First state bans buying soda with food stamps through USDA waiver in win for MAHA movement
Nebraskans on the federal nutrition-assistance program known as food stamps will no longer be able to purchase soda or energy drinks with their benefits, after the U.S. Department of Agriculture accepted a waiver request from the state.
The change is 'the first of its kind, and it is a historic step to Make America Healthy Again,' U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins said in a statement on Monday of the change to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, a federal benefit program for low-income people administered by individual states.
'There's absolutely zero reason for taxpayers to be subsidizing purchases of soda and energy drinks. SNAP is about helping families in need get healthy food into their diets, but there's nothing nutritious about the junk we're removing,' Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen, who requested the waiver in April, said in a statement.
The change will take effect on January 1, 2026, impacting the roughly 150,000 Nebraskans on SNAP.
Six other states — Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Indiana, Iowa, and West Virginia — have also shown interest in similar waivers, according to the Department of Agriculture.
Iowa's request would also ban the purchases of snacks like kettle corn, fruit leather, and juice drinks with less than 50 percent juice, while Arkansas's waiver would seek to add rotisserie chicken to the list of allowed foods.
Critics argued the change would do little to improve nutrition for Nebraska's poor, while adding compliance costs for stores that potentially could limit food options in rural areas for SNAP recipients.
'The average SNAP benefit in Nebraska is $5.82 per person per day – or less than $2 per meal,' Eric Savaiano, of the advocacy group Nebraska Appleseed, said in a statement. 'If we were serious about making Nebraskans healthier, we would give participants the resources they need to buy healthier, less cheap foods and incentivize healthier choices – not police their buying habits and embarrass them in public.'
Despite the Trump administration's focus on public health under its promise to Make America Healthy Again, Republicans in Congress are considering a $230 billion cut to SNAP as part of their spending bill enshrining the president's signature first-term tax cuts.
Overall, the budget plans under consideration would ultimately transfer wealth from the poorest 40 percent of Americans to the richest 1 percent through $4.5 trillion in tax cuts that would largely benefit the wealthy, along with $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, including to benefits for the public, including the poorest, according to an analysis by Yale University.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Epoch Times
an hour ago
- Epoch Times
Speaker Johnson Downplays Musk's Influence, Suggests Republicans Will Pass Budget Bill
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on June 8 downplayed tech billionaire Elon Musk's critical comments and said that House Republicans will pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act backed by President Donald Trump. Last week, Musk and Trump got into a heated back and forth after the Tesla CEO repeatedly bashed the spending bill on social media. Trump suggested that it was because of its cuts to electric vehicle mandates, and at one point floated cutting federal money to Musk's companies. Meanwhile, Musk took credit for Trump and the GOP winning the 2024 election and threatened to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft.
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
ICE is enforcing the law. Trump is right to send National Guard to protect them.
ICE is enforcing the law. Trump is right to send National Guard to protect them. | Opinion I've watched the violence in Los Angeles this weekend, aimed at law enforcement officers who are attempting to uphold our nation's immigration laws, with growing anger. Show Caption Hide Caption Trump orders troops to LA as agents, protesters clash over immigration President Trump ordered 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles to combat violent protesters opposed to immigration enforcement. The images of fires burning and smoking rising above the streets of Los Angeles make America's second-largest city look like a war zone. But it's not war. It's what happens when a Republican president enforces the law in a state as far left and as lost as California. President Donald Trump ordered 2,000 National Guard troops to restore peace in Los Angeles after protesters set fires, defaced buildings, slashed vehicle tires and hurled pieces of concrete at local police and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. A Department of Homeland Security news release on June 7 noted that ICE agents − and their families − have endured a surge in threats and harassment. I've watched this violence, aimed at law enforcement officers who are attempting to uphold our nation's immigration laws, with growing anger. If California is one version of America and the rest of the country is another version, I know which America I choose. It's the same one a majority of Americans also have chosen. Polls have consistently shown that voters side with Trump and other Republicans on immigration and border security, not the lawlessness and chaos that Democrats and their progressive allies promote. And to answer the question I'll inevitably get: Yes, I voted for this, and I'd vote for this again. Opinion: Guess who Americans want to run the economy? Hint: It's not Democrats. California Gov. Newsom denounces Trump's effort to restore order California Gov. Gavin Newsom denounced Trump's decision to send in the National Guard as "inflammatory." That's not a good look for a governor with national ambitions. Newsom's staff hasn't helped him either. