Certainly, here is the article rewritten in the third person with a neutral, professional tone:
—
Stewart Whitson, a senior director at the Foundation for Government Accountability, testified before the DOGE subcommittee led by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene in Washington, D.C., on February 12 during a hearing titled “The War on Waste” (Al Drago/Getty Images).
In Phoenix, Arizona, a bill to prevent individuals from using government aid to purchase soda was advancing to the governor’s desk in April. The nation’s top health official joined Arizona lawmakers at the state Capitol to celebrate the bill’s progress.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. expressed to applause that the legislation marked a beginning. He emphasized the intention to stop federal funding from covering other unhealthy foods. He stated the objective would not be achieved overnight but anticipated progress in the next four years.
This caution became apparent when Arizona’s Democratic governor, Katie Hobbs, vetoed the bill a week later. Despite the veto, state legislation limiting the purchase of specific unhealthy foods with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits is gaining traction, supported by Kennedy under his “Make America Healthy Again” platform. As of mid-April, 14 states have deliberated similar restrictions, with Idaho and Utah enacting such measures.
Healthy eating is not inherently a partisan issue, and nutrition experts generally agree on reducing the intake of sugary foods to prevent health issues like heart disease. However, the government’s role in specifying purchasing choices has become a politically charged topic.
The Foundation for Government Accountability, a conservative think tank based in Florida, and its lobbying counterpart, the Opportunity Solutions Project, are major proponents behind SNAP restriction legislation. The organization has worked to reshape public assistance programs like SNAP, which assists approximately 42 million people monthly, and Medicaid, which connects 71 million individuals to healthcare.
FGA’s proposals often aim to limit access to this aid, claiming they intend to conserve tax dollars and enable individuals to escape poverty. Critics argue that these restrictions are a means to reduce aiding those in need and stress the importance of making healthy food and healthcare more accessible.
FGA identifies the Trump administration and Kennedy-led health department as opportunities for reform, considering 2025 a potential period for substantial change, despite setbacks like the Arizona veto reflecting a history of policy successes and failures for the organization.
Founded in 2011 by former Maine legislator Tarren Bragdon, FGA promotes policies to reduce governmental dependency, growing from a small team to a substantial foundation. The State Policy Network, associated with conservative activists, provided early financial support.
FGA did not respond to interview requests for this article.
FGA influenced the drafting of a 2017 Mississippi law to intensify eligibility checks for public aid, which reportedly made qualification difficult for some applicants. It also propelled efforts in Idaho for work requirements linked to food benefits.
In Iowa, FGA supported the introduction of SNAP restrictions affecting eligibility, which were enacted as grocery prices climbed and COVID support diminished, leading to increased demand at food banks.
FGA’s strategy involves pushing state-by-state legislation to exert pressure at the federal level, requiring federal approval through a waiver process to limit food purchases under SNAP.
FGA’s influence echoes through key messages advanced by Kennedy, increasing the likelihood of waiver approvals by states. Legislative leaders are contemplating nationwide Medicaid reductions and work requirements, which align with FGA’s focuses.
Roy Lenardson, FGA’s director for state government affairs, remarked on the group’s engagement from state to federal levels. In states, FGA is recognized as a conservative thought leader, offering policy drafts, talking points, and supporting data.
For instance, in Montana, FGA provided information estimating Medicaid fraud costs, utilized in legislative arguments. Recently, FGA released a memo to end taxpayer-funded junk food with state lawmakers adopting similar bills.
Opponents argue the complexity of SNAP restriction proposals and their implications for grocery retailers, illustrated by Montana’s legislative debates.
In Kansas, FGA contributed to legislation embedding limits on public aid, leading to substantial declines in SNAP caseloads. Additionally, the foundation has produced videos advocating its goals and research papers critiquing public benefits.
David Lehman, representing Idaho health organizations opposing FGA-backed legislation, indicated FGA’s influence in conservative states.
KFF Health News produced this report as part of its comprehensive health journalism efforts.
