Kansas, Nevada, Ohio, and Wyoming have recently joined 18 other states in imposing restrictions on what food assistance beneficiaries can buy with their taxpayer-funded benefits. This shift follows the signing of new waivers by U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins on March 4, which allows states to limit the purchase of certain items using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.
The waivers, designed for individual states, primarily prohibit the acquisition of soda and candy. Wyoming’s Republican Governor Mark Gordon voiced support for this initiative, stating that it aligns with the goal of fostering healthier communities. He emphasized that Wyoming taxpayers expect their contributions to assist in providing nutritious food options for families.
Historically, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been reluctant to grant states the authority to restrict SNAP-eligible food choices, adhering to a set federal definition of “food” established by Congress. This definition generally allowed SNAP recipients to purchase nearly all food items, with exceptions including alcohol, tobacco, and hot or prepared foods. However, during the Trump administration, waivers began to be approved in 2025, despite the absence of any statutory changes. The USDA argues that these waivers are permissible under its pilot project authority, which aims to assess the effects of excluding specific foods on health and nutrition outcomes.
Rollins remarked on the initiative, stating that it’s a part of the unified effort during the Trump administration to enhance the nation’s health. He noted that governors across the U.S. have responded positively to innovate nutrition programs, resulting in these waivers reflecting a commitment to both public health and taxpayer interests.
The states that have implemented these waivers include Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia. While most restrictions focus on sugary items, some states have more narrowly defined bans related to energy drinks or specific types of juice.
Despite the absence of lawsuits challenging these waivers, legal experts like Professor Tyson-Lord Gray have expressed surprise, noting that businesses operating in multiple states could face significant “compliance chaos.” With each state setting distinct definitions for banned items, businesses may need to adjust their point-of-sale systems and train employees to navigate the complex array of new restrictions.
Furthermore, while Congress has not changed the SNAP purchasing guidelines, it has provided incentives for states to seek waivers through recently passed legislation. This law includes a $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program that scores states based on their participation in SNAP restriction efforts, highlighting a continued trend towards managing public health through legislative measures.
This new landscape presents both challenges and opportunities for health advocacy, emphasizing the importance of creating a food environment that promotes better choices while maintaining support for those in need.