Refocusing taxpayer-funded SNAP benefits on healthy food options

For years, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has ignored the pleas of states wanting to study the implications of removing Sugar Sweetened Beverages (SSBs) from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits in small pilot programs. Though many studies incentivizing improved nutritional choices have been approved by the USDA.

Why the preference for incentives over boundaries?

Some might say it’s a reluctance to be a nanny state, as stated by the last Trump Administration. Former Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said in May 2017, “On what level do we want to become a nanny state of directing how, and what, people feed their families?”

Or it’s the slippery slope of government coercion as argued by American Enterprise Institute’s Benjamin Zycher, “If it is acceptable for government to limit the food choices available to SNAP beneficiaries on healthfulness grounds, then no principle prevents the government from refusing to pay for individual health care services unless the given individual adheres to lifestyle choices—diet, exercise, etc.—approved by the government.”

But really, it's none of those things.

Excluding SSBs from SNAP benefits does not prevent beneficiaries from using personal dollars for these allotments, as explained by another American Enterprise Scholar Angela Rachidi saying, “Moreover, with or without restrictions, recipients remain free to purchase whatever foods they want—with their own money. The rationale for restricting SNAP purchases lies in ensuring that this taxpayer-funded program is aligned with its purpose.”

Instead, the USDA’s reluctance has been political. The USDA has unilaterally rejected these requests to set stricter limits on purchasing decisions, languishing in the ‘iron triangle’ of opposition from food and beverage industry lobbyists, liberals defending SNAP benefits in totality, and institutional agency preferences.

The reluctance to ban SSBs has ignored many years of research conjecturing that the removal of SSBs would contribute to the health of low-income Americans. A 2016 study from the USDA showed SSBs were the number one product purchased by SNAP benefits at 9.3%.

Additionally, SNAP benefits were used in three-fourths of the food purchases versus out-of-pocket expenditures. It is hard to ignore the possible conclusions from the correlation that SNAP recipients have an obesity prevalence of 40%, versus 32% for low-income non-SNAP participants.

It is not the place of taxpayer-provided benefits to pay for food that is undermining public health. Instead, restricting taxpayer-funded purchases away from unhealthy products leaves more SNAP benefits available for nutritious foods, as originally intended.

The current administration’s Make America Healthy Again Commission is changing this long-run USDA narrative, recently approving six state petitions for banning SSBs, candy, and energy drinks with various proposals. Idaho is one of these six states removing unhealthy foods from SNAP.

Current Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins said, “The Trump Administration is unified in improving the health of our nation. America’s governors have proudly answered the call to innovate by improving nutrition programs, ensuring better choices while respecting the generosity of the American taxpayer. Each waiver submitted by the states and signed is yet another step closer to fulfilling President Trump’s promise to Make America Healthy Again.”

It is admirable to see Idaho as one of the first states in line to focus this taxpayer-funded benefit on healthy options. Directed by the state legislature with House Bill 109 during the 2025 legislative session, Idaho’s Department of Health and Welfare formally requested the waiver from the USDA.

Then Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Director Alex Adams said, “This is about ensuring that public dollars are used to support public health. By aligning SNAP benefits with nutritional goals, we’re not only promoting better outcomes for families today—we’re investing in a healthier, more resilient Idaho.”(In March 2025, Alex Adams was nominated as the Assistant Secretary for the Administration of Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.)

Governor Brad Little also supported the waiver saying, "Idaho proudly welcomes the MAHA movement because it is all about looking for new ways to improve nutrition, increase exercise, and take better care of ourselves and one another, especially our children. We are excited to partner with the Trump administration in bringing common sense to the government's food assistance program with the approval of our SNAP waiver."

SNAP is an important resource for low-income families. Idaho recognizes the vital role it plays in ensuring a more resilient state. Removing SSBs and candy from the list of approved purchases will ensure that taxpayers are funding health food options for SNAP participants.

Mountain States Policy Center recognizes that the citizen, not the government, is the best advocate for their own health. By removing the taxpayer-provided subsidies for sugary drinks, a government incentive is removed from unhealthy products, leaving the beneficiaries free to make their own food choices with their own dollars.