Congressional scrutiny of SNAP spending widened Friday after a House Oversight hearing in Washington put fresh attention on whether food stamp benefits should cover Coca-Cola and other sugary drinks.
Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, pressed Gina Plata-Nino, director of SNAP policy and advocacy at the Food Research and Action Center, during a Thursday hearing on waste, fraud, and abuse in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The House hearing focused on program integrity, improper payments, retailer abuse, and benefit misuse in the SNAP program.
Gill Presses Soda Question
Gill opened the exchange by asking whether SNAP dollars should be used to pay for sugary sodas. Plata-Nino said the program exists to help families buy food and beverages.
Gill then focused on Coca-Cola. He asked whether Americans need the drink to survive and what nutritional value it provides. Plata-Nino said she is not a nutritionist. She described herself as a food security expert and said hunger is the main harm SNAP is designed to prevent.
Current Rules Allow Beverages
Federal SNAP rules generally allow recipients to buy food for household use. Eligible items include fruits, vegetables, meat, poultry, fish, dairy products, breads, cereals, seeds, and plants that produce food.
The rules also allow snack foods and beverages, which is why many non-alcoholic drinks qualify. Soda is treated as an eligible beverage under that framework. The program excludes alcohol, tobacco, hot foods sold for immediate consumption, vitamins, medicines, supplements, and nonfood items. Those limits are already built into federal eligibility rules.
Large Program Faces Scrutiny
SNAP is the largest federal nutrition assistance program in the United States. It served an average of 41.7 million participants per month in fiscal year 2024. Federal spending reached $99.8 billion that year. Average benefits were $187.20 per participant per month. Those figures explain why even a narrow purchasing debate can become politically significant. A program that reaches tens of millions of people draws close attention from lawmakers, budget officials, and taxpayers.
State Restrictions Hit Court
The hearing followed a separate legal fight over state efforts to restrict SNAP purchases of sugary drinks and candy. A federal judge recently blocked the administration from enforcing limits in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia. The ruling found that the federal agency lacked authority to approve the state restrictions through the waiver process. The decision blocked five state waivers that would have limited certain SNAP purchases.
The ruling did not settle the policy dispute. It did, however, make the path for state-level restrictions more difficult. Supporters of the restrictions say the changes would align SNAP with nutrition goals. Opponents say Congress must change the law before the government can redefine eligible food categories.
Fraud Concerns Shape Debate
The Oversight hearing also examined fraud and improper payments. Those issues are separate from the soda question, but lawmakers linked them under a wider concern about program integrity. Improper payments can include overpayments, underpayments, and eligibility errors. Fraud requires separate proof and investigation.
EBT theft has become another problem for recipients and administrators. Criminals have used skimming devices to steal benefits from cards, leaving some families without expected grocery assistance. Retailer fraud is also a recurring concern. Stores can face penalties if they exchange benefits for cash or allow purchases that violate program rules.
Advocates Defend Choice
Plata-Nino’s position reflects a long-running argument among food security groups. They say SNAP should prevent hunger first and preserve household choice. They also argue that food decisions are shaped by income, transportation, store access, and family schedules. A household with limited shopping options may not have the same choices as a household with reliable transportation and multiple grocery stores nearby.
That does not make soda healthy. It does show why purchase bans can be difficult to design and enforce. A ban on soda may seem simple. But officials would still need to define which drinks are covered, how retailers should code them, and whether exceptions should apply for medical needs.
Lawmakers Weigh Next Steps
The immediate fight now has two tracks. Congress is reviewing SNAP oversight after the hearing. Courts are reviewing whether federal officials can approve state food restrictions through waivers.
Gill and other Republicans are expected to keep focusing on soda purchases as part of their case for tighter rules. Anti-hunger advocates are expected to keep arguing that SNAP should not become a government-approved grocery list.
For now, federal rules still allow many non-alcoholic beverages. Any national change would likely require clearer legal authority, new legislation, or a revised federal policy that can withstand court review.
