The Make America Healthy Again agenda just found its first serious legal challenger. This week, five food stamp recipients filed suit in Washington, D.C., federal court demanding the right to spend taxpayer-funded SNAP benefits on candy, soda, and energy drinks.
The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) over its growing list of "food restriction" waivers, which Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins began approving back in May 2025. Since then, 22 states have signed on, each with their own specific list of banned items — generally soda, energy drinks, candy, and pre-packaged desserts.
Both Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have championed the waivers as a concrete step toward addressing chronic disease and redirecting taxpayer money toward genuinely nutritious food.
“The Trump Administration is unified in improving the health of our nation. America’s governors have proudly answered the call to innovate by improving nutrition programs, ensuring better choices while respecting the generosity of the American taxpayer,” Rollins said last year.
“Each waiver submitted by the states and signed is yet another step closer to fulfilling President Trump’s promise to Make America Healthy Again.”
The lawsuit claims they had no right to do this.
The five plaintiffs. residents of Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia, and represented by the law firm Shinder Cantor Lerner, argue in their complaint that the restrictions "destabilize food access" for SNAP participants in the 22 affected states.
They claim the USDA exceeded its legal authority by approving the waivers without soliciting public input, establishing proper evaluation metrics, or engaging those directly impacted by the waivers first, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
The lawsuit further contends that the relevant section of the Food and Nutrition Act only authorizes pilot projects designed to "enhance the efficiency" or improve the delivery of benefits — and that banning specific food items accomplishes neither.
“SNAP is a critical lifeline for millions of families and households, and Congress has established clear guardrails for how the program must operate across the country,” Jeffrey Shinder, founding partner at Shinder Cantor Lerner, claimed in a statement to Newsweek.
“The USDA is attempting to bypass those strict guardrails by empowering states to curtail access to SNAP in ways that will create significant hardship on recipients and retailers. We urge the Court to halt this attack on SNAP, which threatens millions of individuals’ access to essential food assistance nationwide.”
The plaintiffs claim they or their family members rely on the restricted foods to manage health conditions such as diabetes and allergies, or to obtain energy boosts for daily life.
The claim that sugary drinks and candy are medically necessary for diabetics runs directly counter to established dietary guidance. One plaintiff argues that her state's waiver would restrict her daughter to only three "safe" foods and beverages — one of which is bottled water.
The plaintiffs also argue that confusion is another problem impacting SNAP recipients.
"We are focused on litigating the case we filed yesterday and securing relief for the plaintiffs already before the Court. At the same time, we remain open to expanding the case to challenge similar waivers in additional states. SNAP serves as an essential support system for millions of families,” added Meegan Hollywood, a partner at the firm.
“The waivers create confusion at checkout and force retailers to apply standards that are vague and unworkable. A program that millions of families rely on cannot operate amid confusion and uncertainty. Our complaint details how these policies are already harming recipients in multiple states and undermining the very families SNAP is meant to support."
That framing assumes junk food is a non-negotiable line item. Recipients who want soda and candy remain free to purchase them — with their own money.