Section 10101 Impact

Section 10101: Re-evaluation of thrifty food plan

Executive Summary

Section 10101 changes how the U.S. Department of Agriculture may update the Thrifty Food Plan, the food-cost model used to set maximum Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefit allotments. It does not create a new grant program or direct appropriation. Instead, it changes the formula and administrative process that determine future SNAP benefit levels.[1]

The core policy change is a cost-neutrality rule: USDA may re-evaluate the Thrifty Food Plan market baskets based on updated food prices, food composition data, consumption patterns, and dietary guidance, but the Secretary may not increase the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan because of that re-evaluation.[2] Annual inflation updates continue, using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, but future nutrition, consumption, or market-basket updates cannot raise the plan’s cost above the inflation-adjusted baseline.[3]

The practical effect is that SNAP benefits may continue to rise with inflation, but they are blocked from rising because USDA finds that a nutritionally adequate low-cost diet has become more expensive for reasons not captured by the allowed inflation adjustment. CBO estimated that Section 10101 would make average monthly SNAP benefits smaller beginning in 2027; by 2034, CBO projected an average monthly benefit of $213 under the law compared with $227 in its January 2025 baseline.[4]

What Section 10101 Actually Does

Section 10101 rewrites subsection 3(u) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, which defines the Thrifty Food Plan. The Thrifty Food Plan is the USDA market basket that serves as the basis for maximum SNAP allotments.[5]

It does five main things:

1. It anchors the Thrifty Food Plan to the diet described in USDA’s Thrifty Food Plan, 2021 report and successor reports updated under the revised statute.[6]

2. It states that the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan is the basis for uniform allotments for all households, regardless of actual household composition.[7]

3. It codifies household-size adjustment ratios for SNAP allotments, including 30 percent of the four-person maximum allotment for a one-person household, 55 percent for two persons, 79 percent for three persons, 100 percent for four persons, and higher ratios for larger households.[8]

4. It continues special cost adjustments for Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, subject to statutory limits.[9]

5. It allows USDA to re-evaluate Thrifty Food Plan market baskets not earlier than October 1, 2027, based on current food prices, food composition data, consumption patterns, and dietary guidance, but prohibits the Secretary from increasing the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan based on that re-evaluation.[10]

Section 10101 does not appropriate a fixed dollar amount. Its budget effect comes from lowering future mandatory SNAP benefit levels relative to the prior-law baseline. CBO’s supplemental SNAP analysis found that Section 10101 would not reduce SNAP participation, but would reduce average monthly benefits relative to CBO’s January 2025 baseline beginning in 2027.[11]

Program or activity	Amount	What the money supports
New direct appropriation in Section 10101	$0	The section does not create a new funding account or provide a direct appropriation. It changes the benefit calculation rules for SNAP.
Estimated average SNAP benefit effect by 2034	$213 monthly average benefit under the law, compared with $227 in CBO’s January 2025 baseline	This reflects CBO’s estimate that benefits will be lower than projected under prior law because future Thrifty Food Plan re-evaluations cannot increase the plan’s cost.
Reported ten-year federal SNAP spending reduction associated with the Thrifty Food Plan restriction	About $37 billion over ten years, as summarized in implementation materials citing CBO estimates	This is not a new spending line; it is an estimated reduction in future federal SNAP benefit spending relative to baseline projections.

The section therefore operates as a benefit-indexing constraint, not as a conventional appropriation. It limits future benefit growth by separating annual inflation updates from broader nutritional or market-basket re-evaluations.

Legislative Mechanism

Section 10101 amends the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 by striking and replacing the existing Thrifty Food Plan definition. That is a direct statutory amendment to SNAP’s benefit framework, not a temporary appropriations rider.

The key legal mechanism is the distinction between:

• annual inflation adjustment, which continues on October 1, 2025, and each October 1 thereafter using CPI-U for the most recent 12-month period ending in June; and
• market-basket re-evaluation, which may consider updated food prices, food composition, consumption patterns, and dietary guidance, but cannot increase the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan.[12]

Before this change, CRS described SNAP maximum allotments as tied to the cost of a nutritionally adequate, low-cost diet measured by USDA’s Thrifty Food Plan market basket, with the 2018 farm bill requiring a re-evaluation every five years.[13] USDA’s 2021 re-evaluation updated the plan to reflect food prices, food composition, consumption patterns, and dietary guidance, and USDA stated that the resulting market basket costs served as the basis for SNAP benefit allotments beginning October 1, 2021.[14]

Section 10101 narrows that administrative discretion. USDA can still study the market basket, but the Secretary cannot use the re-evaluation to increase the plan’s cost. That means the scientific, nutritional, and consumption-pattern review may affect the composition of the basket, but not the total cost if the result would raise the Thrifty Food Plan above the allowed inflation-adjusted path.

