Search results for: snap waiver

  • U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins is continuing to approve waivers that allow states to prohibit certain food items from qualifying under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). In May 2025, we reported that Nebraska received the first-ever waiver that allows the state to restrict the purchase of certain “junk” foods and beverages, such as candy and soda. Five additional states have now received SNAP waiver approvals, including Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, and Utah.
  • Idaho and Indiana restrict the purchase of both soft drinks and candy, while Utah only restricts the purchase of soft drinks. Arkansas—in addition to restricting soft drinks and candy—also restricts the purchase of fruit and vegetable drinks with less than 50% natural juice and “unhealthy drinks.” With the exception of Arkansas whose implementation date is July 1, 2026, SNAP restrictions in other states begin on January 1, 2026.
  • The language of Iowa’s SNAP waiver is unique in that it “restricts all taxable food items as defined by the Iowa Department of Revenue except food producing plants and seeds for food producing plants.” Some of the taxable food items that will face restrictions include candy, chewing gum, carbonated and non-carbonated soft drinks, sweetened naturally or artificially sweetened water, and dried fruit leathers.
  • Several other states, including Colorado, Louisiana, Montana, Texas, and West Virginia, have submitted SNAP waivers to prohibit the purchase of certain food and beverage items and are pending approval. Arizona and Kansas had also introduced legislation to restrict SNAP funding for certain products, but both bills have been vetoed.
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor developments related to SNAP.
  • On May 19, 2025, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins signed the first-ever waiver allowing Nebraska to restrict the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funds to purchase certain “junk” foods and beverages, such as candy and soda. Beginning in January 2026, SNAP participants in Nebraska will not be able to use the benefits to purchase soda and energy drinks.
  • Previously, SNAP recipients could purchase any groceries except for alcohol, tobacco, hot foods, and personal care products. The waiver is part of the Make America Healthy Again agenda and “seeks to reverse alarming disease trends across the country.”
  • In April, Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen submitted a letter to Secretary Rollins notifying her of the state’s intent to pursue a SNAP waiver. According to Pillen, “[t]here’s absolutely zero reason for taxpayers to be subsidizing purchases of soda and energy drinks. SNAP is about helping families in need get healthy food into their diets, but there is nothing nutritious about the junk we are removing with today’s waiver.”
  • Several other states, including Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Indiana, Iowa, and West Virginia, have submitted requests to prohibit SNAP funds from covering certain foods or to allow the use of funds to purchase certain hot foods, such as rotisserie chicken. Many other states have active legislation seeking to restrict SNAP funding for certain products. While USDA has historically rejected waivers to restrict SNAP spending, Rollins supports “tak[ing] junk out of SNAP.”
  • Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor developments related to SNAP.
  • In the last two years, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP; colloquially known as the “Food Stamps” Program) has been a major point of contention within political circles.  For example, the additional SNAP requirements proposed in the 2018 Farm Bill threatened to derail its passage and the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) proposal to close a “loophole” that permitted states to rely on eligibility for other programs drew the ire of 70 U.S. mayors.
  • There have been ongoing discussions of revisions to the SNAP requirements for the Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWD) program.  This program limits ABAWDs to receiving SNAP benefits for no more than three months within a 36-month period unless the individual (1) meets certain work requirements, (2) lives in an area with unemployment over 10 percent or (3) lives in an area that lacks sufficient available jobs.  States also have some ability to apply discretionary exemptions and to carry over unused exemptions from prior years.
  • On December 5 USDA published a final rule that will limit the definition of “area” to a labor market area (LMA), an intrastate part of a multi-state LMA, or a reservation area or a U.S. Territory.  It also defines an area as lacking sufficient jobs when a 24-month average unemployment rate is over six percent and at least 20 percent above the national rate during the same time period.  Ability to apply and carry over waivers has also been limited.  More on the new rule can be found in the USDA press release, fact sheet, and Question and Answer documents.
  • USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) administers the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also colloquially known as the “Food Stamps” Program.  SNAP, through State Agency partners, offers nutrition assistance to more than 47 million eligible, low-income individuals and families. Under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) and corresponding SNAP regulations, states have little room to modify eligibility standards or otherwise dictate what foods may be purchased with SNAP benefits.
  • The State of Maine is requesting a waiver from the USDA that would allow the state to ban its SNAP recipients from purchasing candy and soda using the federal benefits.  Under the previous administration, the USDA denied a similar waiver from Maine last year.  USDA is currently considering the state’s new request.
  • With a new administration at the helm, changes to SNAP could be forthcoming, including perhaps endowing states with more freedom to modify the rules of the program as they see fit.  The food industry, of course, has a vested interest in how this all transpires and would likely coalesce to oppose any legislative or policy initiatives – at the federal, state or local level – that would have the effect of curtailing eligible products and hence restricting consumer choice.