A Texas Republican has introduced legislation to prohibit Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits from being used at fast food restaurants, a move that would impact nine states currently participating in the SNAP Restaurant Meals Program (RMP).
Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) on Thursday introduced the Ending Restaurant Purchases with SNAP Act, which seeks to eliminate the RMP. The program currently allows eligible SNAP recipients in participating states to use benefits at approved restaurants, including McDonald’s and Burger King, for prepared meals. The proposal follows a reported expenditure of $524 million in taxpayer funds at restaurants through the RMP between June 2023 and May 2025, according to figures cited by Gill.
The bill would affect nine states—Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia—where the RMP is currently active. Under the proposed legislation, SNAP benefits would no longer cover purchases at participating restaurants, though public and nonprofit groups would still be permitted to provide meals for beneficiaries.
How the SNAP Restaurant Meals Program Works
SNAP benefits are generally restricted to unprepared food items purchased at grocery stores. However, the RMP is an optional state-level program designed for recipients who may face challenges preparing meals, such as individuals without permanent housing or those unable to cook. The USDA describes the RMP as a means to support vulnerable populations in accessing prepared food.
Gill’s office confirmed the bill’s introduction but did not provide additional details on the legislative timeline. The proposal aligns with broader efforts by the Trump administration to steer SNAP benefits toward healthier food options. In recent months, the administration has approved state waivers restricting the use of SNAP funds for items like soda and candy under its "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) agenda.
Advocacy and Opposition Perspectives
Supporters of the bill argue that taxpayer funds should not subsidize fast food purchases, citing concerns about the nutritional value of such meals. Gill has stated that the RMP expenditure represents a misuse of resources, emphasizing that SNAP is intended to provide nutritious food rather than subsidize restaurant meals. Critics of the RMP have also highlighted the program’s cost, with reports indicating that over $500 million was spent at restaurants in two years.
Opponents of the proposal, including SNAP advocacy groups, have not publicly commented on the bill’s introduction. The program’s supporters contend that the RMP serves a critical need for vulnerable populations who lack access to cooking facilities or the ability to prepare meals. They argue that eliminating the program could disproportionately impact individuals who rely on it for daily sustenance.
Policy Context and Broader Implications
The introduction of the bill comes amid ongoing debates over SNAP’s scope and priorities. The Trump administration’s MAHA agenda has already led to restrictions on the purchase of certain foods, reflecting a shift toward promoting healthier dietary choices through the program. The administration’s actions have drawn both praise and criticism, with proponents arguing that such measures reduce wasteful spending and opponents contending that they limit flexibility for beneficiaries.
The proposed legislation would leave intact provisions allowing SNAP funds to be used for unprepared food items at grocery stores. The bill’s text has not yet been released publicly, and its progress through Congress remains uncertain. Gill’s office has not indicated whether the bill has bipartisan support or if it will face opposition from lawmakers who view the RMP as a necessary safety net.
Next Steps
The bill’s introduction marks the beginning of a legislative process that will require review and debate in Congress. SNAP advocacy groups, restaurant industry representatives, and state officials have not yet publicly responded to the proposal. The outcome of the bill could have significant implications for millions of SNAP recipients and the states that currently participate in the RMP.