Article Summary
• The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has approved waivers in 18 states, allowing for the first ever restrictions on food purchases through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
• Those on the ground in states that have already implemented these restrictions report confusion over what items are now prohibited.
• Retailers want more clarity on how these restrictions will be enforced, while warning that the cost of compliance could increase food prices for all consumers.
• Given additional policy changes and increased scrutiny of the program, retailers, food policy experts, and SNAP households are concerned about the longterm impacts.
Adam and Beth Bedway own and run a small ceramics studio in Wheeling, West Virginia. They see their business as a way to bring entertainment, culture, and business to an otherwise quiet town, off the Ohio River, nestled on the border between Ohio and West Virginia. The couple describes the studio as a community space that aims to be a place for entertainment and education.
Since 2018, the entrepreneurial couple has benefited from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which they’ve used to support themselves and their children, and to keep the business running.
As small business owners who strive to offer good-paying jobs to their employees and give back to the community as much as possible, they don’t have much excess revenue to support themselves.
With the help of SNAP, though, they’ve been able to devote finances to the business without worrying about putting food on the table. Lately, they’ve been feeling less confident this help is secure.
“We try so hard to bring arts and culture and experiences to our area, but without that security, what happens then?” Beth said. “The only reason that we’ve been able to grow the way we have and have all the offerings that we have with our business is because we had that little bit of security.”
The types of foods that are now restricted vary widely state by state, as are the ways some of those foods are defined.
Starting Jan. 1, new federal SNAP restrictions went into effect across several states. West Virginia was one of five states that implemented SNAP food restrictions approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Throughout 2026, at least 13 more states are on track to start similar restrictions. The restrictions are the result of policies promoted by the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, which has found increased support in both federal and state governments.
The types of foods that are now restricted vary widely state by state, as are the ways some of those foods are defined. In West Virginia, for example, SNAP participants can no longer use benefits on soda, but there’s still confusion among shoppers about what the term “soda” includes.
Adam said he prefers to manage his ADHD with the help of the caffeine in sodas.
“So many people are going to argue, ‘Oh it’s so silly, it’s just soda,’” Beth Bedway said. “But it’s just this for now.”
With other recent federal changes to SNAP and her governor’s backing of the MAHA movement, she’s worried more restrictions or shifts to the program could follow.
More than a month into several of these waivers, the people who watch the issue closely—anti-hunger advocates, individuals who rely on SNAP, and the stores that oversee these transactions—are reporting confusion and complications. There’s also concern about how these could erode participation in assistance programs.
Eighteen states have been given waivers to restrict federal food benefits, but those restrictions vary from state to state. (Photo credit: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
SNAP Waiver ‘Chaos’
In 2025, the USDA approved 18 waivers letting states restrict certain foods from SNAP purchasing that have historically been allowed. The Trump administration and other proponents of the waivers argue that taxpayer dollars should not be going to sodas, candy, and unhealthy foods. SNAP households should prioritize healthy, fresh foods. Now that several waivers are in effect, though, anti-hunger groups point out that even some foods considered healthy, like granola bars, are prohibited in some states, while foods like ice cream remain available.
There have been previous attempts to enact such waivers, but the USDA has denied them: In 2007, the agency determined that SNAP restrictions could increase the program’s complexity and costs and would not necessarily be effective in changing purchasing trends. Now, the agency has reversed course.
With the rise of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s MAHA movement, these waivers have found more support within the administration.
Policy experts and SNAP recipients in Indiana, West Virginia, Nebraska, and Iowa reported challenges with the implementation of restrictions just a month into the policies.
Speaking to reporters recently after an event celebrating other MAHA initiatives, Calley Means, a senior advisor at the Department of Health and Human Services, said he’s heard “nothing but positive feedback” about the waivers. He said implementing these waivers is “very easy” and has been seamless so far. More waivers are likely to get approved in the future, he added.
But Civil Eats spoke to policy experts and SNAP recipients in Indiana, West Virginia, Nebraska, and Iowa, who reported challenges with the implementation of restrictions just a month into the policies.
Overall, outreach about the restrictions has been limited, said Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP director at the Food Research and Action Center. States sent out a letter to SNAP households and updated websites with information about what now can and cannot be purchased. But there’s still a lot of confusion, which is falling on retailers to handle.
“It’s creating more chaos,” Plata-Nino said.
(Graphic credit: Rebekah Alvey)
Confusion and Frustration for Consumers
“It’s being branded as a healthy foods waiver, or a soda and candy ban,” Luke Elzinga, policy and advocacy manager at anti-hunger group Des Moines Area Religious Council, said. “But it’s a lot more complicated than that.”
Iowa’s waiver is the most restrictive, Elzinga said, and also the most confusing. That’s because it is tied to the state’s sales tax on food and beverages. Under Iowa’s new policy, any taxable food or beverages are also ineligible for SNAP purchases.
