PHOENIX — As an Arizona bill to block people from using government aid to buy soda headed to the governor's desk in April, the nation's top health official joined Arizona lawmakers in the state Capitol to celebrate its passage.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said to applause that the legislation was just the start and that he wanted to prevent federal funding from paying for other unhealthy foods.
"We're not going to do that overnight," Kennedy said. "We're going to do that in the next four years."
Those words of caution proved prescient when Arizona's Democratic governor, Katie Hobbs, vetoed the bill a week later. Nevertheless, state legislation to restrict what low-income people can buy using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits is gaining momentum, boosted by Kennedy's touting it as part of his "Make America Healthy Again" platform. At least 14 states have considered bills this year with similar SNAP restrictions on specific unhealthy foods such as candy, with Idaho and Utah passing such legislation as of mid-April.
Healthy food itself isn't largely a partisan issue, and those who study nutrition tend to agree that reducing the amount of sugary food people eat is a good idea to avoid health consequences such as heart disease. But the question over the government's role in deciding who can buy what has become political.
The organization largely behind SNAP restriction legislation is the Foundation for Government Accountability, a conservative policy think tank in Florida, and its affiliated lobbying arm, which has used the name Opportunity Solutions Project.
FGA has worked for more than a decade to reshape the nation's public assistance programs. That includes SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, which federal data shows helps an average of 42 million people afford food each month. It also advocates for ways to cut Medicaid, the federal-state program that connects 71 million people to subsidized health care, including efforts in Idaho and Montana this year.
FGA's proposals often seek to limit who taps into that aid and the help they receive. Those backing the group's mission say the goal is to save tax dollars and help people lift themselves out of poverty. Critics argue that FGA's proposals are a backdoor way to cut off aid to people who need it and that making healthy food and health care more affordable is a better fix.
Now, FGA sees more room for change under the Trump administration and the Kennedy-led health department, calling 2025 a "window of opportunity for major reform," according to its latest annual report.
As the Arizona veto shows, opportunity isn't a guarantee of success, reflecting the FGA's history of policy hits and misses.
A vision for limiting government benefits
Tarren Bragdon, a former Maine legislator, founded FGA in 2011 to promote policies to "free millions from government dependency and open the doors for them to chase their own American Dream," he said in a statement on FGA's website. The main foundation started out as a staff of three with about $60,000 in the bank. As of 2023, it had a budget of more than $15 million and a team of roughly 64, according to the latest available tax documents, and that's not counting the lobbying arm.
The foundation got early funding from a grant from the State Policy Network, which has long backed right-leaning think tanks with ties to conservative activists including brothers Charles and David Koch.
FGA declined several interview requests for this article.
In recent years, the nonprofit helped draft a 2017 Mississippi law, the Jackson Free Press found, which intensified eligibility checks for public aid that made it more difficult for some applicants to qualify. It successfully pushed a 2023 effort in Idaho to impose work requirements for food benefits that health care advocates said led some recipients to lose access.
The same year, the group helped pass SNAP restrictions affecting eligibility in Iowa. Since those restrictions have taken effect, the Food Bank of Iowa has seen a record number of people show up at its pantries amid rising grocery prices and a scaling back of COVID pandemic-era federal support, said Annette Hacker, a vice president at the nonprofit.
Part of the group's strategy is to pass legislation state by state, with the idea that the crush of new laws will increase pressure on the federal government. For example, states can't limit what food is purchased through SNAP without federal approval through a waiver process. And in the past, some of FGA's efforts have stalled because states never got that approval.
Kennedy's agenda now echoes some of FGA's key messages, and he has said states can expect approval of their waivers. Meanwhile, congressional leaders are eyeing nationwide Medicaid cuts and work requirements, which FGA considers among its major issues. The foundation also has a connection working inside the administration: Its former policy director, Sam Adolphsen, was tapped to advise President Donald Trump on domestic matters.
"We're excited to fight from Topeka to Washington, D.C., as opposed to Washington, D.C., to Topeka," Roy Lenardson, FGA's state government affairs director, told Kansas lawmakers in February when testifying in support of SNAP legislation there.
