US Agriculture Secretary Draws Backlash Over ‘Out of Touch’ $3 Meal Budget
US Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has ignited backlash after suggesting Americans can eat healthy meals for as little as $3 a day. The remarks, made during a televised interview, quickly spread online, with critics accusing the administration of being disconnected from the realities of rising grocery prices.
Speaking to NewsNation, Rollins said her department ran more than 1,000 simulations showing that meals aligning with the administration’s new dietary guidelines could cost around $3. “It can cost around $3 a meal for a piece of chicken, a piece of broccoli, a corn tortilla and one other thing,” she said, arguing that healthier eating does not require higher spending.
Instead of reassuring the public, the comments triggered widespread ridicule. Social media users questioned how anyone could buy single portions at grocery stores, while others pointed out that the proposed meal falls short of basic caloric needs for most adults.
What Rollins Meant by a $3 Healthy Meal
Rollins defended her comments by tying them to the administration’s newly updated dietary guidelines, which emphasize whole foods, protein, and reduced reliance on ultra-processed products. Writing in The Guardian, Marina Dunbar noted that Rollins framed the $3 meal as an example rather than a strict prescription, insisting Americans are “not being asked to spend more on their diet”.
According to The Washington Post, Rollins said the USDA identified “hundreds of thousands” of possible low-cost meal combinations that fit the guidelines. A USDA spokesperson later pointed to meals built around eggs, canned tuna, frozen vegetables, and whole grains as additional options.
Rollins also argued that eating whole foods can be cheaper than relying on fast food or packaged snacks. In a follow-up interview on Fox Business, she said chicken and vegetables are often “less expensive than buying a fast food meal or a bag of chips and an energy drink,” pushing back on claims that healthy eating is inherently unaffordable.
Why the Comments Struck a Nerve
The backlash reflects deeper frustration over food affordability. As The Washington Post reported, grocery prices rose 0.7% in December alone—more than double the overall inflation rate—leaving many households stretched thin even before dietary changes are considered
Joel Berg, CEO of Hunger Free America, told The Washington Post that while it may be technically possible to cook a $3 meal, sustaining that lifestyle is far more difficult. “Healthier food is generally more expensive,” he said, noting that buying in bulk, shopping multiple stores, and spending extra time cooking are luxuries many low-income families do not have.
Critics also pointed to the broader economic context. Writing in The Independent, Rachel Dobkin noted that Rollins’s remarks came as SNAP benefits face reductions under recent legislation, with nutrition funding projected to fall by nearly $186 billion over the next decade.
What the Debate Reveals About Food Policy
The controversy has become a flashpoint in the national debate over food policy and affordability. Congressional Democrats seized on Rollins’s comments as evidence of elitism, with one representative calling the proposed meal “a slap in the face to struggling working families,” according to The Guardian.
Rollins has continued to defend the administration’s approach, saying the goal is to steer Americans away from sugar-heavy, ultra-processed foods and toward healthier options without increasing costs. She has also highlighted new USDA requirements that SNAP-accepting retailers stock more nutritious foods, framing the effort as long-term reform rather than short-term sacrifice.
Still, the backlash underscores how sensitive food affordability has become. For many Americans facing rising rent, healthcare, and childcare costs, the idea of a $3 healthy meal feels less like guidance and more like a reminder of the growing gap between policy assumptions and daily life.
