18 states approved to restrict junk food purchases with SNAP

December 12, 2025

Summary

18 states can now ban soda, candy, and other foods from SNAP purchases under new Trump administration health policy.

Why this matters

The policy affects millions of low-income Americans and raises questions about nutrition, food access, and the role of government in regulating diet.

The Trump administration has approved six more states to impose restrictions on the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to purchase sugary sodas and other foods classified as unhealthy, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced Wednesday.

The newly approved states—Hawaii, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee—join 12 others that have already received federal waivers to implement these restrictions starting in 2026. States previously granted waivers include Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.

Each of the 18 states will be permitted to define unhealthy food items based on their own criteria. For example, Arkansas will prohibit the use of SNAP benefits to purchase sodas, candy, and beverages containing less than 50% natural juice. Florida’s list includes soda, energy drinks, candy, and prepared desserts.

The restrictions are part of the Trump administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) initiative, which aims to reduce chronic health conditions and encourage better nutrition among low-income Americans. “We all know we’re at the point where we must do something to correct the chronic health problems that Americans face,” Rollins said during a press conference.

Rollins added in a press release, “President Trump has made it clear: we are restoring SNAP to its true purpose – nutrition. Under the MAHA initiative, we are taking bold, historic steps to reverse the chronic diseases epidemic that has taken root in this country for far too long.”

The waivers are initially valid for two years, with an option to extend them an additional three years, according to the National Grocers Association.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has identified approximately 6,500 food deserts between 2000 and 2006. More recent estimates report that around 23.5 million Americans live in low-income areas located more than one mile from the nearest large grocery store, with roughly 11.5 million of those individuals having low incomes.

These changes come amid increased grocery prices. According to data firm Datasembly, grocery costs for the average American have risen nearly 30% over the last six years.

The administration maintains that controlling how SNAP benefits are used is necessary to reduce future health care costs and encourage healthier dietary habits across the country.

Perspectives & reactions

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, defended the policy, pointing to public health costs. “U.S. taxpayers should not be paying to feed kids foods, the poorest kids in our country, with foods that are going to give them diabetes. And then my agency ends up, through Medicaid and Medicare, paying for those injuries,” Kennedy said previously. “We’re going to put an end to that, and we’re doing it step by step, state by state.”
Critics of the policy raise concerns about its impact on populations living in “food deserts”—areas with limited access to full-service grocery stores. Joelle Johnson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest told NPR, “We do not have quality data that says that if you restrict access to candy and soda in SNAP, you are going to see improved diet quality, improved nutrition, reduced chronic disease. That data does not exist.” Johnson also argued for food equity, saying, “Just because somebody participates in SNAP doesn’t mean that they don’t deserve the same food choices that somebody who doesn’t participate in SNAP has.”