States across the country are preparing to bar soda, candy, and other foods from SNAP purchases in 2026, setting up a sweeping test of whether limiting benefits can reshape diets or deepen friction at checkout.
Beginning January 1, 2026, at least 18 states are expected to begin enforcing new waivers that restrict what Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients can buy, according to Associated Press reporting. The bans are part of a broader push by the Trump administration to narrow SNAP eligibility for foods it deems unhealthy, a shift advocates say will touch millions of low-income Americans.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins have urged governors to pursue state-by-state waivers rather than wait for Congress to rewrite federal law.
Kennedy has argued that the government is effectively “paying twice,” first by subsidizing sugary foods and then by covering the medical costs associated with obesity and diabetes, as previously reported by The Dallas Express.
“If you want to buy a sugary soda — the U.S. taxpayer should not pay for it,” Kennedy said. “The U.S. taxpayer should not be paying to feed kids foods, the poorest kids in the country, that will give them diabetes.”
Rollins has echoed that position, saying, “One way … is disallowing taxpayer-funded benefits to purchase unhealthy items like soda, candy, and other junk food.”
Among states with already approved waivers, Arkansas, Utah, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, and Nebraska are set to restrict soda and candy starting in 2026. Additional approvals announced this year extend similar limits to Florida, Texas, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Colorado, though the specific foods affected vary by state.
Indiana plans to target soft drinks and candy, while Nebraska will prohibit soda and energy drinks. Utah and West Virginia will ban soda and soft drinks, and Iowa’s waiver is the most expansive, affecting taxable foods that include soda, candy, and some prepared items, according to state notices summarized by federal officials.
Five states, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, and West Virginia, are implementing the first round of waivers on January 1, affecting roughly 1.4 million SNAP recipients, federal officials said.
Rollins has framed the effort as both a fiscal and moral imperative, citing public health concerns. “Over 75% of American youth between the ages of 17 and 24 are ineligible for military service because of obesity, poor physical fitness, or mental health challenges,” she said.
Critics argue the restrictions single out SNAP recipients without addressing broader food access issues.
“The problem with soda consumption in the U.S. is not SNAP users,” Hilary Seligman, a public health researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, previously told The New York Times.. “If you try to solve this problem using SNAP as a lever … what we’re likely to do is just increase stigma for people who are trying to make ends meet.”
Former Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack raised similar concerns, asking what would prevent recipients from using their own money to buy restricted items and questioning whether the approach improves nutrition.
Retailers and grocers have also warned of logistical hurdles.
A report from the National Grocer Association estimates implementation costs could reach $1.6 billion initially, with hundreds of millions in annual expenses afterward, due to point-of-sale changes and item-by-item compliance.
Meanwhile, some food access advocates point to parallel SNAP changes that expand healthy options without bans.
In Texas, nonprofit executives say the expansion of online SNAP purchasing has reduced delivery costs and improved access to fresh food, particularly in underserved areas, even as the state prepares to restrict soda and candy purchases next year, DX reported.
Despite the criticism, Kennedy has insisted the effort is overdue. “For 20 years, Democrats and Republicans have been talking about this on Capitol Hill,” he said. “We have no problem with [soda consumption] … taxpayer dollars should not be funding these injuries to our children.”
