Download the list of individual SNAP retailers at higher risk here.
The U.S. House Committee on Agriculture will soon release its proposal for what are likely to be the largest cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in its history. Options under consideration reportedly include forcing states to take on a portion of benefit costs for the first time; freezing benefit increases from future Thrifty Food Plan adjustments; and expanding burdensome work requirements to older Americans and families with children—all of which would cut at the heart of the nation’s food assistance system. Cuts to SNAP would not just affect Americans enrolled in the program but would also pull the rug out from under grocers, farmers, and the broader economy. A new Center for American Progress analysis identifies the 27,000 authorized SNAP retailers that would be at higher risk of financial hardship in response to such cuts.
Retailers in counties with high SNAP usage and low food access are at higher risk
The impacts of cuts to SNAP are likely to be felt most strongly in areas with the highest rates of SNAP participation. In these communities, even if a family doesn’t personally see their budget for food reduced, community residents could see their local grocer close. Families that see their benefits reduced or taken away entirely will have fewer resources to pay for the costs of rising food prices, meaning more people will go hungry as sales at authorized SNAP retailers fall. This can be particularly difficult for businesses in communities with high rates of SNAP participation that depend on the revenue from these benefits. As Figure 1 shows, more than 27,000 retailers in over 300 counties across the country could soon face severe financial hardship if cuts to food assistance were to be enacted.
To determine which businesses are most likely to be harmed by SNAP cuts, the authors utilized two county-level factors. First, the authors identified the top 10 percent of counties with the highest SNAP participation rates relative to the total population, based on administrative participant data for 2022—the latest available—as well as U.S. Census Bureau population data. Second, the authors used a ratio for the number of SNAP retailers per 1,000 SNAP recipients, with counties below the median ratio having limited options for families receiving assistance to use their benefits. The 27,266 businesses in the 303 counties that met both criteria are classified as being at higher risk from SNAP cuts. This includes 3,721 smaller grocery stores, 994 specialty stores, and 600 farmers and markets.
95 percent of counties with the highest rates of people receiving SNAP have limited access to retailers that accept SNAP benefits.
Importantly, access to authorized SNAP retailers fell with rising SNAP participation. In fact, 95 percent of counties with the highest rates of people receiving SNAP have limited access to retailers that accept SNAP benefits, highlighting the disparities in food access among poorer parts of the country. Even if there are other stores nearby, families receiving assistance can be limited by those that accept SNAP. Rural areas are disproportionately represented among these high-risk counties, making up 77 percent of these areas despite only representing 62 percent of counties, according to the Department of Agriculture’s Rural-Urban Continuum Codes. The relatively few businesses within these communities that accept SNAP payments are essential for meeting the needs of families that already struggle affording enough food. Cutting SNAP benefits would put the future of these businesses at risk by slashing a substantial source of revenue.
SNAP is a lifeline for rural economies and small grocers
Cuts to food assistance will have strong negative impacts on families’ budgets and will lead to decreases in spending on food and other household goods, causing ripple effects for communities’ local economies. In rural areas, $1 of SNAP spending generates roughly $1.50 in local economic activity during recessions. Prior research also demonstrates that SNAP dollars have a larger relative positive impact on rural economies by increasing employment and economic output than it does for urban economies.
Grocery retailers of all sizes should expect shocks to their revenue following cuts in food assistance. SNAP benefits are vital to the economic stability of the grocery industry and related jobs in agriculture. In 2020, SNAP supported nearly 199,000 jobs within the independent grocery industry and another 45,000 jobs in related industries such as agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, and local services.
“Some stores in low-income neighborhoods have more than 50 percent SNAP sales. A 20 percent cut to SNAP would make it very difficult for stores like this, in food deserts, to remain open.”
– Stephanie Johnson, National Grocers Association
Grocers, farmers, and researchers are already expressing concerns about how SNAP cuts will impact grocery retailers across the nation. In an interview, Stephanie Johnson of the National Grocers Association stressed the connection between SNAP sales and independent grocers, saying, “Some stores in low-income neighborhoods have more than 50 percent SNAP sales. A 20 percent cut to SNAP would make it very difficult for stores like this, in food deserts, to remain open.” A March 2025 study published by the Commonwealth Fund estimates that the cuts proposed in the House budget resolution would result in the loss of almost 78,000 food-related jobs in agriculture, retail grocery, and food processing, as well as 65,000 jobs in other industries, as local economies feel the impacts of decreased economic spending. Losing these 143,000 jobs would devastate communities and only worsen food access in rural areas.
Conclusion
Cutting food assistance would destabilize the food industry amid a period of already great uncertainty. The hardship generated by reductions in SNAP sales for retailers that depend on customers having access to these benefits coincides with the expected rising cost of goods due to Trump’s tariffs and the growing fears of an upcoming recession. Grocery stores that are forced to cut staff and close in response to reduced food purchasing will further limit access to food in communities across the country, even for consumers who do not use SNAP.
The authors would like to thank Lily Roberts, Joe Radosevich, Natalie Baker, Emily Gee, Colin Seeberger, Madeline Shepherd, Jerry Parshall, Bianca Serbin, Bill Rapp, and Will Beaudouin for their feedback.