Some officials from the Trump administration are considering changes to the federal food assistance program, citing concerns over public health. The idea being discussed is to remove “junk food” from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which currently serves over 41 million Americans.
For people living in areas known as food deserts—where fresh and healthy food is difficult to find—this proposal could have significant effects. Many rely on SNAP to purchase the only available options, which are often processed or packaged foods with a longer shelf life. Any change to what foods are allowed under SNAP would require action from Congress.
Recently, House Republicans supported a budget resolution that could lead to over $230 billion in cuts to agricultural programs, with a significant portion coming from SNAP. The current law, known as the Food and Nutrition Act, broadly defines eligible foods as any product intended for home consumption, with a few exceptions like alcoholic beverages and hot foods meant to be eaten immediately. Changing this definition would require either a revision of the law by Congress or approval of a state-led pilot program to test restrictions.
While some states have previously requested permission to limit SNAP purchases, no administration—Republican or Democratic—has approved such a request, including during Trump’s first term. However, newly confirmed Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins have expressed support for restricting sugary drinks and highly processed foods from SNAP. Kennedy has argued that taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund unhealthy food choices, and Rollins echoed concerns about using federal money to provide poor-quality food to children who need better nutrition.
Currently, the average SNAP benefit per person in 2025 is estimated at $6.16 per day. The proposed changes raise concerns about costs, access to food, and unintended consequences, particularly for those in food deserts. If healthier options are not available nearby, restricting SNAP purchases could leave recipients with even fewer choices.
There are also concerns about how to define junk food. Foods like orange juice, which is high in sugar but essential for some people with medical conditions, could be restricted. Similarly, cheese contains more sodium than some snack foods, and milk has more fat than certain drinks. Deciding which foods should be cut could lead to confusion and challenges for both consumers and retailers.
If new restrictions are put in place, small stores might struggle to comply, possibly leading some to stop accepting SNAP altogether. This would further limit access to food for those who rely on the program. Additionally, research suggests that SNAP participation is linked to better health outcomes and lower medical costs, contradicting claims that the program promotes unhealthy eating.
Experts argue that Americans across all income levels struggle with maintaining a healthy diet, not just SNAP participants. Current data suggests that people using SNAP buy similar foods to those paying with other methods. Critics of the proposed restrictions believe that targeting low-income Americans in this way is unfair and could make it even harder for them to access the nutrition they need.
Ultimately, the debate comes down to balancing public health concerns with the realities of food access and personal choice. Everyone deserves the ability to choose the foods that best fit their needs, regardless of how they pay for their groceries.