admin
President Trump’s team has moved to tighten what taxpayers will be forced to pay for under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and the internet predictably erupted. The USDA under Secretary Brooke Rollins has signed a series of “food choice” waivers that let states block purchases of sugary drinks, candy and other ultra-processed junk with EBT cards, a reality that sent left-wing activists into instant outrage.
The waivers approved this spring and summer cover states including Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and later Arkansas, Idaho and Utah, with many of the new rules slated to begin in 2026. Secretary Rollins signed the initial approvals in June and repeatedly emphasized that states should have the flexibility to keep taxpayer dollars directed toward nutritious groceries rather than soda and candy.
This initiative is wrapped in the administration’s Make America Healthy Again agenda, backed publicly by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has pushed to curb ultra-processed foods fueling chronic disease. That framing is a welcome break from the old welfare orthodoxy that treated government checks as a carte blanche to subsidize unhealthy choices that later cost taxpayers far more in medical bills.
Conservatives should cheer a policy that defends the hardworking taxpayer and restores common-sense limits to welfare programs. When government assistance is targeted to feed people, not bankroll Big Soda’s profits, we protect both public health and fiscal sanity — and we return decision-making to governors who know their states’ needs better than coastal bureaucrats and media elites.
Make no mistake, the left’s immediate howl about “paternalism” is political theater, and the food industry’s complaint about complexity is mostly lobby-driven hand-wringing. Even trade groups admit the changes will require adjustments at checkout, but that is a small price to pay if it stops taxpayer cash from subsidizing sugary drinks that drive diabetes and overwhelm emergency rooms down the road.
Online the reaction has been loud and messy — from heartfelt stories defending personal choice to blunt calls for accountability and better nutrition from people who don’t want their tax dollars fueling unhealthy habits. Conservatives win the argument if we keep it focused on results: fewer taxpayers footing the bill for preventable disease, and more local control over how assistance is delivered.
This fight is about more than soda and candy; it’s about who governs welfare policy and whether America will value health, work, and common-sense stewardship of public dollars. Patriots who believe in responsibility and local control should push governors and Congress to expand sensible waivers, expose the lobbyists hiding behind outrage, and make sure welfare helps people get on their feet — not subsidize habits that keep them there.
