Since 2025, state-level waivers restricting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants from purchasing certain foods, primarily candy and soda, have gained momentum. As of mid-2026, nearly half of states have received waiver approvals from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

These waivers were advanced during the Trump administration as part of the Make America Healthy Again initiative, which focuses in part on reducing chronic disease rates through policy changes.

However, state lawmakers restricting residents from using food assistance benefits to purchase certain items based on nutritional value is not a new phenomenon and is not limited to one political party.

In 2003, Minnesota lawmakers proposed excluding "junk food" from SNAP-eligible purchases. The state passed legislation, but it required federal approval to take effect. In 2004, during President George W. Bush's administration, the USDA rejected the proposal citing implementation difficulties, inconsistent definitions of "healthy" foods, and potential stigmatization of SNAP participants, according to the National Agricultural Law Center.

In 2007, a USDA report determined that establishing a uniform definition of healthy foods was difficult, implementing restrictions would be complex and costly, and restrictions might not change SNAP participants' shopping behavior because they could still use non-SNAP funds to purchase less nutritious foods.

In 2011, New York City attempted to ban the use of SNAP benefits to purchase sugary drinks but was unsuccessful. At that time, the Obama administration rejected the anti-obesity plan proposed by then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg and then-Governor David Paterson, both Democrats, NBC reported.

Maine, under Republican Governor Paul LePage, repeatedly applied to the federal government for waivers to restrict SNAP purchases, but was denied in 2016 by the Obama administration and again in 2018 during Trump's first term.

A shift in policy direction

In 2016, during the Obama administration, an analysis by the USDA in partnership with an unnamed grocer showed that nearly 10% of SNAP expenditures in fiscal year 2011 went to sugary drinks, ranking second only to meat, poultry, and seafood.

Supporters of food restriction waivers argue that SNAP, as the largest food assistance program in the U.S., should support healthy eating and should not use taxpayer funds to purchase candy and soda amid rising chronic disease rates in the country.

But only Congress has the authority to modify the definition of "food" in SNAP.

During Trump's second term, the policy tone on SNAP food restrictions formally shifted. The Make America Healthy Again commission, led by U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., released a report in May 2025 stating that children receiving SNAP benefits "are more likely to consume more sugary drinks and processed meats compared to income-eligible non-recipients."

Kennedy said in a statement last year: "We cannot continue to maintain a system that forces taxpayers to fund programs that make people sick, and then pay again to treat the diseases caused by those programs."

That same year, the USDA began approving state waivers, with waivers for Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, and West Virginia taking effect on January 1, 2026.

As of August, 23 states had received USDA waiver approvals.

Nationwide, SNAP participants are not allowed to use benefits to purchase alcohol, tobacco, hot foods and ready-to-eat foods, and personal care products. State waivers vary, allowing additional items such as candy, soda, and energy drinks to be excluded from SNAP eligibility. For example, Hawaii's waiver prohibits using SNAP funds to purchase soft drinks, while Idaho restricts the purchase of soda and candy.

Differences in state policies, as well as questions about how to define products subject to waivers, have raised implementation concerns in the grocery industry.

Future uncertainty

In March, SNAP consumers sued the USDA and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, alleging that waivers in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia violate the Administrative Procedure Act and exceed statutory authority granted under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.

In June, a federal district court judge ruled that the USDA exceeded its statutory authority in approving waivers for these five states. U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson for the District of Columbia noted in her ruling that the waivers violated federal law's definition of "food" in the SNAP program. Jackson stated she was not making a judgment on whether the waivers could achieve states' goals of addressing health and nutrition issues. She noted in her ruling that the USDA has congressional authority to test certain types of programs aimed at improving health and nutrition through SNAP, but the USDA did not rely on the provision of the law with strict requirements when approving the waivers.

Jackson stated that for these five waivers, the USDA "must redesign pilot projects that comply with [federal law]."

Jackson's ruling "may provide a roadmap for future challenges," Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP program director at the Food Research and Action Center, a nonprofit focused on poverty-related hunger, wrote in a recent blog post.

The ruling could have broader implications for other state waivers because the USDA relied on the same authority in approving all waivers, Jennifer Pomeranz, an associate professor at New York University, told Nutrition Insight.

"If the USDA does not appeal or loses an appeal, Congress could amend the laws related to demonstration or pilot projects to explicitly allow the USDA to conduct pilot projects that waive the definition of SNAP-eligible foods," Pomeranz told the outlet.