If the administration's decision is based on "the government should stay out of your family's life," then I may see logic here.
One problem is that if mothers use formula instead of breastfeeding early on then their milk dries up. At that point they are stuck with formula, but if for economic reasons they are unable to get adequate supplies of formula then they may resort to over-watering, which then leads to malnutrition. Cleanliness of water supplies used for mixing of formula may also be a problem in many areas.
Edit: after seeing some of the other discussion of what's apparently become a bullying culture around breastfeeding I can see that as a valid concern. However most of that discussion appears to be centered around the US, Canada, Europe, etc where formula availability should be pretty good and relatively affordable. A lot of the places where this is relevant are in much poorer nations where "slightly expensive" formula by US standards is prohibitively expensive by local standards.
Would folks in the US feel that formula was a good alternative if it cost as much as your rent/mortgage? How about if you got a free supply to start out, just long enough for the mother to mostly stop lactating?
As for them wanting to stay out of families lives, woosh, if this was the issue they drew the line on, that would be quite something. More likely it was lobbying dollars from the 70 billion dollar industry.
To show another extreme, the recent California bill making it not a felony to give HIV to others, or to donate blood if you're HIV-positive is where it seems like the government is being too hands-off.
And that also assumes we won't get better at treating and prolonging life for things like lung cancer.