McDonald's launching new ‘McValue' menu this month. Here's what it includes
After two years of tweaks to its value menu, McDonald’s has a new strategy: keep it simple.
The fast-food giant’s budget-focused McValue menu will have 10 items that each cost under $3 starting April 21. The breakfast items include hash browns or a Sausage McMuffin. A small order of fries or a McDouble burger are among the options the rest of the day.
Some of the items already cost less than $3 in some parts of the U.S., but others don't. The standardized selection will replace McDonald’s current McValue menu, which lets customers choose from a limited array of $1 items if they purchase a regular-priced item.
The shift to simpler value menu messaging and more flexibility follows similar by moves by rivals of McDonald’s. In January, Taco Bell launched a Luxe Value Menu, which also features 10 items that cost $3 or less. Panera Bread introduced its first value menu in February, with 10 items priced at $4.99 each.
Wendy’s revamped its Biggie Deals value menu in January. It now features $4 Biggie Bites, a $6 Biggie Bag and an $8 Biggie Bundle. KFC recently added $5 bowls to its U.S. menu.
Value menus are designed to offer customers more affordable options, even as fast-food companies also bring out higher-priced items like McDonald’s Big Arch burger or Burger King’s limited-time Peppercorn BLT Whopper.
Chains have emphasized value for several years to win back customers who were frustrated by food price inflation. Historically, prices for food away from home rise 3.5% per year, but in 2023 they rose 7%, in 2024 they rose 4% and in 2025 they rose 3.8%, according to government figures.
Local
Chicago teens discuss ways to address mass gatherings during city hall hearing
“In all retail, including quick-serve restaurants, ‘value’ has become a promotional expectation,” said Roger Beahm, an emeritus professor of marketing at Wake Forest University’s School of Business.
In June 2024, McDonald’s introduced a $5 Meal Deal; it will add a $4 Breakfast Meal Deal on April 21. It debuted the McValue menu in January 2025, and last fall it brought out Extra Value Meals, which promise a 15% discount for a bundled meal compared to buying items individually.
“Value matters more than ever to our customers, and we take that responsibility seriously,” Alyssa Buetikofer, the chief marketing and customer experience officer for McDonald’s USA, told The Associated Press.
Buetikofer said McDonald’s has improved customers’ perceptions of value and affordability since 2024. But the company decided to revamp its McValue menu after customers said they wanted more flexibility and better value in the morning. Half of the items on the under-$3 menu are breakfast items.
Scott Rodrick, a McDonald’s franchisee in California, praised the new strategy. He thinks ordering will go more smoothly because customers will have fewer questions about the deals.
“The value proposition is super clear — no deep explanation or mental gymnastics needed to understand where value is on my menu board,” Rodrick said.
Rodrick said the changes received broad support from franchisees and most U.S. stores will be offering them. Around 95% of McDonald’s U.S. stores are owned and operated by franchisees, who set their own pricing.
Fast food’s juggling act – investing in value through promotions and discounts while raising prices on some premium items – appears to be paying off, according to Revenue Management Solutions, a restaurant consulting company. In February, customer traffic at U.S. fast-food restaurants rose less than 1% compared to the same month year. Traffic was down 2% during the last three months of 2025 and in January.
But the company warned that higher gas prices due to the Iran war likely impacted fast-food traffic in March. That could put pressure on fast-food chains to offer even more value.
The term “value” is at risk of overuse, Beahm said. Over time, the surprise-and-delight of a deal loses its appeal, and customers forget what they used to pay for certain products, he said.
“If everything is always positioned as a value, then can anything really be a value?” Beahm said.
He thinks new products are a good strategy for attracting customers. Improving service or offering unexpected perks – like a donation to a charity with every purchase – are other ways.
Jennifer Fritch, an assistant professor of marketing at Arcadia University, agreed. The fast-food market is crowded, she said, and focusing solely on price turns food into a commodity. Younger customers, in particular, are looking for emotional experiences, personalization and transparency about ingredients, and are willing to pay more when they find them, she said.
“If it’s just cheap food, that’s not a winning long-term strategy,” Fritch said. “The list of demands and list of expectations is higher than it has ever been, and it’s insufficient to try to gain sales just on cost.”
CBS Host LOSES IT After Sen. Kennedy FACT CHECKS Her Trump LIES… THIS GOT BAD!...