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth posted on X a photo of demonstrators posing in front of a fire while one person waved a Mexican flag. Hegseth wrote: "Another 'mostly peaceful protest' brought to you by @GavinNewsom. DEPORT." Newsom's press office responded: "Are you going to send in the Marines the next time the Philadelphia Eagles win, too?" Comparing violent protests against federal officers enforcing the law to a Super Bowl celebration that went too far is tone death, even for the governor of California. Opinion: Texas woman's death would have been prevented if Biden had secured the border It's important to note that ICE agents aren't arresting just anyone. The Department of Homeland Security reported that the arrests in Los Angeles included people accused of drug trafficking, assault, cruelty to children, domestic violence, robbery and the smuggling of illegal immigrants. Our nation's immigration laws must be enforced The fact that the protests broke out because the demonstrators didn't want illegal immigrants with criminal records to be arrested or deported is sad and pathetic. America is a melting pot, and our arms should be open to people who want to come to this land to live a better life. But we must follow a legal process for immigrants to enter and stay in the United States. But progressive states like California and Democratic leaders like Newsom and former President Joe Biden have ignored our immigration laws. They sent a clear message to people all over the world that the border was open, and millions took advantage of that fact to enter our country illegally. Now, it is Trump who must enforce the law and restore order, whether Gavin Newsom and the violent protesters in the streets of Los Angeles like it or not. Nicole Russell is an opinion columnist with USA TODAY. She lives in Texas with her four kids. Sign up for her newsletter, The Right Track, and get it delivered to your inbox.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Speaker Johnson teases follow-ups to the ‘one big, beautiful bill'
The 'one big, beautiful bill' may not be so singular, after all. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is teasing follow-up legislation to the megabill of President Trump's tax cut and spending priorities that Republicans can push though using the same special budget reconciliation process that requires only GOP votes. That tool can be used once per fiscal year, with the current fiscal year ending on Sept. 30. So after Republicans are done with the 'big, beautiful bill,' the GOP trifecta has, in theory, two more shots to muscle through party-line legislation before the next Congress comes into power after the midterms. Johnson floated plans for a second reconciliation bill while rebutting concerns from deficit hawks on the budget impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — which includes an extension of tax cuts and boosts to border and defense funding, with costs offset in part by new requirements on low-income assistance programs like Medicaid and food aid. 'Everyone here wants to reduce spending,' Johnson said Friday morning on CNBC. 'But you have to do that in a sequence of events. We have a plan, OK? This is the first of a multistep process.' 'We're going to have another reconciliation bill that follows this one, possibly a third one before this Congress is up, because you can have a reconciliation bill for each budget year, each fiscal year. So that's ahead of us,' Johnson continued, also pointing to separate plans to claw back money based on recommendations from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 'We're also doing rescissions packages. We got the first one delivered this week from the White House, and that will codify many of the DOGE cuts.' The promise of another reconciliation bill is somewhat surprising given the crux of the debate that dominated the early weeks of the year: Should Republicans divide up their agenda into two bills, passing the first quickly to give Trump an early win on boosting funding for border enforcement and deportations? Or would putting all of Trump's priorities into one bill — which would contain both bitter pills and sweeteners for different factions of the razor-thin majority — be a better political strategy? Trump eventually said he preferred 'one big, beautiful bill,' a moniker that became the legislation's official title in the House last month. It's not clear what would be in a second piece of legislation. Multiple House Republicans who spoke with The Hill were unaware of plans for more reconciliation bills and were not sure what could be included in them. 'I think we need to see what's left on the table after the first one,' Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) said. And to muster through multiple reconciliation bills is a delicate prospect. If members know more reconciliation bills are coming, that complicates the argument that everything in the current package — even policies some factions dislike that others love — need to stay in one megabill. The Speaker declined to elaborate on what might be in such a package when asked in a press conference last week. 'I'm not going to tell you that,' Johnson said. 'Let's get the first one done.' 'Look, I say this is the beginning of a process, and what you're going to see is a continuing of us identifying waste, fraud, abuse in government, which is our pledge of common sense, restoring common sense and fiscal sanity. So we have lots of ideas of things that might be in that package.' Republicans had started planning for the current legislative behemoth months before the 2024 election so they would be prepared to quickly execute on their policy wish list if they won the majority. 'This isn't something we just drew up overnight. So, we'll go through that same laborious process,' Johnson said. But some members have ideas of what else they'd like to see. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) said that he'd hope a second bill would do more to tackle rolling back green energy tax credits and make further spending cuts. Ultimately, though, it will be Trump's call, Norman said: 'I know when the president gets involved, it adds a lot of value.' And Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas) speculated that passing the 'big, beautiful bill' would inspire members to keep going with another bill. 'People like the feeling of winning,' Pfluger said.
