Historia
1 de jul de 2026
Judge Blocks Trump Administration's SNAP Junk Food Restrictions
A federal judge has blocked a Trump administration pilot program that would have allowed five states to prevent SNAP recipients from buying soda and candy with their benefits. Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that the Agriculture Department overstepped its authority by redefining 'food' under the program.
A legal fight over junk food and food stamps has become a proxy war over who gets to define “healthy” policy: Congress, federal agencies, or the courts.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s ruling centers on statutory power, not nutrition. She concluded that the Agriculture Department exceeded its authority by approving state waivers that barred SNAP recipients from buying soda and candy, stressing that “Congress defined what ‘food’ is supposed to be, and it did not authorize the agency to amend or waive the definition it enacted.”1 For CBS News and anti-hunger advocates, this is framed as a defense of legal limits and food access. Plaintiffs argued the ban would “destabilize food access” and make it harder for some people with chronic illnesses to get items they use to manage blood sugar.1
Conservative-leaning outlets highlight very different stakes. The Washington Times reduces the decision to a blunt outcome: “Judge says food stamps can be used to buy candy, soda,”2 implying judicial indulgence of unhealthy purchases. The Gateway Pundit goes further, attacking the judge personally as a “Corrupt Obama Judge” who “shuts down Trump Administration’s SNAP Junk Food Restrictions,” casting the ruling as partisan sabotage of the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda.3
The administration, for its part, insists its goal is straightforward: stop federal dollars from funding junk food. “The idea that taxpayer funds should not be used to purchase junk food should not be controversial,” a USDA spokesperson told CBS, vowing not to “back[] down from the fight to Make America Healthy Again.”1
The clash thus splits along two axes: law versus policy, and paternalism versus choice. Critics of the ruling emphasize public health and taxpayer responsibility; supporters emphasize statutory text, program stability, and the risks of letting agencies rewrite core definitions without Congress. The unresolved question is whether future reforms will come through legislation—or through more aggressive executive experiments that invite further judicial pushback.