The next phase of SNAP is not arriving all at once. It is unfolding the way financial pressure usually does in a household budget—subtly at first, then all at once. It shows up in the items left behind at checkout, in the snack aisle skipped, in the larger trip replaced by a smaller one.
During the 43-day government shutdown in late 2025—the longest in U.S. history—SNAP households offered an early glimpse of what happens when confidence in the program begins to waver. Weekly grocery spending among SNAP households fell by 10%, from $233 in the week of October 5 to $210 by October 26, before stabilizing into early November and eventually recovering. But the dip revealed how quickly behavior shifts when uncertainty enters the system.
That moment now looks less like a one-off disruption and more like a preview.
State-level Food Restriction Waivers are narrowing what counts as SNAP-eligible food. OBBBA (the Big Beautiful Bill Act) is tightening work requirements, limiting future benefit adjustments, and shifting more financial responsibility to states. Taken together, these changes point toward a more constrained SNAP environment defined by smaller baskets, sharper trade-offs and more deliberate spending.
In this report, we take a forward-looking view of how those changes will reshape behavior for consumers, brands and retailers alike.
The first signal: behavior under uncertainty.
The 2025 shutdown did not eliminate SNAP benefits, but it delayed them changing how households behaved.
What makes this period so revealing is not just the decline in spending, but the timing of it. SNAP households began pulling back before they knew how the disruption would resolve. That early response reflects a deeper truth: when confidence weakens, behavior adjusts immediately.
The pattern is clear in weekly spending. Grocery spend dropped from $233 in early October to $210 within two weeks, remaining suppressed before rebounding in mid-November. That softness did not mirror the same period in 2024, suggesting the pullback was not seasonal, but reactive.
The cuts were not evenly distributed. In earlier research conducted by Numerator, categories that could be deferred—hardware, snacks, beverages, and limited-service restaurant desserts—saw the most pronounced declines. These tradeoffs are meaningful indicators of how households prioritize under pressure.
Shopping behavior shifted alongside spending. Traffic declined across all major retailers, but the steepest drops were concentrated in convenience and eCommerce. Amazon traffic among SNAP shoppers fell 17% month-over-month, while 7-Eleven declined 18% and Shell 15%. The pattern suggests that when uncertainty rises, mobility narrows. Trips become more intentional and less impromptu. Baskets become more contained.
What happens when restrictions become permanent.
If the shutdown showed how SNAP households react to temporary disruption, Food Restriction Waivers will test how they adapt to structural change.
By the end of 2026, 19 states will have waivers in place, affecting roughly 7.5 million households, or one-third of SNAP participants. These policies directly restrict the use of SNAP benefits for categories such as soda, candy, and energy drinks—categories that were already more likely to be embedded in SNAP baskets.
In states where waivers are already active, soft drinks appeared in 23% of SNAP trips prior to implementation, compared to 18% in non-waiver states. Candy showed a similar pattern (21% vs. 17%), as did energy drinks (10% vs. 8%). This difference highlights how restrictions are arriving in places where engagement with these categories is already high. Brands that play in these categories will need to be vigilant in seeing how consumers respond.
In fact, consumers are already signaling how they will respond. Roughly half of soda and candy shoppers in waiver states expect to either reduce purchases or shift to cheaper alternatives using non-SNAP dollars. Some will substitute within SNAP-eligible categories, while others will absorb the cost outside the program.
The replacements themselves are revealing. Tea, coffee, juice, fruit, salty snacks, sports drinks, and even ice cream all emerge as alternatives. Some align with the intended health outcomes of the policy. Others do not. Restrictions may change what is purchased, but they do not erase the underlying needs driving those purchases whether that need is convenience, habit, or a small indulgence.
For brands, this creates a new dynamic. The opportunity is not just to replace restricted products, but to meet those same needs within the constraints of eligibility.
OBBBA and the reshaping of the SNAP consumer.
While Food Restriction Waivers change what can be purchased, OBBBA reshapes the program more fundamentally by altering eligibility, benefit levels, and long-term funding.
The changes are straightforward in structure, but far-reaching in effect. Work requirements now extend to adults aged 55 to 64 without dependents. Future updates to the Thrifty Food Plan are limited, constraining how benefits adjust to rising food costs. And states assume a greater share of both administrative and benefit-related expenses.
The financial impact builds over time. SNAP funding is projected to decline by $7.5 billion in 2026, growing to more than $20 billion annually by the end of the decade. Early reductions are driven by work requirements, while longer-term pressure shifts toward state-level cost-sharing.
For households, these changes are already being felt. In early 2026, more than half of SNAP households across both older and younger cohorts reported a decline in monthly benefits with older households showing heightened effects. Their behavior reflects it. Spending is shifting toward value-oriented retailers such as Sam’s Club, Dollar Tree, and Aldi, while pullback is more pronounced in online channels like Amazon and Walmart.com. Numerator also found these at-risk households are becoming more price-sensitive, more promotion-driven, and more selective in where and how they shop.
A more fragmented, localized future.
It is tempting to think of SNAP as a single national system, but the reality is becoming increasingly fragmented.
A household navigating new work requirements faces a different set of constraints than one adjusting to category restrictions. A retailer heavily exposed to restricted categories faces a different risk profile than one built around bulk value. And states themselves are entering this next phase from very different starting points, shaped by error rates, funding exposure, and policy implementation.
Numerator’s modeling using their own data on SNAP household exposure and error rates from the USDA highlights that divergence. States such as New Mexico, Oregon, California, and New York face greater financial pressure heading into 2027. For brands, recognizing SNAP is becoming more local, uneven and harder to generalize will be important.
What comes next for brands and retailers.
For brands and retailers, the path forward is less about reacting to a single change and more about adapting to a shifting system. Understanding which SNAP households are under pressure and why will become increasingly important. Strategies will need to move away from national averages and toward more targeted approaches, as behavior diverges across geographies and policy environments.
At the same time, the fundamentals of the SNAP shopper are becoming clearer. This is a consumer who is more price-aware, promotion-sensitive, and deliberate in decision-making. As constraints increase, so does scrutiny. The next era of SNAP will not be defined by a single moment, but by a series of smaller decisions based on what remains eligible, what gets substituted, what still feels worth buying. Over time, those decisions will reshape the basket in ways that are already beginning to take shape. For more on SNAP changes and a continued pulse on future policy changes, visit Numerator’s SNAP Hub with the latest insights.
