The Claim

Signed a multitude of waivers giving states the authority to remove junk food from their SNAP benefits programs.

The Claim, Unpacked

What is literally being asserted?

That the administration signed numerous waivers allowing states to exclude “junk food” from the list of items purchasable with SNAP benefits. The word “signed” implies direct presidential action. “Multitude” suggests a large number. “Junk food” implies a clear category of unhealthy items. “Authority” implies states lacked this power before.

What is being implied but not asserted?

That SNAP was previously subsidizing unhealthy eating on a large scale, that the administration took decisive action to fix this, and that the restrictions will meaningfully improve public health. The framing positions the administration as health-conscious reformers fighting an obvious problem. The claim also implicitly credits the president personally for what was an administrative action by the USDA Secretary.

What is conspicuously absent?

The claim omits that these are structured as two-year pilot projects under Section 17 of the Food and Nutrition Act — not permanent policy changes — and that previous administrations of both parties denied identical requests from states including New York City (2010) and Minnesota (2014), not because of indifference to health but because of documented implementation challenges and lack of evidence that restrictions improve diet quality. It omits the established research showing that incentive-based programs like GusNIP demonstrably increase fruit and vegetable consumption, while restriction-based approaches have no comparable evidence base. It omits that the waivers were signed by USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, not the president. It omits that defining “junk food” has proven deeply problematic, with each state using different product definitions and creating a patchwork of inconsistent rules that burden retailers and confuse recipients. It omits that SNAP recipients’ spending patterns closely mirror those of non-SNAP households. And it omits that a federal lawsuit filed in March 2026 challenges the waivers as exceeding USDA’s statutory authority.

Evidence Assessment

Established Facts

USDA approved SNAP food restriction waivers for 18 states during 2025, with four more approved in early 2026. The waivers were approved in four waves: Nebraska, Indiana, and Iowa in May 2025; Arkansas, Idaho, and Utah in June 2025; Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Colorado, Florida, and West Virginia in August 2025; and Hawaii, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee in December 2025. In March 2026, Kansas, Ohio, Nevada, and Wyoming were approved, bringing the total to 22 states. Each waiver is structured as a two-year pilot project authorized under Section 17(b) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, which permits the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct demonstration projects designed to test program changes. [^314-a1]

The waivers were signed by Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, not by the president. All USDA press releases describe “Secretary Rollins” as approving or signing the waivers. The president does not have direct authority to approve SNAP waivers — this is a delegated administrative function of the USDA. The White House claim that the president “signed” the waivers misattributes the administrative action. [^314-a2]

The restrictions primarily target soda, candy, and energy drinks — not a broad category of “junk food.” Each state’s waiver defines restricted products differently. Some states restrict only soft drinks (Colorado, Hawaii, Utah, West Virginia). Others restrict soft drinks and candy (Idaho, Indiana, Oklahoma, Kansas). Still others add energy drinks, prepared desserts, or sweetened beverages (Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas). Iowa’s waiver is the broadest, restricting “all taxable food items” per Iowa revenue code. The term “junk food” does not appear in the waivers themselves — it is the White House’s informal characterization. [^314-a3]

Previous administrations of both parties denied similar waiver requests. In 2010, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and New York Governor David Paterson requested a USDA waiver to restrict SNAP purchases of sugary beverages. USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack (Obama administration) denied the request, citing logistical implementation difficulties and insufficient evidence that restrictions would reduce obesity. Vilsack stated that “incentive-based solutions are better-suited for the working families, elderly and other low-income individuals” than restrictions. Minnesota’s 2014 request was also denied. The Trump administration’s 2025 approvals represent a reversal of longstanding bipartisan USDA policy — not a newly created authority. [^314-a4]

SNAP recipients’ food spending patterns closely mirror those of non-SNAP households. A 2016 USDA study found that SNAP households spent approximately 9.3% of their food budget on sweetened beverages, compared to 7.1% for non-SNAP households. Both groups allocated roughly 40 cents of every grocery dollar to basic items (meat, fruits, vegetables, milk, eggs, bread). The appearance that soft drinks were the top SNAP purchase was an artifact of product categorization — individual produce items were listed separately rather than grouped, making any single category of produce appear smaller than the aggregated “soft drinks” category. When properly grouped, produce spending significantly exceeded soft drink spending. [^314-a5]

