Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 03/13/2026 9:28:17 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) beneficiaries sued the Department of Agriculture on March 11 over the issuance of waivers to five states restricting certain types of foods that can be purchased under the program.
On May 19 last year, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins issued a waiver to Nebraska that bans SNAP recipients in the state from buying soda or energy drinks. As of March 4 this year, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) has approved similar waivers for 22 states in total.
In addition to soda and energy drinks, the additional waivers prohibit the purchase of fruit and vegetable drinks with less than 50 percent natural juice, as well as candy, unhealthy drinks, soft drinks, prepared desserts, sugar-sweetened beverages, and processed foods and beverages. Different states ban one or more of these items.
In the lawsuit, filed at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, plaintiffs argued that the USDA’s actions amount to “authorizing a patchwork of state-by-state food prohibition regimes.”
“These changes deprive SNAP recipients and their families of the food they need to maintain their health and employment, and in some cases, to survive,” the lawsuit alleged. “Individuals with chronic illnesses are losing access to products they need to manage blood sugar or sustain diets they need to maintain baseline health care needs.
“Families must choose between using scarce cash to purchase restricted items or foregoing essential household expenses such as rent, utilities, or transportation. These harms are tangible, ongoing, and irreparable.”
The lawsuit specifically challenges SNAP waivers issued for Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia, the states in which the five plaintiffs reside.
In 2018, the USDA had rejected similar food restriction proposals on SNAP purchases. According to the lawsuit, this was because the agency concluded that the restrictions would force the government to draw arbitrary lines among food products, limit food choices for households without clear evidence of health benefits, impose significant burdens on retailers, and increase administrative costs.
“Even though the challenged waivers present the same defects USDA previously recognized, they were approved without any attempt to address, let alone resolve, those concerns,” the complaint stated.
By approving the five waivers, the defendants are in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, the lawsuit claims.
Plaintiffs have asked the court to deem the food restriction waivers as unlawful.
The Epoch Times reached out to the USDA for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.
While announcing SNAP waiver approvals for six states in December 2025, Rollins justified the need for food restrictions as a way to improve people’s health.
“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,” Rollins said in a Dec. 10 statement.
“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.”
Rollins and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are strong advocates of banning food items deemed unhealthy from SNAP as part of the Make America Healthy Again agenda. Kennedy said he hopes that all states will have asked for, and received approval for, SNAP restrictions by the end of 2026.
In June 2025, Kennedy called on all state governors to exclude sugary drinks from the SNAP program. “Taxpayer dollars should never bankroll products that fuel the chronic disease epidemic,” he said at the time.
A study published on Dec. 8, 2024, in Frontiers in Public Health found that consuming more sugary drinks was linked to a higher risk of developing cardiovascular diseases than eating sweet food items such as pastries.
“Liquid sugars, found in sweetened beverages, typically provide less satiety than solid forms—they make you feel less full, potentially leading to overconsumption,” Suzanne Janzi, the study’s co-author, said in a statement.
“Context also matters—treats are often enjoyed in social settings or [for] special occasions, while sweetened beverages might be consumed more regularly.”
The waivers have already been implemented in eight states: Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, and West Virginia.
The waivers will come into effect in the remainder of the year in Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
The waivers are set to be implemented in 2027 or 2028 in three states: Kansas, Nevada, and Wyoming.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Oh my goodness - SNAP benefits are to keep people from starving - it is charity - foods to provide 3 square meals a day to keep those in need alive and healthy. Not to provide snacks and junk food.
Unbelievable it is being litigated. If it is not thrown out of court summarily that will be a joke.
Um...they can purchase those items WITH THEIR OWN MONEY!!! Not taxpayer money.
Look for the usual giant suspects.
Oh you and your sense and logic.
This has nothing to do with nutrition or health.
Objective one: stop anything Trump does, or tie it up making legal fees and delays.
Objective two: Preserve the grift. Remember college students getting SNAP so they could buy pop to dump out, return the cans to buy beer? Or the “green meat” corner stores that sold pot for SNAP bucks? Tip of the iceberg. Thanks to Zero SNAP doubled and then redoubled in outlay and like everything else from that crew it’s all about the fraud.
I’m hearing that song “Sugar Walls” ,written by Prince, sung by Sheena Easton, back in 1984.
Sweet song.
Oh come on! It’s right there in the 100th Amendment. Welfare recipients have the right to buy Twinkies and Doritos with welfare payments. ;-)
I’m opposed to SNAP on general principles, but if we have to tolerate it, SNAP should be for food.
REAL food.
Redefine food.
And as for those whining about government control, government subsidies should come with strings attached. If you don’t want the strings, get a job and buy your food with your own money.
I’ve been pondering this for decades.
The Army gave us free food. They let us eat whatever we wanted. But they also put us on a scale on day 1 and at least every six months thereafter.
Fatties got their food choices restricted in Basic Training and AIT. Bigtime. I’ve no idea how to effect that sort of feedback for civilians.
But if you want to get fat, it would seem reasonable to pay for it yourself. Carbs and sugars are not steictly necessary for humans.
“These changes deprive SNAP recipients and their families of the food they need to maintain their health and employment, and in some cases, to survive,” the lawsuit alleged. “Individuals with chronic illnesses are losing access to products they need to manage blood sugar or sustain diets they need to maintain baseline health care needs.
The afore mentions products are NOT food, and do not maintain health, nor are they needed to survive. On the contrary, they destroy health, which will NEVER equate to maintaining it. There's be less issues with maintaining blood sugar if the crap listed wasn't eaten.
“Individuals with chronic illnesses are losing access to products they need to manage blood sugar...”
You need sugary stuff to maintain a healthy blood sugar? I’m diabetic and I keep a few pieces of chocolate around in case I “bottom out”. But if you take the right amount of insulin and eat right, that happens very rarely. I’d say it happens with me 3-4 times a year. The LAST thing you want is a ton of processed sugars in your diet. You’re better off with protein, vegetables and whole grains.
CC
Oliver Anthony - Rich Men North Of Richmond
One needs Pepsi and Twinkies to survive?
Soon to go before Judge Bozoberg
Exactly.
This whole entire welfare thing has gotten way out of hand, Don’t you think?
/s
” Give us amputations, gut issues, diabetes, failing pancreass, illnesses and depression. Give us junk food mean fascists. We cannot live on good food!”
Personally, if the government is providing food, it should do so with regulated nutritional plans. They should have like maybe five plans to cover different ages, needs,etc. They should be limited to quantities and items on their listed plan. Doctor’s orders regarding documented health conditions and allergies could provide substitutions (also listed).
You want more or something else, GET A JOB!
They can afford to retain counsel, they can afford to feed themselves. Ingrates!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.