CHOICES
A publication of AAEA
Extensive food policy changes are occurring across multiple federal government agencies under the second Trump administration and are affecting food insecurity, food access, food prices, and food attributes and thus directly impacting US consumers. These changes are driven by new policies or regulatory actions at the US Department of Agriculture and the US Food and Drug Administration, tariffs on imported foods, and the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative. The set of papers in this theme describes the types of changes that are occurring in SNAP, tariffs, food labeling, and dietary guidelines and how these changes will affect program participants, food producers, and food consumers.
Tariffs are one of the Trump administration’s central economic policies. Since 2025, new or higher tariffs have been assessed for countries from which the US purchases commodities or other inputs to the food supply chain, and more may be coming as the US–Mexico–Canada agreement is reviewed. Economists generally agree that tariffs raise prices borne by domestic consumers, yet tariffs receive political support. Public debates over tariffs are framed less in terms of welfare losses and more in terms of fairness, national strength, and protection of American workers. In “What Do Americans Believe About Food Tariffs?” Schaefer and Davidson use a nationally representative survey to examine how Americans perceive tariffs on food imports. The survey measures respondents’ attitudes toward the justification and purpose of tariffs, the symbolic meaning of tariffs, and their willingness to bear the costs of tariffs. The article summarizes both average response and heterogeneity across political affiliation, gender, and economic familiarity. The authors find that, on average, Americans are skeptical of most pro-tariff narratives. Additionally, the average respondent was generally unwilling to endorse higher prices due to tariffs, although respondents were open to the use of tariffs in certain circumstances. These overall averages mask quite divergent attitudes toward tariffs across political identity. More generally, respondents understood that higherprices were a likely outcome of increased tariffs. The authors argue that these results at least partially explain why tariffs remain politically resilient despite higher consumer prices.
Meaningful federal actions on food labeling, ingredient regulation, and dietary guidance have the potential to impact food production and consumers broadly. These actions are intended to improve the healthfulness of food offerings in the supply chain and encourage consumers to choose healthier food options. However, they will also affect food production and marketing and, thus, costs of production and food prices. In the article “New Federal Food Policies Will Affect Food Labeling, Reformulation, and Healthfulness,” Muth describes the status of several of these changes in the regulatory and policymaking process and outlines the potential sources and types of costs and benefits of the changes. Specifically, the article discusses two recent FDA actions regarding the voluntary “healthy” label and the requirement for front-of-package nutrition labeling; the move away from synthetic dyes and other additives in foods; the notification
process for ingredients in food that are Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS); the development of a definition of ultra-processed foods (UPFs); and the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs). Muth argues that if food manufacturers reformulate or relabel products—either voluntarily or because they are required to do so—they will incur costs for new ingredients, undertaking reformulation, or designing new labels. These costs can be significant, but the size depends on the extent to which policy changes impact existing products, whether changes are required or voluntary, and the timing for when required changes must be implemented, among other factors.Manufacturers might pass along the higher costs of these changes to consumers. However, the potential benefits of healthier consumer choices could be quite substantial because they can lead to improvements in health and productivity and lower health care costs.
The final paper in this theme, “Recent SNAP Policy Changes Could Have Significant Effects on Food Security, Poverty, and Rural America,” discusses recent changes in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). SNAP is the USDA’s primary program for reducing food insecurity, is broadly targeted to low-income households, and is the largest US food assistance program, serving about one in every eight people in the US at an annual cost of just under $100 billion in FY2024. Until the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 (OBBB), SNAP benefits were funded entirely by the federal government, although states shared equally in the costs of administering the program. The OBBB increased the share of administrative costs for which states are responsible to 75%. Also, for the first time in the program’s history, states may be forced to pay for the costs of benefits if their payment error rates (PERs), or the rates at which participants are mistakenly given too much or too few benefits, are too high. The OBBB also tightened work requirements and some allowances for expenses, among other changes. Ver Ploeg discusses SNAP’s history and unique role in the safety net, its connection to the agricultural economy, and how the OBBB furthers the policy trend to shift the safety net to one focused on supporting work and with greater state-level responsibility for funding. It then describes the potential effects of these changes and what is most at risk. OBBB provisions chip away at the entitlement and universal aspects of SNAP. Impacts are yet to be determined and depend heavily on how states react to new cost-sharing requirements. Other safety net programs that allow states greater discretion over program rules and that require states to bear bigger shares of costs suggest that we can expect increased variation in state generosity, decreased SNAP participation, and decreases in program outlays. The impacts of changes to a cornerstone of the safety net may not be felt evenly because of SNAPs ties to rural and agriculture economies.
With any change in policy, the impacts depend on how the relevant actors react; whether those actors are firms and consumers, state and local governments, program administrators, or program participants; and the greater economic, social, and political environment. Many of these recent policy changes have precedents and reflect regular rule making, tweaks to program rules, or shifts in funding. But others are substantial departures from the typical scope of existing food policy. That, and the fact that many are happening at the same time, could make it more difficult for the research community to assess their impacts. Economics and policy analysis tools can predict some of the potential impacts of these federal policy changes, but consumers and policy makers do not solely respond to economic costs and benefits. Beliefs, messaging and marketing, international events and global market conditions, state and local policies, and new markets or technologies for food producers and consumers will also be important.