On top of banning soda purchases, that means SNAP households aren’t able to use benefits on zero-sugar sodas, lemonade, Capri Sun, sweet tea, and many other beverages. The definition of candy is also complex because of the state tax code. Under the waiver’s definition, a granola bar or a fruit bar can be considered candy unless it contains flour. But a Twix bar, because it contains flour, is acceptable.
When SNAP participants want to use their benefits on prepared foods, the caveats are even more confusing. Does the retailer have a microwave available? Does the prepared salad come with dressing? Was a slice of cake made in the store? Is the cup of fruit served with or without a spoon?
For guidance related to what is now restricted under the waiver, the Iowa state Health and Human Services website directs visitors to the state Department of Revenue page on the sales tax.
“There’s just confusion too about what qualifies.”
Shortly after West Virginia’s waiver took effect, Hunter Starks attempted to buy flavored water with their EBT card at a gas station. It wasn’t accepted. A week later, they were able to buy the same product at the same station.
“There’s just confusion too about what qualifies,” said Starks, who recently went back on the program as they attend graduate school. They have intermittently received SNAP benefits since their 9-year-old daughter was born, and often rely on the program to balance the budget.
Starks said there’s also not a lot of guidance coming from the state on what is included in the restriction. Instead, they get most of their information from a Facebook group of other SNAP recipients.
West Virginia’s Governor Patrick Morrisey, a Republican, was one of the first state leaders to back the Make America Healthy Again movement. During an event with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Morrisey signed the state’s ban on certain artificial dyes in school meals. This is also where Kennedy urged states to submit waivers on the SNAP food restrictions.
Given the governor’s backing of MAHA, Starks said they are worried the SNAP restriction will go further.
“Our governor’s at least made an appearance to want to jump on board a lot with [MAHA],” Starks said. “I think these changes are him trying to do that, when in reality all it does is restrict people’s ability to make their own choices.”
Food policy experts echo concerns about how these waivers single out SNAP recipients and limit their choices at the grocery store. Eric Savaiano, food and nutrition access program manager at Nebraska Appleseed, said the restrictions on SNAP purchases are a “slippery slope” to taking away people’s dignity and choice.
Savaiano also shared instances where SNAP recipients can no longer purchase beverages they’ve used for medical conditions. One individual has issues staying awake and uses caffeine through energy drinks or soda to maintain their work. Another individual has grown accustomed to drinking Olipops for its probiotics.
Under Nebraska’s new waiver, these beverages are not permissible as SNAP purchases.
“We have seen that overall, there have been some challenges with implementation,” Savaiano said. “People not knowing what to expect when they get to the grocery store and being surprised when they get to check out, and then frustration when they can’t get what they’re used to getting.”
Added Costs for Retailers
Retailers in waiver states also report confusion about what foods qualify under the restrictions, along with the potential for added costs. This raises concern about the enforcement side of these new policies, said Margaret Hardin Mannion, director of government relations at the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS).
At the very end of 2025, the USDA issued additional guidance detailing penalties related to the restrictions. The agency set a 90-day grace period after the state implementation date before enforcement begins. For the first states that implemented the waivers on Jan. 1, that means enforcement will start on April 1.
“I think there’s some real concern that it’s going to lead to many, many retailers being pushed out of the program.”
After that, retailers will get one warning if they are caught incorrectly applying the restrictions. Upon the second error, the retailer could be involuntarily removed from the SNAP program, no longer able to offer the benefit to its customers.
“I think there’s some real concern that it’s going to lead to many, many retailers being pushed out of the program, even if they are trying their best to comply with the new requirements,” Mannion said.
Retailers small and large have urged the USDA and state agencies to improve communications to SNAP households. But they have not seen a hoped-for “robust education campaign,” Mannion said. Some states are providing signs to retailers that explain the changes, but retail organizations are also creating their own.
“The message we want to get across is that this is not a retailer decision,” Mannion said. “This is government driven.”
Given the differences in how states define sugary beverages or candy, and the various exemptions for juice or dairy, retailers must now go through items individually to determine whether they fall under the restrictions. This process is time consuming and requires a lot of personnel, Mannion said. If an item does fall under the restriction, the store is also responsible for changing it in their system and updating shelf signage.
That all adds a cost, Mannion said, and it comes as retailers and the entire SNAP system are bracing for more policy changes, like proposed changes to SNAP retailer stocking requirements. In September, the USDA proposed a rule that would require SNAP retailers to increase the variety of foods from three to seven in each of the four staple food categories: animal protein, dairy, grains, fruits and vegetables.
Rollins recently suggested at an event celebrating the Dietary Guidelines that the final version of the rule could come in a matter of weeks.
“I think we’re concerned that this is just the tip of the iceberg,” Mannion said.
Potential Costs for All Consumers
The total up-front cost of the SNAP restrictions is projected to be $1 billion for convenience stores, $11.8 million for small-format stores and $215.5 million for supercenters, according to an analysis released by NACS, the National Grocers Association, and the Food Industry Association (FMI).
