact and Proposed Reforms
SNAP spending surged to $128 billion in 2021 and $127 billion in 2022, partly driven by expanded access during the pandemic. Last year, the program cost $99.8 billion, with participants receiving an average of $187 in monthly benefits, according to federal data. In Minnesota, benefits totaled nearly $725 million in 2020 before rising to almost $2 billion in 2021, marking a 174 percent increase in a single year.
A federal policy set to take effect in 2027 will require states with higher payment error rates to share a portion of SNAP costs, a shift that could prompt some states to revisit how eligibility is determined. A proposed bill in Minnesota aims to tighten eligibility rules by requiring stricter income and asset verification before applicants can enroll.
Advocacy and National Implications
Over the past decade, Undersander has become a vocal advocate for reform, including testifying before Congress, but has noted that little has changed. Some states have already moved to scale back expanded eligibility rules, while federal officials have proposed changes in the past, including during the administration of Donald Trump. Undersander's case underscores how current rules can operate in practice, particularly in states that have adopted broader eligibility standards.
The Daily Mail has reached out to Undersander, Tim Walz's office, Representative Altendorf, and Minnesota's Department of Children, Family and Youth for further comment.
