Published May 23, 2025

This week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced the unprecedented approval of waivers allowing Nebraska, Iowa, and Indiana to restrict Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) purchases. While details for Iowa and Indiana remain pending, Nebraska’s waiver bans soda and energy drinks starting January 1, 2026. Touted by supporters as a historic health measure under the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) agenda, the policy is anything but. In truth, MAHA might more accurately stand for “Make America Hungrier Again.”  These waivers mark a dangerous step toward dismantling SNAP. 

The Trump administration has become the “food police” targeting individuals with low wages, and weaponizing nutrition policy to shrink assistance under the guise of health reform. Governors are being pressured to prove loyalty by joining this crackdown. If this were truly about health or hunger, the Trump administration would not have cut millions of dollars from farm-to-school programs and proposed to eliminate the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), and would not be pushing its “big beautiful bill” to cut as much as $880 billion from Medicaid and $300 billion from SNAP, or to eliminate SNAP-Ed — the very program Nebraska claims will be part of the evaluation of this new restriction. 

The Real Agenda 

This policy is not rooted in science or compassion. It is part of a broader effort to shrink resources for working families and blame low-wage workers for systemic challenges. It is an attack on the dignity of working families, a distraction from real health policy, and a dangerous precedent. 

SNAP works. It improves child health, reduces poverty, and strengthens communities. We should be expanding benefits, not narrowing them. We should fight hunger, not families. 

Let’s stop pretending this is about soda. It is about control, stigma, and cutting assistance where it is needed most. If the Trump administration truly cares about health, it should start by making sure no one goes hungry. For example, it can:  

  • Increase SNAP benefit adequacy to match the real cost of nutritious foods. 
  • Expand produce incentive programs, like HIP (Healthy Incentives Pilot). 
  • Invest in nutrition education and equitable food access. 

SNAP is a lifeline for millions. As the nation tackles high rates of food insecurity and increasing food prices, the solution is not to scapegoat SNAP recipients but to address the root causes of poor health — such as poverty, underemployment, housing instability, and lack of access to grocery stores Let’s build policies that support health and dignity — not ones that punish poverty. 

The Worst Health Outcome Is Hunger 

Nutrition science is clear: Hunger is a more urgent and harmful health threat than any single food item. Food insecurity increases the risk of chronic disease, developmental delays in children, and poor outcomes during pregnancy. SNAP supports individuals across all developmental and life phases, positively impacting children, adults, and caregivers alike. For families with young children, SNAP increases the likelihood of affording enough food by 22 percent and reduces the chances of cutting children’s meal sizes by 33 percent, compared to income-eligible non-participating families.  

Children in SNAP households exhibit better health, growth, and emotional and academic outcomes compared to their peers in non-participating income-eligible families. For adults, SNAP participation is associated with improved mental health and a reduced risk of obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, particularly for those who participated during early childhood. Additionally, mothers who participate in SNAP during pregnancy are less likely to have low-birth-weight babies, thereby avoiding various adverse health outcomes. When SNAP benefits are reduced or terminated, families face significantly heightened risks of food insecurity. 

Nebraska’s food insecurity rate has climbed to 13 percent. This rise is not accidental — it’s the result of harmful state policies. In 2021, Nebraska rejected pandemic-era supplemental SNAP benefits, cutting them 19 months early and forfeiting over $214 million in food assistance. That decision cost Nebraska households $11.3 million each month, stripping critical support from families during a time of heightened need. Now, with grocery store closures, high transportation costs, and widespread food deserts in 66 of 93 counties, the new SNAP waiver will only deepen the crisis in Nebraska by further limiting food access and choice. 

Flawed Policy, Faulty Science 

The waiver’s legal foundation is shaky. Federal law requires pilot projects to improve SNAP efficiency and nutrition outcomes — but Nebraska’s plan fails on both counts. It introduces administrative chaos, offers no viable evaluation framework, and reduces choice without meaningful evidence that it will improve health. 

Studies cited to justify restrictions suffer from serious limitations: selection bias, inaccurate self-reporting, and confounding factors like poverty and access. Ethical constraints make it impossible to run randomized trials on SNAP, meaning conclusions often rest on correlation — not causation. 

Even so, available research does not support the narrative that SNAP participants buy more junk food than others. They buy fruits, vegetables, grains, and protein. What they lack is money, not knowledge about nutrition. Sixty-one percent say cost is the biggest barrier to healthier eating. Let’s be clear: This is not about soda. This is about restricting the purchasing power of families with low incomes and stigmatizing those who temporarily utilize SNAP.  

Restrictions Do Not Work — Incentives Do 

The USDA’s own research shows what works: incentives. The Healthy Incentives Pilot showed that giving a 30 percent discount on produce led to a 20 percent increase in fruit and vegetable consumption. That’s the kind of evidence-based solution we should invest in — not politically driven bans. Additionally, bipartisan USDA leadership has favored educational and incentive-based strategies for decades. 

Adding item-level restrictions to SNAP would drastically increase complexity for retailers. Unlike SNAP, which is accepted at over 261,000 locations-nationwide, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), is accepted at only about 46,000 vendors. These stricter requirements may work well for WIC’s targeted population and structure, but applying complexity to SNAP would overwhelm small grocers, especially in rural areas, who lack the resources for new software, staff training, and compliance systems. Many may drop out entirely, leaving families with nowhere to shop. 

Dignity, Not Stigma 

This policy risks turning checkout lanes into battlegrounds, forcing grocery clerks to enforce confusing rules. The result? Conflict, shame, and public humiliation for families trying to feed their children. Dignity should not be a luxury. 

SNAP’s greatest strength is its flexibility. In times of disaster, disruption, or crisis, that flexibility allows families to adapt. Restrictions weaken the program’s ability to respond when people need it most. 

Economic Fallout 

SNAP does not only prevent hunger — it is an economic engine. In Nebraska, small retailers redeemed over $366 million in SNAP benefits in 2024. These dollars support grocery stores, farmers’ markets, and local economies. Shrinking the customer base hurts small businesses and reduces tax revenue for schools, health care, and infrastructure. 

Rural and low-income communities will pay the highest price. When stores drop out of SNAP, entire areas lose access to food. The ripple effects — more hunger, fewer jobs, weaker communities — are real. 

The approval of these SNAP waivers sets a dangerous precedent rooted in politics, not public health. They fail to address the structural issues driving food insecurity and instead impose barriers that harm families and small businesses alike. As food prices rise and access shrinks, we need bold, evidence-based investments that expand, not restrict, nutrition support. The path to a healthier nation begins with ensuring everyone has enough to eat.  Policymakers should build policy that reflects that simple truth.