Even The Washington Post Agrees: Trump’s SNAP Soda Reform Is Common Sense for Nevada Taxpayers

For once, even The Washington Post had to admit it.

In a rare moment of clarity, the Post published an opinion piece highlighting the growing momentum behind President Donald Trump’s push to let states restrict soda and junk food purchases under SNAP. Yes, that Washington Post. And the argument was not a hit job. It was a sober acknowledgment that allowing states to prioritize nutrition in a taxpayer funded program is not radical. It is rational.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program was created to fight hunger and promote better nutrition. Somewhere along the way, that mission blurred. Billions in federal dollars now flow toward sugary beverages and ultra processed junk food, while obesity, diabetes, and long term health costs continue to skyrocket. Taxpayers are left footing the bill on both ends.

President Trump’s position is straightforward. Give states flexibility. Let governors apply for waivers to ensure SNAP dollars are used for actual food, not soda aisles stacked to the ceiling. It is federalism in action, not federal control.

Policy experts at the Foundation for Government Accountability have been making this case for years. Analysts like Paige Terryberry have pointed to the data showing how SNAP spending patterns often diverge from the program’s original nutritional intent. The reform conversation is not about punishment. It is about alignment. If the program exists to improve nutrition, then policy should reflect that purpose.

What does this mean for Nevada?

It means opportunity. Nevada has long battled elevated rates of obesity and chronic disease, particularly in lower income communities where SNAP participation is higher. Healthcare costs strain families and burden state budgets. Medicaid expenditures grow. Emergency rooms become default care providers. Reforming SNAP to focus more clearly on nutritional value is not a silver bullet, but it is a meaningful step toward prevention instead of perpetual treatment.

States exploring soda restrictions are not banning products. They are simply saying that taxpayer funds designated for nutrition should not subsidize sugar consumption. Families can still purchase whatever they choose with their own earnings. The guardrails apply only to public dollars.

That distinction matters. For hardworking Nevadans juggling rent, groceries, and gas, it is reasonable to expect that federal assistance programs are structured responsibly. Trump’s approach trusts states to make practical decisions based on local conditions rather than one size fits all mandates from Washington.

The fact that even a major national outlet is acknowledging the logic behind these reforms underscores something larger. The debate is shifting. What was once dismissed as fringe is increasingly seen as common sense.

Nevada lawmakers and state officials should take note. With the right leadership, the Silver State could pursue targeted SNAP reforms that prioritize healthier food options, reduce long term healthcare costs, and reinforce the program’s original purpose.

This is not about taking food away from anyone. It is about making sure assistance dollars serve families in ways that strengthen them, not saddle them with preventable health challenges down the line. When federal policy returns to first principles, states benefit. Families benefit. Taxpayers benefit. And sometimes, even the Washington Post has to concede the obvious.

Speak Up, Nevada! What’s on Your Mind? Send us your opinion!

Got the inside scoop on something happening in Nevada? Or the country? Do you have thoughts about life in Nevada that are too good to keep to yourself? Whether it’s a hot take on our politics, crime, education, or even the secret to surviving our summers, we’re all ears! Swing them our way at editor@thenevadaglobe.com. Come on, give us the scoop on what makes Nevada tick—or what ticks you off. Let’s make some noise and have some fun with it!