A store displays a sign accepting Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) cards for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) purchases for groceries, in the Brooklyn borough of New York City, New York January 2, 2026.

...

Jasmine Laws

By Jasmine Laws

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.

A federal judge has blocked a Trump administration-backed effort to prevent recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) from using benefits to buy soda and other sugary products, a move that could affect millions of Americans nationwide.

In a 68-page decision, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson found that Congress “did not authorize the [U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)] to amend or waive” Congress’s definition of eligible food under the Food and Nutrition Act, adding that the department could not "cut types of food out of SNAP entirely."

The ruling therefore overturns USDA approvals that had allowed states to test pilot programs removing items such as soda and candy from SNAP eligibility, halting a major attempt to reshape SNAP purchasing rules aimed at tackling the rise in diet-related disease in the U.S.

Read More on U.S.

What the Ruling Means

At its core, the ruling reaffirms longstanding SNAP policy: benefits can be used for most food and beverages intended for human consumption.

Historically, SNAP restrictions have been limited. Participants cannot use benefits to purchase:

Beyond those categories, the program has broadly allowed recipients to choose what they buy.

The blocked policy would have changed that—allowing states to remove items such as soda, candy, and other sugary products from eligibility lists.

The States—and the Stakes

The lawsuit was brought by SNAP recipients in five states:

They were represented by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice (NCLEJ).

But the impact stretches much further.

A total of 23 states had already received USDA approval for similar “food restriction” waivers. If fully implemented, the policy could have affected 13.5 million SNAP recipients nationwide.

Programs in several states—including Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, and West Virginia—had already begun. Tennessee’s was scheduled to launch in July.

These initiatives were designed as pilot programs to:

Notably, participants would not have been able to opt out, meaning all SNAP users in those states would have been subject to the restrictions.

Why the Policy Was Proposed

The effort was part of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” initiative.

Supporters argue the policy is about public health—specifically:

A USDA official told Newsweek that “the idea that taxpayer funds should not be used to purchase junk food should not be controversial.”

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins echoed that stance, writing on X: “SNAP is for food—not sugar bombs fueling obesity, diabetes, and skyrocketing healthcare costs for low-income families. Taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize junk food and drinks at the expense of American health.”

Critics Raise Concerns

Opponents, however, argue the restrictions could make an already complex program harder to navigate.

Advocates warn that:

SNAP currently serves roughly 42 million Americans, many of whom rely on it for consistent access to food.

A Legal Line in the Sand

Judge Jackson’s ruling draws a clear boundary: USDA cannot unilaterally redefine what counts as food under SNAP.

Katie Deabler, a senior attorney with NCLEJ, said the decision is “a major step in restoring essential food assistance to the millions of families that rely on SNAP nationwide.”

She added that it reinforces “legal guardrails” that ensure the program operates consistently across the country.

What Happens Next?

While the ruling blocks these specific waivers, it does not end efforts to improve SNAP nutrition.

Parke Wilde, a professor of nutrition science and policy at Tufts University, noted that the court highlighted other paths forward—such as:

“The law does have some rules that must be followed,” Wilde said, emphasizing that nutrition-focused reforms remain possible within existing frameworks.

Meanwhile, the USDA has indicated it may continue pursuing alternative approaches—suggesting the broader policy fight is far from over.

Newsweek reached out to Health and Human Services, which pointed to what Kennedy wrote in a post on X: "Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for products that make people sick and then pay again for the medical care that follows. SNAP was created to fight hunger and improve nutrition, not to subsidize the chronic disease epidemic."

He added that "Today’s ruling does not change the facts about the health harms associated with excessive sugar consumption. We will continue pursuing every available path to Make America Healthy Again."

States That Had Approved USDA SNAP Food Restriction Waivers

Source: USDA Food and Nutrition Service

A store displays a sign accepting EBT cards for SNAP grocery purchases in Brooklyn, New York, on January 2, 2026.

...

Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Ben Kelly and Yannick Demoustier and Gray R. Thomas.

Update 6/23/26, 12:07 a.m. ET: This article has been updated with comment from USDA.

View 0 Comments

Request Reprint & Licensing

Submit Correction

View Editorial & AI Guidelines