Across the United States, a growing number of states are pushing to restrict the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits—commonly known as food stamps—for purchasing soda, candy, and other so-called “junk foods.” This movement, largely driven by Republican-led states, aligns with the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) initiative championed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and supported by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins. The effort reflects concerns about public health, taxpayer spending, and the nutritional value of government-funded food assistance. As of May 26, 2025, at least 12 states have proposed or submitted waivers to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to implement these restrictions, with some already approved. This article explores the reasons behind this trend, MAHA’s influence, the current status of these efforts, and their potential impact on farmers.
Why States Are Seeking to Ban Junk Food from SNAP
The push to limit SNAP purchases stems from a confluence of health, fiscal, and ideological motivations. Proponents argue that allowing SNAP benefits to be used for sugary drinks and snacks contributes to diet-related health issues like obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, which disproportionately affect low-income populations. In 2023, SNAP served an average of 42.1 million Americans monthly, roughly 12.6% of the U.S. population, with benefits covering about two-thirds of a household’s grocery costs. Critics, including state leaders like Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, contend that taxpayer dollars should not subsidize unhealthy eating habits that drive up healthcare costs. Sanders has stated, “Taxpayers are subsidizing poor health. We’re paying for it on the front end and the back end”.
The broader context is a rising national focus on chronic disease prevention, fueled by alarming health statistics. For example, obesity rates have climbed, with West Virginia, the most obese state, leading efforts to curb soda purchases through SNAP. Lawmakers argue that SNAP, designed to provide “nutritious food essential to health and well-being,” should prioritize whole foods like fruits, vegetables, and lean proteins over processed items high in sugar and fat. Additionally, some see these restrictions as a way to align SNAP with its stated mission of nutrition, as emphasized by Agriculture Secretary Rollins, who noted, “The name of the program is Supplemental Nutrition Assistance, it is about nutrition”.
On the other side, opponents, including anti-hunger advocates and industry groups, argue that these restrictions are paternalistic and unlikely to improve health outcomes. Valerie Imbruce, director of the Center for Environment and Society at Washington College, points out that the price differential between cheap, calorie-dense junk food and healthier options, driven by federal subsidies for the sugar industry, is a root issue. “Controlling how the poor eat is a paternalistic response to a problem that is not based in SNAP recipients’ inability to make good decisions about healthy foods,” she told Newsweek. Critics also note that SNAP households’ purchasing patterns mirror those of non-SNAP households, suggesting that restrictions may not significantly alter diets.
The Role of the MAHA Movement
The MAHA movement, spearheaded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has been a significant catalyst for this trend. Modeled after President Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan, MAHA focuses on combating chronic disease through dietary reform, reduced exposure to harmful additives, and increased physical activity. Kennedy, who lacks direct authority over SNAP (administered by the USDA), has used his platform as HHS Secretary to advocate for banning junk food from SNAP, framing it as a critical step to protect public health. In February 2025, he told Fox News, “We shouldn’t be subsidizing people to eat poison”. His rhetoric has galvanized Republican-led states, with Kennedy urging governors to apply for USDA waivers to restrict SNAP purchases.
MAHA’s influence is evident in the rapid proliferation of state-level proposals. Kennedy’s team has worked closely with Agriculture Secretary Rollins, who has signaled strong support for granting waivers to states seeking to ban junk food from SNAP. At a MAHA event in Nebraska, Rollins described these efforts as “historic,” noting that she had already signed waivers for Nebraska, Indiana, and Iowa, with more in the pipeline. It’s being reported that over 24 states are pursuing MAHA-aligned legislation to reform SNAP and school lunches.
However, MAHA’s push has sparked tensions with the USDA and industry groups. Some USDA officials view Kennedy’s advocacy as overreach, given SNAP’s administration falls outside HHS jurisdiction. The soda and confectionery industries, represented by groups like the American Beverage Association and National Confectioners Association, have lobbied against the bans, arguing that they arbitrarily target specific products and create implementation challenges. A post on X claimed that Coca-Cola and Pepsi, which reportedly earn over $5 billion annually from SNAP purchases, have paid influencers to undermine MAHA’s initiatives, though this claim lacks independent verification.
Current Status of State Efforts
As of May 26, 2025, the movement to restrict SNAP purchases is gaining traction, with several states at various stages of implementation:
- Nebraska: Became the first state to secure a USDA waiver, launching a two-year pilot program banning soda and energy drinks from SNAP purchases.
- Arkansas: Governor Sanders submitted a waiver to ban soda, candy, and drinks with less than 50% natural juice, with a proposed start date of July 2026. The waiver also allows SNAP purchases of hot rotisserie chicken, an exception to the program’s hot food ban.
- Indiana: Governor Mike Braun submitted a waiver to exclude candy and soda, announced alongside Kennedy and Dr. Mehmet Oz.
- Iowa: Submitted a waiver to limit SNAP purchases to whole foods like eggs, milk, and vegetables, with legislation advancing in the state House.
- Idaho: Governor Brad Little signed House Bill 109, banning candy and soda from SNAP, pending USDA approval.
- Louisiana: Governor Jeff Landry signed an executive order requesting a waiver to ban soda and candy, emphasizing reduced taxpayer subsidies for unhealthy foods.
- West Virginia, Texas, Missouri, Kansas, Tennessee, Utah, Montana, Arizona, Alabama, and Louisiana: These states have either introduced legislation or are preparing waiver requests to restrict SNAP purchases, with varying definitions of “junk food”.
- Federal Efforts: The Healthy SNAP Act of 2025, introduced by Representative Josh Brecheen (R-OK), proposes a nationwide ban on soft drinks, candy, ice cream, and prepared desserts from SNAP eligibility, though it faces significant hurdles in Congress.
While Nebraska’s waiver marks a historic first, no other state has yet implemented restrictions, as most await USDA approval. Previous attempts to restrict SNAP purchases, such as Minnesota’s 2003 proposal, were denied due to logistical challenges and concerns about stigmatizing recipients. However, Rollins’ willingness to approve waivers suggests a shift under the current administration.
Potential Impact on Farmers
The proposed SNAP restrictions could have mixed implications for American farmers, particularly those producing fruits, vegetables, and other whole foods. Proponents argue that redirecting SNAP dollars from junk food to healthier options could boost demand for fresh produce, benefiting farmers. A 2017 Brookings Institution study found that a pilot program offering rebates for SNAP purchases of fruits and vegetables increased consumption by 25%, suggesting that incentives for healthy foods could drive sales. Programs like Freshfarm in Maryland, which matches SNAP dollars spent at farmers’ markets, show that 55% of benefits are spent on fruits and vegetables, supporting local growers. If SNAP restrictions shift purchasing toward staples like produce, dairy, and meats, farmers in these sectors could see increased revenue.
However, the impact may not be universally positive. The food industry warns that SNAP restrictions could reduce overall grocery spending, as benefits typically cover only part of a household’s food budget, with recipients using cash for additional purchases. A reduction in SNAP purchasing power could lead to lower sales at retailers, including farmers’ markets, potentially offsetting gains for produce farmers. Additionally, the administrative costs of implementing restrictions could strain state budgets, diverting funds from programs like the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program, which supports farmers’ market purchases. Critics also note that without increased subsidies for healthy foods, farmers may not see significant benefits, as low-income consumers may still opt for cheaper, processed alternatives with their own money.
The soda and snack food industries, which rely on SNAP for significant revenue (an estimated $5 billion annually for soda alone), could face losses, potentially affecting farmers supplying ingredients like corn for high-fructose corn syrup. However, redirecting SNAP funds to whole foods could shift agricultural priorities toward diverse crops.
Conclusion
The trend of states seeking to ban soda and junk food from SNAP reflects a broader push to align public assistance with health and nutrition goals, driven by the MAHA movement and supported by the Trump administration. With Nebraska leading the way and states like Arkansas, Indiana, and Iowa close behind, the effort is gaining momentum, though it faces opposition from industry groups and anti-hunger advocates who argue it’s paternalistic and logistically challenging. For farmers, the outcome could mean increased demand for fresh produce and whole foods, but only if accompanied by incentives to make healthy options more affordable. As waivers move forward and debates continue, the balance between health policy, economic impacts, and individual choice will shape the future of SNAP and its role in America’s food system.