The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has told grocery stores they cannot offer special discounts to customers impacted by the lapse in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding, even as millions of families brace for food aid to run out.
MSNBC anchor/co-host of The Weekend, Catherine Rampell, shared on X that at least two grocery stores had offered discounts to struggling shoppers affected by the funding lapse, but withdrew them after receiving an email from the USDA.
She also posted a copy of the official reminder from the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), which read:
“YOU MUST OFFER ELIGIBLE FOODS AT THE SAME PRICES AND ON THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS TO SNAP-EBT CUSTOMERS AS OTHER CUSTOMERS, EXCEPT THAT SALES TAX CANNOT BE CHARGED ON SNAP PURCHASES.”
The notice continued: “OFFERING DISCOUNTS OR SERVICES ONLY TO SNAP PAYING CUSTOMERS IS A SNAP VIOLATION UNLESS YOU HAVE A SNAP EQUAL TREATMENT WAIVER.”
Rampell noted, “Understandable why grocery stores might be scared off. Store caught violating the prohibition could be denied ability to accept SNAP benefits in future. In low-inc areas where SNAP shutdown will have biggest impact, getting thrown off SNAP could mean a store is no longer viable.”
She also criticized Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins for attempting to “change the subject” away from President Donald Trump’s decision to pause food aid for 40 million Americans, saying, “To be fair, no one can fraudulently receive benefits if no one receives benefits, period. A reverse Blackstone’s ratio.”
Waivers Are Possible, But Not Easy
While the USDA does allow waivers in some cases, they are mostly limited to programs promoting healthier food, like those run at farmers’ markets or through federal initiatives such as GusNIP.
For most stores, offering SNAP-exclusive discounts without prior approval remains prohibited.
A February 2024 Federal Register notice clarified that only stores outside of federal grant programs must apply for an individual waiver to provide incentives to SNAP recipients.
Despite a streamlined waiver process introduced in 2020, only a small number of retailers, about 15 groups covering around 730 stores, receive such approval each year.
Farmers markets are the exception. They currently operate under a blanket waiver and can provide discounts or incentives to SNAP customers without requesting additional approval.
But for brick-and-mortar grocery stores unaffiliated with a federal grant, the USDA’s stance is clear: no special pricing, even in the face of a national funding freeze.
Impact of the Shutdown on Families
This enforcement comes just as SNAP benefits have officially been cut off as of Nov. 1, due to the ongoing government shutdown.
Roughly 42 million Americans rely on SNAP, that’s about 1 in 8 people, including 1 in 5 children.
In two separate rulings, federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration to resume food aid payments using emergency reserves.
One ruling, by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, stated the administration was wrong to conclude that the USDA couldn’t tap into contingency funds. She wrote that Congress had intended for SNAP to continue “at a reduced rate if necessary” during funding gaps.
A second ruling by Judge John J. McConnell Jr. ordered the administration to make full November SNAP payments by Nov. 3 or partial payments by Nov. 5 using any available reserves.
President Trump responded on Truth Social, saying he had instructed government lawyers to ask the courts how the administration could legally fund Snap, adding: “Even if we get immediate guidance, it will unfortunately be delayed.”
He added, “If we are given the appropriate legal direction by the Court, it will BE MY HONOR to provide the funding.”
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said SNAP payments could be distributed as soon as Wednesday, though no formal timeline has been confirmed.
Living the Reality
In a Time magazine essay, author Stephanie Land reflected on her experience with food insecurity as a single mom.
Land wrote that she once lost access to food stamps after failing to meet a 20-hour weekly work requirement, even though she was attending school and working part-time.
“It didn’t matter that I was a full-time student and worked 10-15 hours a week,” Land wrote.
“In their opinion, I wasn’t working enough to deserve to eat.”
She said the trauma of losing access to food aid never fully goes away.
“Programs referred to as a ‘safety net’ are anything but when they can be removed with a thoughtless, vague message, or scribble from a permanent marker,” she said.
History of Welfare and Stigma
Land explained that welfare in the U.S. has long been shaped more by judgment than support.
Back in the Great Depression, single moms could get cash support more easily, without all the strings attached that came later.
But by the 1960s, Presidents Kennedy and Johnson began promoting work requirements and job training as part of welfare reform, shifting the focus toward employment as a condition for receiving public assistance.
Over time, the system became more invasive. Caseworkers would conduct unannounced home visits, and people could lose benefits over even small changes in income.
Land said this constant threat wasn’t a glitch, it was part of how the system was built, keeping people afraid to lose what little help they had.
This view aligns with journalist Adam Serwer’s argument in his bestselling book The Cruelty Is the Point, which explains how harsh policies have long been used to assert control over marginalized groups in the U.S.
Serwer writes that these policies aren’t accidental or misguided, they are intentional acts of exclusion that serve a political purpose.
Red Tape in Place of Relief
The USDA’s reminder to retailers highlights how even basic acts of community support, like giving a discount to hungry neighbors, can trigger federal warnings.
As food banks and mutual aid networks step in to fill the gap left by suspended SNAP payments, stores are being told they risk penalties for showing compassion without prior government approval.
The result is a patchwork system that discourages assistance unless it comes through bureaucratic channels.
And for the 42 million Americans who have now lost access to food assistance as of Nov. 1, that bureaucracy offers little comfort.
In a time when millions are relying on any help they can get, the USDA’s stance sends a message: helping the poor isn’t just discouraged, it may be punishable.
And for many, that confirms what they’ve suspected all along: the cruelty isn’t accidental.
It’s the point.