A federal lawsuit filed in March 2026 challenges the waivers as exceeding USDA statutory authority. The National Center for Law and Economic Justice and Shinder Cantor Lerner filed suit on behalf of SNAP recipients in Colorado, Iowa, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Nebraska, arguing USDA bypassed required notice-and-comment rulemaking, exceeded statutory authority under the Food and Nutrition Act, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs describe ambiguous product definitions that create confusion at checkout and practical hardships including inability to purchase items needed for managing chronic health conditions like diabetes. [^314-a7]

Strong Inferences

The food and beverage industry substantially increased lobbying spending in response to the waivers. The American Beverage Association (representing Coca-Cola and PepsiCo) spent $1.7 million on lobbying in the first half of 2025 — more than double its outlay during the same period in 2024, and surpassing its annual lobbying total in all but one year since 2010. PepsiCo spent nearly $2.8 million on its own lobbying operation targeting SNAP “purchasing restrictions” in the same period, up from $2.3 million the year before. The National Grocers Association also increased spending while warning about confusion and harm to independent grocers. [^314-a6]

The waivers are structured as “pilot projects” but function as a policy rollout. Section 17(b) authorizes demonstration projects to “test program changes” — implying controlled experiments with evaluation components. However, 22 states covering a substantial fraction of the SNAP population now have approved waivers, with each state defining restricted products differently. This is not a controlled test of a single intervention; it is a nationwide policy change implemented through the administrative mechanism of pilot project authority. The inconsistency across states makes rigorous evaluation of outcomes difficult, and the rapid expansion from zero states to 22 within ten months suggests the goal is policy implementation, not evidence generation. [^314-a8]

Incentive-based approaches have a stronger evidence base than restrictions for improving SNAP nutrition. The USDA’s Healthy Incentives Pilot demonstrated that offering SNAP recipients a 30-cent rebate per dollar spent on targeted fruits and vegetables increased consumption by 25%. The Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP), authorized by the 2018 Farm Bill, has funded over 65 grantees; large-scale evaluations show longer participation is associated with significantly greater fruit and vegetable intake, improved food security, and better perceived health. By contrast, no comparable body of evidence supports the effectiveness of purchase restrictions in improving diet quality among SNAP participants. The Healthy Eating Research brief noted that restriction-based approaches remain “largely untested” in the U.S. [^314-a9]

The restrictions create significant implementation burdens with unclear benefits. Over 650,000 food products exist with approximately 20,000 new ones entering the market annually. Only one state (Oklahoma) has created a comprehensive list of Universal Product Codes matching its waiver restrictions. Retailers — particularly small and independent stores in underserved areas — must determine item eligibility themselves, risking loss of SNAP authorization for honest mistakes. Anti-hunger advocates warn that the compliance burden may push smaller retailers to leave the SNAP program entirely, reducing food access in the communities the program is designed to serve. [^314-a10]

What the Evidence Shows

The factual core of the claim is accurate: the administration, through USDA Secretary Rollins, approved SNAP food restriction waivers for 18 states during 2025 (with four more in early 2026). This is a real policy action with genuine public health motivations. The term “multitude” — while subjective — is a reasonable characterization of 18 waivers.

However, the claim is misleading in several respects. First, the president did not “sign” these waivers. They are administrative actions by the USDA Secretary under delegated authority. Second, the restricted items are primarily soda, candy, and energy drinks — not a broad category of “junk food” that includes chips, processed meals, or other products typically associated with that term. Each state defines its restrictions differently, creating a patchwork rather than a coherent policy. Third, the claim implies states previously lacked this authority. In fact, Section 17(b) waiver authority has existed since at least the 2008 reauthorization of the Food and Nutrition Act; what changed was that this administration chose to approve requests that both Democratic and Republican predecessors had denied.

The most significant omission is the evidence base. The waivers are structured as two-year pilot projects, but the administration has not explained how the inconsistent definitions across 22 states will produce meaningful data. Meanwhile, incentive-based programs like GusNIP have a demonstrated track record of increasing healthy food consumption — and the administration has not paired the restrictions with expanded incentives. The 2016 USDA data shows that SNAP households spend 9.3% of their food budget on sweetened beverages, compared to 7.1% for non-SNAP households — a real but modest gap that restrictions alone are unlikely to close, especially since most SNAP recipients have other income sources and could purchase restricted items with cash.

