Trump Administration Sued as Plaintiffs Argue SNAP Restrictions Endanger Health, Make ‘Junk Food’ Life-Saving
A group of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) new restrictions on certain food and beverage purchases.
The plaintiffs argue that the Trump administration’s waivers, which prohibit buying items like soda, candy, energy drinks, and other non-nutritious products, exceed federal authority and create confusion for participants.
The suit, filed in Washington, D.C., represents recipients from Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
Legal representation is provided by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice and the private law firm Shinder Cantor Lerner.
Plaintiffs contend that the waivers complicate food access and fail to consider individual dietary or medical needs.
Amanda Johnson of Knoxville, Tennessee, explained the impact on her 19-year-old autistic daughter, who has avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID).
Under the new rules, her daughter could only consume three approved “safe” foods, including bottled water.
Johnson says the restrictions could lead to nutritional deterioration or require medical intervention if her daughter cannot eat foods such as M&M’s or fruit punch, according to The Blaze.
Marc Craig of Iowa described confusion at checkout: “I have to read every ingredient list to determine if SNAP will cover it, and still get turned away at the register.”
Other plaintiffs cited medical concerns.
Diabetic Nieves Aragon said sugary drinks can be lifesaving during emergencies. Some rely on energy drinks as a safe caffeine source without triggering allergies.
The lawsuit argues that forcing recipients to choose between restricted foods or essential household expenses such as rent and utilities creates undue hardship.
USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have endorsed the waivers under the “Make America Healthy Again” initiative, citing goals of promoting nutritious diets and reducing chronic disease.
Plaintiffs argue that the USDA exceeded its authority under the Food and Nutrition Act by allowing states to restrict what qualifies as “food” under SNAP.
In an interview with The New York Times, Katharine Deabler-Meadows, senior attorney at the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, said the waivers effectively let the administration insert its food policy preferences without proper public notice.
According to the lawsuit, this approach lets states narrow the definition of food without following legal procedures or consulting affected families and businesses, which plaintiffs say threatens consistent access to SNAP benefits.
The USDA declined to comment on pending litigation.
If successful, the lawsuit, according to Newsweek, could halt the restrictions in the 22 states with approved waivers, including Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Critics argue the waivers undermine SNAP’s purpose of providing low-income families access to food, disproportionately affecting those with dietary restrictions or medical needs.
Supporters, however, maintain that taxpayer dollars should encourage healthier choices.
The case highlights the ongoing debate over balancing public health policy with recipients’ rights to food access.
WATCH:
SNAP recipients sue USDA over food restrictions pic.twitter.com/pesQ4N4qqQ
— KTVE – KARD (@MyArkLaMiss) March 13, 2026
Continue Scrolling for the Comments
