...
By Aliss Higham
Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Republican lawmakers in New Mexico are advancing a proposal that would limit what low-income families can buy with federal food benefits, adding to a growing list of states that have moved to block sugary snacks and drinks from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Why It Matters
The bill reflects a broader push, backed by the Trump administration, to change what SNAP recipients can buy with their benefits. Similar changes have already taken effect in several states, with more scheduled to follow later this year.
Read More on News
SNAP, often referred to as food stamps, provides monthly grocery assistance to more than 40 million Americans with low or no income, making it one of the largest safety net programs in the country. New Mexico has the highest proportion of SNAP usage in the U.S.—with 451,000 residents, or about 21 percent of its population, receiving food stamps.
What To Know
Republican state senators have introduced Senate Bill 186, which would prevent SNAP recipients from using benefits to purchase sodas and candy.
The proposal mirrors guidance encouraged by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who have urged states to remove highly sweetened products from the program.
Under the bill, "candy" is defined as any product that combines sugar or other sweeteners with additional ingredients. A "sweetened drink" would include any nonalcoholic beverage with five grams or more of added sugar, or any amount of artificial sweeteners. The legislation carves out exceptions for drinks that contain milk or milk alternatives, as well as those made with at least 50 percent fruit or vegetable juice.
...
If approved, the measure would require a federal waiver, which allows states to adjust certain aspects of how SNAP is administered while still operating under U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rules.
The New Mexico proposal aligns with a wider Trump administration strategy that frames diet-related disease as a national crisis and seeks to address it through food-adapted policy.
Through federal waivers, states have gained new flexibility to restrict what can be purchased with benefits. In 2025, a wave of these "junk food" waivers was approved, largely in Republican-led states. While the specific rules differ, they generally target foods that are high in sugar, fat and calories but low in nutritional value.
So far, 18 states have altered their SNAP purchasing rules. Those with approved waivers are Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia.
Some of the new restrictions are already in place. In Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah and West Virginia, the updated rules took effect on January 1. Other states are scheduled to roll out their changes at different points throughout the year.
What People Are Saying
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said in December: "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. America's governors are answering that call with courage and innovation, offering solutions that honor the generosity of the taxpayer while helping families live longer, healthier lives. With these new waivers, we are empowering states to lead, protecting our children from the dangers of highly processed foods, and moving one step closer to the president's promise to Make America Healthy Again."
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, said in October: "SNAP helps more than 41 million people put food on the table each month, while supporting local stores and strengthening economies. Cutting SNAP funding and policing people's groceries does not improve the program or respect their dignity. With the largest cuts in the program's history looming, states should reject SNAP food restrictions and focus on reducing hardship amid slashed funding and eligibility rollbacks—not compound burdens by making it more complicated to use this critical program."
What Happens Next
The bill has been referred to the Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee and the Senate Finance Committee.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines