Under the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again initiative, restricting the use of food assistance benefits for sugary drinks has gained momentum across several states.
To date, 23 states have received approval from the Department of Agriculture to prohibit the use of food stamps for soda or other sugary beverages. Currently, eight states have implemented such restrictions, while five have encountered legal challenges that have temporarily halted their policies, and ten others are in varying stages of rollout.
Initial data suggests that once these restrictions are in place, they lead to a modest decrease in soda purchases among beneficiaries of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). A recent National Bureau of Economic Research working paper analyzed the shopping behavior of 6,000 SNAP recipients using Nielsen consumer panel data. States with soda restrictions experienced approximately a 13% reduction in soda purchases among SNAP users compared to states without such policies during the initial implementation phase. Meanwhile, water purchases remained consistent.
On a per-household basis, this translated to roughly 24 fewer ounces of soda purchased each month—equivalent to about two standard soda cans.
Despite the intuitive expectation that limiting SNAP purchases would reduce soda consumption, many policy analysts were skeptical. Given that SNAP typically covers around 70% of a household’s food budget, most recipients already supplement their grocery expenses with personal funds. Consequently, in states where soda is restricted under SNAP, individuals might simply redirect their own money toward purchasing these beverages.
Those most financially dependent on SNAP—specifically the top 25% of recipients by reliance—reduced their total monthly soda purchases by an estimated 40 ounces. In contrast, those least reliant on SNAP, who are more accustomed to contributing a larger share of their grocery costs personally, decreased their soda purchases by 13 ounces.
David Frisvold, an economist at the University of Iowa and co-author of the study, cautioned against drawing long-term conclusions. “One key question is whether these trends will persist over a year or two,” he noted. “Alternatively, classic economic principles might prevail—people will find ways to reallocate their resources so they can still afford what they want.”
Additional evidence supporting these findings comes from Fetch, a rewards application that allows users to upload receipts for discounts and tracks various payment methods, including SNAP. Among its users, SNAP households spent roughly 12% less on soda during the first quarter of 2026 compared to the same timeframe the previous year. Notably, purchases of water, coffee, and juice showed no significant changes.
Updated
Support for limiting SNAP use for soda has historically crossed party lines. During the Obama administration, Jerold Mande, then a USDA official, attempted multiple times—unsuccessfully—to launch a pilot program evaluating the impact of such restrictions.
“When aiming to enhance dietary quality nationwide—not solely among SNAP recipients but across all Americans—the federal government wields its greatest influence through SNAP,” Mande stated.
Most of the 23 states receiving authorization for soda restrictions from the current administration lean Republican, though not exclusively.
In June, a federal judge invalidated restrictions in five states, ruling that the Department of Agriculture had overstepped congressional definitions of “food.” However, Secretary Brooke Rollins indicated the department intends to pursue reinstating the policy. The agency did not respond to requests for comment this week.
The longevity of these state-level pilot programs remains uncertain, as they all carry expiration dates and require renewal by whichever party controls the department at the time.
Lisa Harnack, a public health professor at the University of Minnesota, emphasized the need for further research before drawing definitive conclusions. She highlighted concerns about what alternative foods or drinks are replacing soda in consumers’ diets and noted gaps in the data, particularly regarding purchases made outside of grocery stores, such as restaurant beverages.
“This would have been better executed in fewer states with a stronger evaluation framework,” Professor Harnack said. “It’s unclear how rigorous the state-level assessments truly are.”
Hilary Seligman, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, wasn’t surprised by the study’s findings but expressed reservations about broader changes to SNAP eligibility under the Biden administration.
“On its own, this restriction would be very encouraging from a public health standpoint,” Seligman said. “However, it’s part of a larger set of reforms that may increase stigma and disenrollment from the program.”
Tightening eligibility requirements for SNAP have led to a decline in enrollment, with numbers dropping to 36.6 million in May 2026, representing 5.6 million fewer participants compared to the prior year.
For families like Karylle Silva’s in Lake Charles, Louisiana—where restrictions extend beyond soda to include candy—the changes in policy have created confusion and inconvenience during shopping trips. Items like Joyba Bubble Tea, her daughter’s favorite snack, are eligible for SNAP at Target but not at Walmart unless purchased through the retailer’s mobile app. Similarly, Hostess cupcakes remain unrestricted while bakery items from certain stores do not qualify.
“There have been instances where I had to abandon items in my cart after checkout because I suddenly owed money for something that previously didn’t cost extra,” Silva explained.