Criminals Steal Over $850,000 From Federal Summer Food Program in Massachusetts 18%

By Scott McClallen27%

6/27/2026, 7:00:51 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Self-Serving Bias, and Optimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 14.5% saturation with 109 hits. Analysis detected 885 faulty-reasoning hits from 750 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33% and a BS Rank of 18% (18,106 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 82.70% of the article peer group.

When Massachusetts administered the federal SUN Bucks program on June 1 to give eligible families $120 per kid for the summer, criminals stole about $855,000 in over 10,000 fraudulent transactions. 
Every year, states administer the SUN Bucks program that provides eligible families with $120 per child for the summer, loaded onto an electronic benefit transfer card. 
The Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance said that it found a large-scale skimming fraud scheme in the federal SUN Bucks program. 
Criminals install fake point-of-sale machines in high-traffic places such as grocery stores, gas stations, and liquor stores. 
Those criminals clone EBT cards and then deplete the card balance before the person can spend it. 
DTA reported it to the U.S. 
Attorney’s Office and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 
“We know that families struggle during the summer when they lose access to the school breakfast and lunch that their kids depend on. 
The SUN Bucks program is a crucial lifeline for those families to make sure that no child goes hungry just because school is closed,” said DTA Commissioner Michael Cole. 
“I’m proud that DTA’s strong fraud detection system worked as intended, discovered this fraud and put a stop to it before it could get worse. 
There must be a full investigation into this, and anyone found responsible must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 
In Massachusetts, we have always worked hard to prevent fraud and theft and make sure that our most vulnerable families receive the benefits they deserve from this federal program. 
We need the federal government to be a partner in that work as well.” 
SUN Bucks is a federally authorized program that provides grocery-buying benefits to low-income families with school-aged children during the summer months. 
Children are eligible if they were enrolled in a National School Lunch Program (NSLP) or School Breakfast Program (SBP) school during the 2025-2026 school year and received SNAP, DTA cash benefits, certain MassHealth coverage, SSI with a relative caregiver, or were in foster care. 
Benefits are issued on a separate SUN Bucks EBT card and cannot be loaded onto an existing SNAP EBT card. 
Families are reminded to regularly change their PINs and lock and unlock their cards to protect their benefits from unauthorized use. 
Massachusetts is one of many states that plans to implement chip-and-tap-enabled EBT cards, which will enhance security measures to better prevent theft across the system, including for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). 
DTA has previously taken significant action to detect and prevent benefit theft and safeguard client benefits, including: 
Implementing card lock/unlock technology using the DTA Connect mobile application and the Cardholder Customer Service Line. 
Providing an EBT card safety flyer with every EBT card issued that contains information on how to lock/unlock cards, as well as how to change the PIN frequently. 
Educating clients on card safety and encouraging regular changing of their EBT card PIN to enhance security, and forcing re-pinning when there is a known high-risk for stolen PINs. 
Producing educational materials on protecting your EBT card and identifying scams (informational videos, flyers, and more) in multiple languages, available on mass.gov/ProtectYourEBT 
Engaging retailers and retail associations through outreach and education on benefit theft schemes and patterns, and partnering with law enforcement on information sharing. 
Fraud prevention is a critical responsibility for all DTA staff. 
DTA uses eligibility interviews and verification to ensure accurate initial determinations. 
DTA constantly leverages advanced data analytics and tools to detect and resolve potential program integrity risks. 
When issues are identified, DTA conducts non-criminal fraud investigations, disqualifies individuals for program violations, refers cases for prosecution, calculates overpayments and establishes claims for repayment. 
Large-scale skimming schemes underscore the importance of swift federal action to secure systems nationwide for administering critical food assistance. 
Recent communications from USDA to states underscore the vulnerabilities of federal systems. 
Anyone is able to report fraud to DTA online using this form, by emailing DTA.ReportFraud@MassMail.State.MA.US, or by phone using DTA’s Fraud Hotline at 800-372-8399. 
Residents who have been targeted by skimming can find out how to report theft to DTA here. 
Families needing assistance with food resources should call the Project Bread Food Source Hotline at 1-800-645-8333. 
Editor’s Note: *Do you enjoy Townhall’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? 
Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. 
* 
*Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
