The GOP wants to shut down another move that many Americans don’t know about.
Republicans are pushing a new restriction on food stamps that would prevent SNAP benefits from being used at restaurants, as lawmakers intensify their scrutiny of how taxpayer-funded food assistance is being spent.
Freshman Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, introduced legislation Thursday that would eliminate the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program’s Restaurant Meals Program, commonly known as RMP.
The program currently allows certain qualifying SNAP recipients to purchase prepared meals from participating restaurants.
Gill says the federal assistance program should focus on helping struggling Americans buy groceries and nutritious food rather than paying for restaurant purchases.
Gill told the New York Post that SNAP should be focused on helping Americans in need afford nutritious groceries rather than using taxpayer-funded benefits to cover fast-food purchases.
His proposal comes after reports showed hundreds of millions of dollars in SNAP benefits being spent at restaurants in states participating in the program.
$524 Million in SNAP Benefits Spent at Restaurants
Approximately $524 million in SNAP benefits were spent at restaurants across nine participating states between June 2023 and May 2025, according to figures previously reported by the New York Post.
California accounted for by far the largest share, with approximately $475 million in restaurant purchases.
Arizona followed with roughly $41.4 million, while New York recorded approximately $3.6 million.
The other participating states cited in the report were Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Michigan, Illinois, Maryland and Virginia,
Those numbers have attracted attention from Republican lawmakers who argue that a federal program financed by taxpayers should concentrate on essential grocery purchases.
Gill said the level of restaurant spending demonstrates why Congress should reconsider the existing rules.
Gill said that more than $500 million in SNAP funds have been spent at restaurants over the past two years, even as the Trump administration pushes to remove unhealthy food options from the program.
What Gill’s SNAP Bill Would Actually Do
Despite the broader debate over food stamps, Gill’s legislation would not eliminate SNAP or prevent eligible Americans from receiving grocery assistance.
Instead, his Ending Restaurant Purchases with SNAP Act specifically targets the Restaurant Meals Program.
Under the proposal, SNAP recipients would no longer be able to use their benefits to purchase meals at participating restaurants through RMP.
However, the legislation would preserve other forms of assistance for vulnerable Americans.
Public agencies and nonprofit organizations could still provide meals to eligible recipients, including elderly and disabled Americans who qualify for home-delivered meals.
That provision is intended to maintain assistance for people who may have legitimate difficulty shopping for groceries or preparing meals themselves.
Why Restaurant Purchases Were Originally Allowed
The Restaurant Meals Program has been around for decades.
Its origins date to the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, when lawmakers sought to accommodate certain food-assistance recipients who lacked adequate cooking facilities or proper food storage.
The idea was to ensure that vulnerable Americans who could not reasonably prepare meals at home still had access to food.
Republican critics now argue that the program has expanded beyond that original mission, particularly as major fast-food and quick-service restaurant chains have become involved.
That concern has fueled a broader debate in Washington over where the government should draw the line between providing necessary food assistance and placing reasonable restrictions on taxpayer-funded benefits.
Republicans Push for Greater SNAP Accountability
Gill has been outspoken about SNAP spending before introducing his latest legislation.
During a June hearing, the Texas Republican questioned Gina Plata-Nino, director of SNAP Policy and Advocacy at the Food Research and Action Center, about whether benefits should be used to purchase products such as sugary soft drinks.
During the exchange, Gill questioned whether Coca-Cola should be considered something Americans need in order to survive.
Gill later argued that most reasonable people would agree Coca-Cola is not a necessity for survival.
The exchange highlighted an increasingly prominent question surrounding SNAP: Should recipients have broad freedom to determine what food they purchase, or should taxpayers have a greater say in what federal benefits can cover?
Republicans advocating changes have increasingly emphasized nutrition, program integrity and responsible use of taxpayer money.
GOP Lawmakers Question Fast-Food Purchases
Gill’s legislation also follows an earlier effort by congressional Republicans to investigate restaurant spending under SNAP.
In July, Gill joined a group of GOP lawmakers led by Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, in raising concerns about the amount of federal food-assistance money flowing to fast-food and quick-service restaurants.
The lawmakers called on the Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services to examine the Restaurant Meals Program and determine whether its rules should be tightened.
They argued that the program had grown considerably beyond the limited accommodation envisioned decades ago.
“What was originally intended as a narrow accommodation for individuals unable to store or prepare food, the program has grown and is now dominated by large national fast-food and quick-service chains,” the Republican lawmakers wrote.
Debate Over Taxpayer Dollars Intensifies
Supporters of the Restaurant Meals Program argue that prepared-food options can be important for elderly, disabled and homeless Americans who may not have reliable access to a kitchen or the ability to prepare their own meals.
Republicans backing Gill’s proposal contend those needs can still be addressed without allowing SNAP dollars to flow directly to restaurants.
That distinction is central to Gill’s legislation.
Rather than eliminating food assistance for vulnerable Americans, the proposal would restrict where SNAP dollars can be spent while preserving other programs capable of providing prepared meals to people who need them.
The debate is therefore likely to center on two competing priorities: maintaining flexibility for Americans facing difficult circumstances while ensuring taxpayer-funded benefits remain focused on their intended purpose.
With approximately $524 million reportedly spent at restaurants over a two-year period, Republicans now have a sizable figure to point to as they push for tighter controls.
Whether Gill’s proposal can gain enough support in Congress remains to be seen, but the legislation ensures that SNAP spending, fast-food purchases and taxpayer accountability will remain part of the larger debate over the future of America’s food-assistance programs.