A new House bill would shut down the federal program that lets certain food stamp recipients use their benefits at restaurants, a move supporters say closes a taxpayer-funded loophole, but one that could affect eligible participants in nine states.
Representative Brandon Gill introduced the "Ending Restaurant Purchases with SNAP Act of 2026" this month, targeting the Restaurant Meals Program that currently allows select SNAP recipients to swipe their EBT cards at approved restaurants instead of buying groceries. The bill has been referred to the House Agriculture Committee, where it awaits further action.
Gill characterized the restaurant program as a "loophole" that directs taxpayer-funded benefits toward restaurant purchases rather than toward feeding families with groceries at home. Supporters of the bill argue that SNAP was designed to help households buy nutritious food at stores, not to subsidize meals at fast-food counters and sit-down restaurants.
The program currently operates in nine states: Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia. Recipients in those states who qualify, typically elderly, disabled, or homeless individuals who may lack the ability to store or prepare food, can use their EBT cards at participating restaurants. Gill's bill would eliminate that option entirely at the federal level.
The list of states running the Restaurant Meals Program skews heavily toward blue-state territory. California and New York account for two of the largest SNAP populations in the country, and Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland round out a roster dominated by states with expansive welfare programs. Arizona, Michigan, Rhode Island, and Virginia also participate.
What remains unclear is how many SNAP recipients currently use the restaurant option in those states. The Sun reported on the bill's introduction but did not provide enrollment figures for the program, and the legislation's text has not been publicly detailed beyond its core purpose: ending restaurant purchases with SNAP benefits.
The bill also does not specify whether it would terminate access immediately for current participants or phase the program out. Those details will likely surface if the House Agriculture Committee schedules hearings, a step that has not yet been announced.
The proposal arrives as Republican lawmakers have raised concerns about fast-food chains collecting hundreds of millions in SNAP funds, adding fuel to a broader push to tighten how food stamp dollars are spent.
Alongside the restaurant ban, a separate piece of legislation called the "Fresh Bucks for Fresh Produce" Act has also been referred to the House Agriculture Committee. That bill would provide participating households with an extra $60 per month specifically for fruits and vegetables.
The sponsor of the produce bill was not identified in available reporting, and no introduction date was specified beyond the same general timeframe. But the pairing of the two proposals sends a clear signal: some lawmakers want SNAP dollars redirected away from prepared meals and toward whole foods that families cook at home.
That philosophy aligns with a broader trend in SNAP reform. Multiple states have moved to restrict candy and soda purchases with food stamp benefits, reflecting growing bipartisan frustration with a program that, by design, places almost no limits on what recipients can buy.
Gill's bill does not exist in a vacuum. The Trump administration has separately been pushing to restrict certain foods that can be purchased with SNAP, though no specific executive order, proposed rule, or named action was cited in connection with that effort. The general direction, however, is consistent: narrow what SNAP covers and push the program back toward its original purpose of helping low-income families put basic groceries on the table.
Program integrity has been a persistent issue. A recent federal fraud case involving a food truck owner charged with more than $640,000 in SNAP benefits fraud illustrates the kind of abuse that fuels calls for tighter controls.
Meanwhile, SNAP enrollment has already been shifting. New work requirements have driven a significant drop in the program's rolls, a change that supporters view as a return to accountability and critics call a barrier to access.
The restaurant meals debate is just one piece of a larger overhaul. The USDA has also been tightening rules for convenience stores and small retailers that accept SNAP, with new stocking requirements threatening to cut tens of thousands of stores from the program, often without clear guidance on how to comply.
Taken together, these moves represent the most concentrated effort in years to reshape how SNAP operates. The restaurant meals program may be small compared to the broader food stamp system, but it has become a symbol of mission creep, a benefit originally meant for groceries that expanded, state by state, into a subsidy for eating out.
Whether Gill's bill advances past committee remains to be seen. But the underlying argument is hard to dismiss: taxpayers fund SNAP to feed families, not to pick up the tab at the drive-through.