* 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.7%Scott McClallen: 2.4%Townhall: 5.3%Confirmation Bias1.7%This article: 4.0%Scott McClallen: 0.8%Townhall: 0.7%Anchoring Bias4.0%This article: 8.1%Scott McClallen: 1.5%Townhall: 2.8%Availability Heuristic8.1%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.7%Townhall: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.4%Townhall: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Scott McClallen: 1.3%Townhall: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias2.1%This article: 3.2%Scott McClallen: 7.7%Townhall: 11.2%Framing Effect3.2%This article: 3.9%Scott McClallen: 0.2%Townhall: 0.4%Loss Aversion3.9%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.2%Townhall: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.2%Scott McClallen: 0.8%Townhall: 1.4%Optimism Bias9.2%This article: 6.4%Scott McClallen: 0.9%Townhall: 1.9%Pessimism Bias6.4%This article: 14.5%Scott McClallen: 8.5%Townhall: 13.5%Negativity Bias14.5%This article: 9.5%Scott McClallen: 1.9%Townhall: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias9.5%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.8%Townhall: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Scott McClallen: 2.8%Townhall: 4.6%In-Group Bias2.3%This article: 2.3%Scott McClallen: 0.9%Townhall: 3.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.3%This article: 2.3%Scott McClallen: 1.4%Townhall: 1.8%Halo Effect2.3%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.4%Townhall: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.6%Scott McClallen: 0.5%Townhall: 1.3%Recency Bias1.6%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.3%Townhall: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.5%Townhall: 5.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.5%Townhall: 2.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.7%Scott McClallen: 4.2%Townhall: 4.4%Appeal to Authority5.7%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.7%Townhall: 1.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.5%Townhall: 1.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 2.3%Townhall: 9.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.7%Townhall: 1.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 13.1%Scott McClallen: 10.3%Townhall: 11.1%Appeal to Emotion13.1%This article: 1.7%Scott McClallen: 1.1%Townhall: 2.2%Begging the Question1.7%This article: 2.5%Scott McClallen: 1.4%Townhall: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.5%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.9%Scott McClallen: 0.7%Townhall: 1.5%Burden of Proof2.9%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.4%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Composition/Division4.4%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.2%Townhall: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.7%Townhall: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 2.0%Townhall: 3.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 3.2%Townhall: 3.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.1%Scott McClallen: 5.5%Townhall: 16.1%Biased Writer Voice6.1%This article: 2.3%Scott McClallen: 4.0%Townhall: 5.6%Indoctrination2.3%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Scott McClallen: 5.5%Townhall: 13.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias2.3%This article: 5.9%Scott McClallen: 3.8%Townhall: 5.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.9%

750 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers50%attributed speech374writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageMassachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageMassachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance • 6 words • 0.0% coverageMassachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Cole • 23 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Cole • 29 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Cole • 25 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Cole • 22 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Cole • 29 words • 100.0% coverageMichael Cole • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageMassachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance • 17 words • 100.0% coverageMassachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance • 16 words • 0.0% coverageMassachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance • 28 words • 0.0% coverageMassachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance • 29 words • 0.0% coverageMassachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance • 22 words • 0.0% coverageMassachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance • 23 words • 0.0% coverageMassachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMassachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance • 11 words • 0.0% coverageMassachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance • 16 words • 0.0% coverageMassachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Michael Cole

100%flagged-word coverage
142 attributed words38% of attributed speech55% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice+20.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Michael Cole: 20.4%20.4%Attempt to Sell a Product -11.8 ptsWriter: 11.8%Michael Cole: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.5 ptsWriter: 4.5%Michael Cole: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -4.5 ptsWriter: 4.5%Michael Cole: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.