Some of these costs could be passed to consumers, the analysis says, which means the impact of these restrictions could reach beyond SNAP households.
“These SNAP restrictions are increasing food prices for everyone, and the high cost of healthy food is the No. 1 reason people on SNAP can’t eat healthier,” said Elzinga of the Des Moines Area Religious Council. “Banning items does not make healthy food more affordable.”
One of the “greatest fears,” Elzinga said, is that SNAP retailers will drop out of the program and stop accepting EBT. This could be because the costs of compliance are too high or because they get a second strike and are removed from the program.
In Iowa, one in three SNAP participants, more than 800,000 people, live in a border county. These shoppers could simply take their business to neighboring states that do not have SNAP restrictions. If all of those participants travelled out of state for their shopping, Iowa would lose about $23 million per month in economic activity, Elzinga said.
This is one issue states will be required to monitor and report on when evaluating the waivers.
Given their proximity to the West Virginia border, Adam and Beth Bedway can travel to Ohio or Pennsylvania to do their SNAP shopping, without restrictions.
“But there are lots of very poor places in this state that are right dead center in the middle of the state, where you’re four hours from the border,” Adam Bedway said. “We’re just very fortunate to have those options.”
Beth also pointed out that much of the state already struggles with access to clean water and fresh fruits and vegetables. In some parts of the state, the closest store for miles could be a Dollar General or a convenience store, which may not stock fresh options or could price them higher.
A Wave of Changes to SNAP
SNAP restrictions are taking effect alongside other major shifts in the food program. Last year, Republicans passed their One Big, Beautiful Bill (OBBB), which cut federal spending for SNAP by almost $187 billion through 2034.
Some of the policy changes included in the bill have already taken effect, like expanded work requirements. Other parts of the bill shift more costs of the program to the states, and those provisions are set to kick in next year.
In addition, Republicans in Congress have fixated on alleged fraud in the program, threatening to require that states recertify SNAP households and release more data on participants. Under the Trump administration, the USDA has focused on this, as well.
The changes in SNAP eligibility add to the workload of already overburdened SNAP case workers. And the impending cost-shifts to the states already have states considering how to absorb these in their budgets.
On top of this, it’s also not clear how states will fund implementation of the SNAP restrictions, Plata-Nino said.
Nebraska, for example, has estimated the state will spend $2 million on implementing the restrictions, Plata-Nino said, all while the state is facing a $471 million budget shortfall.
The USDA has historically been responsible for monitoring SNAP retailers. Typically, the only program where state agencies and SNAP retailers have a connection is through the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
But these are very different programs, and have separate funding mechanisms to support state’s work and monitoring for WIC.
Nebraska has said it would use leftover funding through another program, SNAP-Ed, to cover the administration of its restriction after the federal SNAP-Ed program was cut in the OBBB. Plata-Nino said the waiver implementation funds won’t go toward outreach or explaining the new restrictions to SNAP households.
Experts worry that fraud allegations by federal officials could increase stigma around food aid and decrease participation. (Credit: USDA)
Higher Uncertainty, Lower Participation
In the midst of the USDA’s heightened focus on fraud, the agency took to social media to mobilize shoppers to help the agency “fight fraud.” “If you suspect someone is abusing federal nutrition programs, REPORT FRAUD NOW,” the post reads, paired with a photo of a full grocery cart. This rhetoric raises another concern with the overall changes to SNAP policy, which is the potential increased stigma around the program.
“When program stigma is higher, it has a dampening effect on participation,” Elzinga said.
Elzinga believes growing stigma around SNAP is already having an impact in Iowa. Food banks and pantries are continuously breaking records in terms of visits, he said, but SNAP enrollment is nearing an 18-year low. He worries the new restrictions will lead to fewer people participating in SNAP and more people turning to food pantries to feed their families.
“When program stigma is higher, it has a dampening effect on participation.”
The drop in enrollment could also be tied to federal and state policy shifts, like previous changes to work requirements. But Elzinga said negative narratives around the program likely have an effect.
Despite the concerns from retailers, SNAP recipients, and anti-hunger groups, during a speech on Jan. 13, less than two weeks after the restrictions kicked in, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds, a Republican, called on the state legislature to keep the federal waiver “moving forward.”
Three more states, Kansas, Mississippi, and Ohio, have also submitted waivers for USDA approval. Some of the states that have already approved waivers are also talking about expanding the list of restricted foods, Plata-Nino said.
As states legislatures return to session, several will consider legislation to request their own SNAP food restriction waiver.
In West Virginia, facing all the changes to the program her family has relied on for nearly a decade, Beth said she’s “waiting for the other shoe to drop.”
“It’s unsettling,” she said. “It makes me question what is the future for us in this state, what is the future for the SNAP program? At what point are we just going to be kicked off of any assistance without warning?”
The post Confusion and ‘More Chaos’ as States Implement SNAP Food Restrictions appeared first on Civil Eats.
From Civil Eats via This RSS Feed.