It’s happening again. Somewhere in the halls of Washington, a group of bureaucrats is once again deciding they know better than the American people. This time, they’re targeting something as American as apple pie: soda. And in doing so, they’re threatening to unravel the very coalition that made Donald Trump’s movement a force to be reckoned with.
For those who have been paying attention, this is nothing new. The administrative state has been eroding personal freedom for decades, chipping away at individual choice under the guise of “public health.” From Michelle Obama’s school lunch fiasco to the left’s relentless war on red meat, the political class loves to tell regular Americans what they can and cannot consume. But what’s shocking this time is that some Republicans—yes, the supposed party of freedom—are pushing for restrictions on what people can buy with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, particularly when it comes to soft drinks.
This move is not just bad policy; it’s a political disaster in the making. This issue was front and center at CPAC 2025, where I joined a panel with Guy Bentley, a fierce advocate for consumer freedom, and Gabriella Hoffman, a leading conservative voice on economic liberty. We broke down why this push to police grocery carts is not just bad policy—it’s politically suicidal for the Republican Party.
Trump Built a Winning Coalition—And This Move Undermines It
Donald Trump didn’t win in 2016 by catering to the GOP’s traditional country club base. He won by bringing in working-class Americans, the very people that the political class ignored for decades. Truck drivers, construction workers, suburban moms juggling three jobs—they all rallied behind Trump because he spoke their language. He understood that government’s job isn’t to micromanage people’s lives but to empower them to make their own choices.
The left spent decades trying to convince Middle America that it needed Washington’s permission to live their lives. Trump shattered that narrative, giving people their dignity back. Now, some, including nominal Republicans, want to snatch that away, telling hard-working Americans that they can’t buy a Coke with their own government benefits—benefits, mind you, that they’ve paid into through taxes for years.
This isn’t about fiscal conservatism or fighting wasteful spending. It’s about control. It’s about a handful of out-of-touch politicians deciding that working-class Americans aren’t responsible enough to make their own dietary decisions. And if we let them get away with this now, what’s next? A ban on burgers? Limits on how much red meat you can buy per month? If that sounds far-fetched, just look at the kind of food mandates being pushed in Europe.
The “War on Soda” is a Trojan Horse for More Government Control
Anyone who has been following the steady creep of the nanny state knows exactly how this works. First, they push through a “reasonable” restriction—like banning the use of food stamps for soda. Then, they expand the scope, going after anything they deem “unhealthy.” Soon enough, you’re living in a world where government bureaucrats decide your grocery list.
We’ve already seen how this plays out. Remember New York City’s infamous soda tax? The government swore it was about public health, but in reality, it was nothing more than a money grab. The same thing happened with tobacco. Once the government got a foothold, they never stopped expanding their reach.
Even worse, restrictions on SNAP spending won’t solve any of the issues the bureaucrats claim they will. Study after study has shown that soda bans do nothing to curb obesity. People just shift their purchases to other sugary products. If a person wants a soda, they’ll find a way to get one. The only real impact will be more government interference in people’s lives—something that Trump’s movement was built to fight against, not promote.
This is a Gift to the Left—and They Know It
There’s a reason supposed anti-establishment figures are seizing on this issue. They know that every time the government overreaches, they have an opportunity to gain support from everyday Americans. And if Republicans hand them this talking point on a silver platter, they will use it--and there's nothing more "establishment" than expanding government power.
Take a look at what’s happening in the media. The Wall Street Journal has already pointed out how some are weaponizing this issue against Trump and the GOP, positioning themselves as the champions of personal freedom and consumer choice, a move that could siphon working-class votes away from the Trump coalition in this year's off-cycle elections and beyond.
This is exactly how the Democrats play the long game. They bait Republicans into supporting what they tout as benign, well-intentioned policies, knowing full well that the public will see it for what it is—another example of big government telling them how to live. Then, when the backlash comes, they will try to peel off support from independents, disaffected Republicans, and working-class voters who feel betrayed.
We cannot afford to let them win this messaging war.
Warnings Laid Out at CPAC 2025
At CPAC 2025, the panel featuring CPAC Foundation Center for Regulatory Freedom Director Andrew Langer, Guy Bentley from Reason, and Gabriella Hoffman from IWF tackled the growing debate over government control in food policy, particularly the push to restrict soda purchases for SNAP recipients. The discussion centered on the broader implications of bureaucratic overreach, with panelists warning that such policies mirror the nanny-state tactics of the Left. They emphasized that conservatives should resist government-imposed choices, arguing that these restrictions not only undermine personal freedom but also alienate the very working-class voters who helped reshape the Republican Party under Trump. The elitist effort to regulate food aid purchases, they pointed out, is part of a larger trend toward government micromanagement that conservatives should reject.
The panelists highlighted the political risks of supporting SNAP restrictions, explaining that such policies erode the MAGA coalition by targeting lower-income and working-class Americans—many of whom are core Trump supporters. While some GOP officials, including Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, have expressed interest in these restrictions, the panel argued that this approach could hand the Democrats a populist argument against Republicans. Rather than dictating consumer choices, they suggested that conservatives should advocate for policies that expand access to better food options rather than penalizing people for their purchases.
The discussion also critiqued the growing trend of government interference in markets and consumer behavior, using examples like previous soda taxes and bans on menthol cigarettes as evidence that these top-down interventions consistently backfire. The panelists made it clear that the conservative movement must remain committed to individual choice and free-market principles, warning that embracing progressive-style food regulations would undermine the very ideology that fuels the Right’s success. They urged the audience to push back against these restrictions before they become entrenched in conservative policymaking, ensuring that the Republican Party stays true to its populist, pro-freedom roots.
The Real Conservative Approach: Get Government Out of the Way
If Republicans are truly serious about fixing issues related to public health and personal responsibility, here’s a radical idea: let people make their own choices.
Rather than banning soda from SNAP, how about encouraging economic policies that reduce dependency on government programs altogether? Instead of micromanaging grocery purchases, why not focus on job creation, economic growth, and lowering the cost of living so that fewer people need food assistance in the first place?
Trump’s economic agenda—cutting taxes, bringing back jobs, deregulating industries—was wildly successful in achieving exactly that. The fastest way to get people off of food stamps isn’t through restrictions and mandates; it’s by empowering them with real economic opportunity.