The March 2026 lawsuit raises a credible legal question about whether using pilot project authority to implement a 22-state policy rollout exceeds the statutory purpose of Section 17(b). The food industry’s substantial lobbying increase also reveals a political economy dimension the claim ignores: SNAP restrictions have been blocked for decades not primarily by “the swamp” but by a coalition of food manufacturers, beverage companies, and retailers who profit from unrestricted SNAP purchasing — interests that are typically allied with the Republican Party on other matters.

The Bottom Line

The claim is mostly true in its factual core — the administration did approve numerous SNAP food restriction waivers for states — but misleading in its framing. The president did not personally “sign” the waivers; the USDA Secretary did. The restrictions target primarily soda and candy, not the broad category of “junk food” implied. And the claim presents administrative waivers as a straightforward public health victory while omitting that (a) previous administrations of both parties denied identical requests due to documented implementation challenges; (b) incentive-based approaches have a far stronger evidence base for improving nutrition; (c) the inconsistent definitions across states create real burdens for recipients and retailers; and (d) the legal authority for using pilot project waivers to implement what amounts to a 22-state policy rollout is now being challenged in federal court. The administration deserves credit for taking action on a genuine public health concern — excessive sugar-sweetened beverage consumption — but the claim overstates presidential involvement, oversimplifies the policy, and omits the substantial evidence that a different approach (incentives) would be more effective.

Sources

FNS/USDA. “SNAP Food Restriction Waivers.” Updated March 17, 2026. https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/waivers/foodrestriction

USDA. “Secretary Rollins Approves State Waivers to Make America Healthy Again by Removing Unhealthy Foods from SNAP in Indiana and Iowa.” Press Release. May 23, 2025. https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/05/23/secretary-rollins-approves-state-waivers-make-america-healthy-again-removing-unhealthy-foods-snap

USDA. “Secretary Rollins Signs State Waivers to Make America Healthy Again by Removing Unhealthy Foods from SNAP in Arkansas, Idaho, and Utah in Addition to Indiana, Iowa, and Nebraska.” Press Release. June 10, 2025. https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/06/10/secretary-rollins-signs-state-waivers-make-america-healthy-again-removing-unhealthy-foods-snap

USDA. “Secretary Rollins Signs Six New State Waivers to Make America Healthy Again by Removing Unhealthy Foods from SNAP in Hawai’i, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee.” Press Release. December 10, 2025. https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/12/10/secretary-rollins-signs-six-new-state-waivers-make-america-healthy-again-removing-unhealthy-foods

Civil Eats. “Bans on Soda and Candy in SNAP Are Back on the Table, and They’re Still Controversial.” March 10, 2025. https://civileats.com/2025/03/10/bans-on-soda-and-candy-in-snap-are-back-on-the-table-and-theyre-still-controversial/

Civil Eats. “USDA Signs More SNAP Food Restriction Waivers.” December 10, 2025. https://civileats.com/2025/12/10/usda-signs-more-snap-food-restriction-waivers/

NCLEJ. “Trump Administration Sued over SNAP Food Restriction Waivers.” March 12, 2026. https://nclej.org/news/trump-administration-sued-over-snap-food-restriction-waivers

Bloomberg Government. “Big Sugar Ramps Up Lobbying Efforts as SNAP Soda Ban Spreads.” 2025. https://news.bgov.com/bloomberg-government-news/big-sugar-ramps-up-lobbying-efforts-as-snap-soda-ban-spreads

Brookings Institution. “Pros and Cons of Restricting SNAP Purchases.” 2025. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/pros-and-cons-of-restricting-snap-purchases/

USDA Economic Research Service. “SNAP — Foods Typically Purchased by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Households.” November 2016. https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/ops/SNAPFoodsTypicallyPurchased-Summary.pdf

Healthy Eating Research. “The Current State of Knowledge on SNAP Restrictions and Disincentives.” September 2025. https://healthyeatingresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/HER-SNAP-Waivers-Brief.pdf

FRAC. “SNAP Food Restriction Waivers.” 2025. https://frac.org/snap-restrictions

Civil Eats. “SNAP Recipients Sue USDA Over Soda, Candy Restrictions.” March 12, 2026. https://civileats.com/2026/03/12/snap-recipients-sue-usda-over-soda-candy-restrictions/