Shaping state policies
In the states, FGA has become known as a conservative "thought leader," said Brian Colby, vice president of public policy for Missouri Budget Project, a progressive nonprofit that provides analysis of state policy issues.
"Conservatives used to try to chop away at the federal budget," Colby said. "These guys are doing it at the state level."
In its 14 years, FGA has created a playbook to shape state policy discussions about public benefits behind the scenes. In Montana, retired Republican state legislator Cary Smith, who worked with FGA, said not all of the think tank's ideas split along party lines.
"They offer a buffet of options," he said. "Their agenda is making government accountable; it's in the name."
He said besides drafting legislation, FGA provides talking points and data to help policymakers support their arguments.
"They would go in and would say, 'This is what Medicaid fraud is costing us,'" Smith said. "That would be the number you'd want to use in your bill."
In January, FGA released a memo for states to "stop taxpayer-funded junk food." In February, Stateline reported that Wyoming Republican state Rep. Jacob Wasserburger said the group asked him to sponsor a SNAP restriction bill. The state sponsor of similar legislation in Missouri has repeated at least one of FGA's talking points, as reported by the Missouri Independent. In Arizona, Republican Rep. Leo Biasiucci, who sponsored the SNAP legislation there, told KFF Health News FGA was behind that bill as well.
Opponents of such bills argue the proposals are not as simple as they sound. Amid debate on a SNAP bill in Montana, Kiera Condon, with the Montana Food Bank Network, testified that the legislation would force grocery store workers to sort through what counts as soda or candy, "which could result in retailers not participating in SNAP at all." State lawmakers tabled the Montana bill in April.
Montana legislators also easily passed a bill to extend the state's Medicaid expansion program even after FGA began publishing a series of papers that asserted the program was "breaking" Montana's budget. FGA had presented data saying most Montanans on the program don't work, which state data refutes.
Ed Bolen, who leads food aid strategies at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities think tank, said FGA has a pattern of proposing technical changes to existing laws and "unworkable work requirements" that cause people to lose benefits.
The Kansas example
After working with policymakers in Kansas for a decade, FGA helped pass legislation that limited how long people can access cash assistance, added work requirements to SNAP, and banned the state from spending federal or state funds to promote public aid. Many of those changes came through 2015 legislation known as the "HOPE Act" drafted by FGA, The Washington Post reported.
Analysis from Kansas Appleseed, an advocacy organization for low-income Kansans, found the SNAP caseload sharply declined after the bill was enacted because of the new hurdles, dropping from 140,000 households in January 2014 to 90,000 as of January 2020.
"It's death by a thousand cuts," said Karen Siebert, an adviser for Harvesters, a community food bank network in Kansas and Missouri. "Some of these FGA proposals are such complex policies, it's hard to argue against and to explain the ripple effects."
In 2024, the foundation produced more than two dozen videos featuring state politicians from across the nation touting the organization's goals and dozens of research papers arguing public benefits are wrecking state budgets. FGA also has its own polling team to produce data out of the states it's working to influence.
The organization released a list of 14 states it labeled as "redder and better" places to exert more influence. That included Idaho, where the group has four registered lobbyists in the state Capitol.
In 2023, FGA helped present and successfully lobby for legislation there to require people receiving food aid to work at least 80 hours a month. The organization called the resulting law "landmark welfare reform" years in the making.
And this year, Idaho lawmakers passed more requirements for people enrolled in Medicaid who can work. FGA staffers worked with one of the co-sponsors of the legislation on a similar bill last year that failed, then again this year. A compromise bill passed with FGA's backing, marking another victory for the foundation.
David Lehman, a lobbyist for the Idaho Association of Community Providers, which represents health organizations that have opposed FGA bills, said Idaho illustrates how FGA works with sympathetic lawmakers in conservative states to gain more ground.
"They're pushing an already rolling rock downhill," he said.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
Copyright 2025 NPR