- We The 66
- Posts
- 🌊 Inside the New War on Obesity
🌊 Inside the New War on Obesity
How the Trump Administration, led by RFK Jr., is trying to rewrite the rules of federal food aid
Did someone forward you this? Subscribe here free!
By Max Frost
In Nebraska this January, something unprecedented happened: The federal government approved a state plan to ban soda and energy drinks from being purchased with food stamps.
To the Trump Administration, it marked a turning point. To opponents, it was an attack on the poor. And to the food and beverage industry, it posed a multi-billion dollar threat.
At the center of it all is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or “Food Stamps”), America’s largest food aid initiative, serving roughly 42M people a year. Yet while many battles have been fought over whether SNAP should be cut or expanded, the new battle is over what people can buy with it.
President Trump and his Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have launched a campaign to stop “junk food” from being purchased with SNAP funds. They say it’s about public health and fiscal responsibility. Critics say it’s about paternalism and political optics. Either way, the shift marks one of the most ambitious reforms to the program in decades.
SNAP recipients are allowed to purchase nearly any grocery store food item, save for alcohol, tobacco, hot prepared meals, and non-food products. That includes soda, chips, candy, ice cream, and other ultra-processed products. For years, health advocates and lawmakers have pushed to change that, arguing that SNAP dollars should go only toward nutritious foods. Every attempt has failed.
Until now.
RFK Jr. and USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins have been citing rising obesity and diabetes rates as justification for overhauling federal nutrition programs. RFK Jr. has been especially blunt: “The one place that I would say that we need to really change policy is the SNAP program,” Kennedy said in February. “We shouldn’t be subsidizing people to eat poison.”
The administration’s argument is simple: The taxpayer money that funds SNAP shouldn’t be used to buy foods that contribute to disease. They’ve pointed to internal USDA data showing that the most purchased product by SNAP recipients is soda.
Per USDA Secretary Rollins, 70% of the USDA’s budget – and 2% of the federal budget – goes to SNAP. Of that, 10%, roughly $15B, goes toward sugary beverages.
And Big Food isn’t letting that number go down without a fight.
The rest of this report is for paid subscribers, who fund our journalism. If you start a two-week free trial today, you’ll be automatically entered to win a free year. Once you sign up, you can access all of our articles here!
Editor’s Note
We’re curious to hear what you all think: Should the federal government ban people from using SNAP funds to purchase ultra-processed foods? Will doing so improve health outcomes, or does it amount to persecution of the poor? Send in your responses here.
In case you missed them, find our most recent stories here:
We’re keeping it short today but wanted to feature one more reply from Shana who wrote in to Saturday’s email on Pride:
I know I’m late to this, but I work in marketing for a nationwide company and I’ve worked for both a small and large marketing agency in the past. Posting for Pride Month is 100% performative. Companies were essentially bullied into taking some sort of Pride stance to save face.
My company didn’t acknowledge Pride this year because it’s been a hallow message in year’s past. Just a blip on social media for PR’s sake.
In no way does not joining the Pride train mean a company is anti-LGBTQIA+, though. My current company has many gay employees- some in very high-ranking positions. All are well respected.
Thanks for reading, we’ll see you back here tomorrow.
–Max and Max