CBS Host PRESSES John Kennedy on Trump’s Spending — His Answer Takes an Unexpected Turn
The interview began with some of the biggest questions facing Washington: the conflict with Iran, rising fuel costs, and the approaching midterm elections. But when Republican Senator John Kennedy appeared on Face the Nation with CBS host Margaret Brennan, the conversation quickly moved toward an issue that could shape the political debate for months to come: how the government spends taxpayers’ money.
Kennedy did not pretend that the economic pressure facing American families was insignificant. He argued that voters were far more concerned about the cost of living than the daily battles playing out on television. With oil prices affected by disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz, he said, the consequences of foreign policy were reaching directly into household budgets.
Kennedy Brings the Conversation Back to Affordability
Kennedy’s message to the White House was unusually direct. He predicted that the midterm elections would be close and argued that Republicans needed to keep their attention on the financial concerns of ordinary Americans.
“When moms and dads lie down to sleep at night and can't,” Kennedy told Brennan, they are worried about the cost of living.
He also called for a nationwide address explaining why the United States entered the conflict with Iran, what the administration hoped to achieve, and how it intended to bring the situation to a conclusion.
His position was not a blanket rejection of the administration’s strategy. Kennedy defended continued pressure on Iran while acknowledging the economic consequences of the partially closed strait. He opposed sending American troops into the situation, warning that deploying them could create a new set of problems.
That combination—support for pressure abroad alongside concern about prices at home—set the tone for the rest of the interview.
Nearly $1 Billion in Cuts Sparks a Constitutional Dispute
The conversation became more pointed when Brennan asked about the White House’s decision to cancel nearly $1 billion in previously approved federal funding without congressional consent.
Brennan raised concerns expressed by Senator Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, who argued that the move threatened Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending.
Kennedy disagreed.
“I love Susan like a taco, but she's wrong,” he said before explaining his view that Congress often appropriates money in broad categories, leaving agencies with considerable discretion over how funds are ultimately used.
He then deployed the phrase that would become the interview’s most memorable sound bite: “Spending porn.”
Kennedy used the expression to criticize what he considers wasteful government expenditures, pointing to funding for circumcision programs in Zambia and electric buses in Rwanda. He also argued that Congress should take greater responsibility for identifying and eliminating spending it believes is unnecessary.
But the disagreement was about more than whether particular programs were worthwhile. It raised a larger question: when Congress approves funding, how much authority should the executive branch have to cancel or redirect it?
Kennedy defended the cuts, while Brennan’s question highlighted the legal and constitutional objections. The interview did not resolve that dispute, but it brought the competing arguments into sharp focus.
Then Kennedy Turned the Standard on Trump
The most revealing moment came when Brennan shifted from the proposed cuts to taxpayer-funded advertising.
She asked Kennedy about a government-funded commercial prominently featuring President Donald Trump and praising his leadership. The question echoed earlier controversy surrounding former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose department had spent $220 million on a border-security advertising campaign in which she appeared prominently.
Kennedy had previously criticized Noem’s campaign. Now, with Trump featured in another advertisement paid for by the federal government, Brennan asked whether that spending was appropriate.
Kennedy’s response was notable because he explicitly included his own political allies—and himself—in the principle he was defending.
“I don't think any public official, including President Trump or Kristi Noem or John Kennedy, should spend public money on private ads for themselves,” he said.
He acknowledged that the White House viewed the issue differently but argued that public funds should not be used to promote individual politicians. He also suggested that politicians should not have buildings named after them while they are still alive.
That answer complicated any attempt to portray his position as simply a defense of the administration. Kennedy supported the proposed spending cuts, but he also applied his criticism of taxpayer-funded self-promotion to Trump.
The Real Takeaway From the Interview
The exchange was not a shouting match, nor does the published transcript establish that Brennan lost her composure or that Kennedy fact-checked a series of false statements from her. What it does show is a pointed discussion about economic priorities, congressional spending authority, and whether public money should be used to enhance a politician’s image.
Kennedy’s argument was straightforward: families are worried about affordability, government spending deserves scrutiny, and the rules should apply regardless of party.
Whether viewers agree with his assessment of the proposed cuts is a separate question. The legal dispute over executive spending authority and the debate over taxpayer-funded political advertising deserve examination beyond a few memorable television lines.
The moment worth watching is when Brennan moves from criticizing government spending in general to asking Kennedy about an advertisement featuring Trump himself. That is where the discussion becomes more complicated—and where Kennedy’s stated principle is tested against his own party’s leadership.
Watch the full interview through the link below to hear the exchange in context and decide how convincing each side’s argument really was.
