Texas Governor Greg Abbott has formally requested a waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that could significantly change what items are eligible under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps. The proposed waiver seeks to restrict SNAP users from purchasing sugary drinks, candy, chips, and other snacks classified as “junk food.”
The request, made in early May 2025, follows growing efforts within Texas to reshape food assistance in favor of more nutritious options. If approved, Texas would become the first state in the country to successfully ban junk food from SNAP purchases a move both praised and criticized by different groups.
The Push for Healthier SNAP Guidelines
Governor Abbott emphasized that the goal is not to reduce benefits but to make them more impactful. In his official letter to the USDA, he argued that SNAP was created to help low-income families afford nutritious food—not processed items with little to no health value.
The waiver request follows legislation under Senate Bill 379 (SB 379), introduced by Republican State Senator Mayes Middleton. The bill aims to codify restrictions on SNAP usage, specifically banning the purchase of:
- Sugar-sweetened beverages
- Candy
- Cookies
- Potato chips
- Energy drinks
SB 379 has passed the Texas Senate and is now awaiting consideration in the House of Representatives. If both the waiver and the bill are approved, Texas would implement the restrictions by the end of 2025.
Why Now?
Obesity and diet-related diseases continue to be major health concerns in the U.S., particularly among low-income populations. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 40% of U.S. adults are obese, with higher rates observed among those living below the poverty line.
Supporters of the Texas waiver argue that allowing SNAP dollars to be spent on junk food contributes to these health challenges.
Senator Middleton, who introduced SB 379, stated:
Growing Support Among Republican-Led States
Texas is not alone in this effort. Other Republican-led states including Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, and Idaho have either introduced or expressed interest in similar legislation. While none have succeeded in receiving USDA approval yet, Texas’s large population and high SNAP enrollment (approximately 3.4 million recipients) make this waiver request especially significant.
The USDA has historically rejected attempts to restrict SNAP-eligible food items, citing administrative challenges and the risk of stigmatizing low-income individuals. However, under the current federal administration, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins has signaled a willingness to review such proposals more openly.
Critics Voice Concerns
Not everyone supports the proposed changes. Anti-hunger advocates, public health experts, and some lawmakers argue that the move could make life more difficult for SNAP recipients. Critics claim the bill:
- Limits personal choice
- Adds complexity at checkout
- Ignores the lack of access to fresh foods in food deserts
Rachel Cooper, a senior policy analyst at Every Texan, stated:
Others are concerned about enforcement. Grocery stores and retailers already face challenges verifying SNAP eligibility rules. Adding more item-specific restrictions may cause confusion and increase the burden on small store owners.
What Happens Next?
The USDA will now review Governor Abbott’s waiver request. If approved, Texas will begin preparing for implementation, possibly using SB 379 as the legal framework.
Should the USDA deny the waiver, the Texas Legislature may still pass SB 379 in hopes of gaining approval under different terms or in a future administration.
Regardless of the outcome, Texas’s move has reignited a national conversation about nutrition, food access, and the purpose of food assistance programs.
Conclusion
Texas is attempting a bold shift in how public food assistance is administered. By asking the USDA to approve a ban on junk food purchases through SNAP, the state is pushing for policy reform aimed at improving health outcomes. While the initiative has sparked both support and opposition, it could mark a turning point in the way America views and manages its largest food assistance program.
