Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Did a federal agency send an email to grocery stores telling them not to give discounts to SNAP users?
Executive Summary
A federal agency—the U.S. Department of Agriculture—sent a notice to SNAP-authorized grocery retailers reminding them that they cannot provide special discounts exclusively to SNAP recipients unless a formal waiver permits it; that notice cited the program’s Equal Treatment Rule and prompted several retailers and apps to withdraw previously announced relief offers during benefit delays [1] [2] [3]. Reporting dates cluster in early November 2025 as the USDA enforced the rule amid benefit timing disruptions, and the development generated immediate debate between advocates who saw the rule as anti-discrimination and critics who viewed the enforcement as blocking emergency relief [1] [2] [4].
1. What advocates and headlines claimed — a federal email halted discounts in real time
Multiple news outlets and trade groups reported that the USDA sent an email or notice directly to grocery chains and independent stores warning them against offering discounts specifically to customers paying with SNAP EBT, citing the program’s Equal Treatment Rule and advising retailers that selective discounts could violate SNAP rules absent a waiver. The National Grocers Association publicly confirmed an email was distributed to members and independent retailers signaled they would comply while affirming their mission to serve customers fairly [2] [4]. These reports appeared as SNAP benefit deliveries were disrupted, and several retailers and food-delivery services that had announced special offers for impacted SNAP households rescinded them after receiving the USDA notice [1] [3].
2. The USDA’s legal position and the Equal Treatment Rule explained
The USDA’s communication relied on the Equal Treatment Rule, which requires that SNAP-authorized retailers present the same prices and terms to EBT customers as to other shoppers, and that a waiver is necessary to lawfully differentiate prices or offer targeted discounts to SNAP users. Sources report the USDA reiterated that retailers must either maintain identical pricing or obtain a waiver to deviate from equal treatment, framing this as a compliance measure rather than a discretionary policy choice [1] [2] [4]. The agency retains authority to grant waivers in emergencies, but reporters noted the USDA chose to emphasize rule compliance at the moment benefit delays were occurring, creating the central legal tension in coverage [4].
3. Divergent readings: anti-discrimination safeguard versus a block on emergency help
Commentary and reporting show two clear, competing interpretations. Supporters of the USDA notice frame the guidance as an anti-discrimination safeguard ensuring SNAP recipients are not charged different prices or targeted in ways that could undermine program integrity; this is consistent with the Equal Treatment Rule’s original intent [2] [4]. Critics argue enforcement here is counterproductive, contending the notice prevented voluntary retailer and platform efforts to alleviate hardship during a benefits delay, and that strict adherence without timely waivers effectively barred a form of private-sector relief [1] [3]. Coverage records vocal criticism from anti-hunger advocates and some retailers who felt the timing and interpretation impeded practical assistance.
4. What the reporting omits and what to watch next
Reporting indicates the USDA sent the notice and retailers complied, but several important details remain thinly covered: whether retailers sought waivers, the USDA’s internal rationale for denying or delaying waivers, and the scale of rescinded discounts in dollar terms. The available accounts do not document formal agency denials or approvals of waivers in this incident, nor do they present comprehensive data on how many SNAP households were affected by rescinded offers. Observers should watch for follow-on USDA statements, records of waiver requests and decisions, and documented impact on SNAP recipients to fully assess whether this was a narrow compliance reminder or a policy choice with measurable harmful effects [1] [2] [3].
5. Bottom line: the core fact and why it mattered at the time
The core fact is clear in contemporaneous reporting: the USDA issued a notice to retailers explaining that discounts exclusively for SNAP users can violate the program’s Equal Treatment Rule absent a waiver, and that communication led some businesses to withdraw planned relief offers during a benefits delay [1] [2] [3]. The disagreement is not about whether the email was sent but about interpretation and consequences: proponents emphasize program integrity and anti-discrimination; critics emphasize that rigid enforcement without timely waivers undercut emergency relief for vulnerable households. The story’s enduring significance depends on subsequent agency actions on waivers and documented impacts on SNAP recipients.