Expenditure Tracking and Reporting Protocol

Because Section 10101 affects mandatory SNAP benefit spending, tracking will occur through existing SNAP budget execution, benefit issuance, and oversight systems rather than through a new Section 10101-specific account.

Likely tracking sources include USDA Food and Nutrition Service benefit issuance data, SNAP state agency reporting to FNS, Treasury outlay data, OMB budget execution materials, USDA budget justifications, CBO baseline and cost-estimate materials, and public SNAP program data. Retail-level redemptions may be visible in aggregate through SNAP redemption and retailer data, but Section 10101-specific effects will generally be difficult to isolate in public datasets because the lower benefit levels will be embedded in the overall SNAP allotment formula rather than recorded as a separate reduction line.

Reporting is likely to work as follows:

• USDA calculates annual SNAP allotments using the Thrifty Food Plan and CPI-U adjustment rules.
• FNS issues policy memoranda and allotment tables to state SNAP agencies.
• State agencies administer eligibility and load benefits onto EBT accounts.
• Benefits are redeemed at authorized retailers.
• Aggregate spending appears through SNAP outlays, FNS program data, Treasury and OMB budget reporting, CBO baseline analysis, and oversight reviews.
• Public visibility of the Section 10101 effect is likely to be delayed, modeled, and partially aggregated because the provision changes the counterfactual benefit baseline rather than creating a distinct spending stream.

flowchart TD
    A[Section 10101 statutory formula] --> B[USDA FNS Thrifty Food Plan calculation]
    B --> C[Annual SNAP allotment tables and COLA guidance]
    C --> D[State SNAP agencies]
    D --> E[EBT benefit issuance to households]
    E --> F[Authorized food retailers]
    F --> G[USDA FNS program data and budget execution]
    G --> H[Treasury and OMB outlay reporting]
    G --> I[CBO baseline and cost estimates]
    G --> J[GAO USDA OIG and congressional oversight]
    G --> K[Public visibility aggregated and delayed]
    K --> L[Section specific effects require baseline comparison]

The clearest public measure will not be a Section 10101 account balance. It will be the difference between actual SNAP allotments and a modeled baseline in which future Thrifty Food Plan re-evaluations could raise benefit levels. CBO’s estimate that the average monthly SNAP benefit would be $213 in 2034 rather than $227 under its baseline is an example of that kind of modeled public tracking.[15]

Day-to-Day Government Process Changes

For USDA, the section changes the practical value of future Thrifty Food Plan re-evaluations. USDA can still collect and analyze food prices, food composition data, consumption patterns, and dietary guidance. However, if that analysis shows that a realistic nutritious low-cost diet requires a more expensive basket, USDA may not increase the Thrifty Food Plan’s cost on that basis.[16]

For FNS, the annual SNAP allotment process becomes more constrained. The agency must continue to issue annual cost-of-living updates, but those updates are tied to the statutory CPI-U adjustment rather than a re-evaluated market basket that could increase benefits because of updated nutrition science or changed household food consumption.

For state SNAP agencies, the effect is mostly downstream. States will continue to apply federal allotment tables, eligibility rules, and EBT issuance procedures. They will not need to create a new eligibility category for Section 10101. However, customer-service pressure may increase if households experience lower-than-expected future benefit levels and ask why benefits did not rise with food needs or updated USDA nutrition assumptions.

For oversight bodies, the central question shifts from whether USDA properly modeled the Thrifty Food Plan to whether USDA complied with the statutory cost-neutrality limitation. GAO previously found that USDA’s 2021 re-evaluation raised accountability and process questions, including planning and documentation concerns.[17] Section 10101 effectively answers part of that controversy legislatively by forbidding future re-evaluations from increasing the plan’s cost.

Effects on Consumers

The direct consumer impact falls on SNAP households. Section 10101 does not immediately remove a household from SNAP, and CBO did not expect the provision to affect participation.[18] Instead, it lowers future average benefit amounts relative to what CBO expected under prior law.

That distinction matters. A family may still receive SNAP, but the benefit may buy less food than it would have if USDA were allowed to update the Thrifty Food Plan for nutrition guidance, food composition, consumption patterns, and real-world food prices beyond the permitted inflation adjustment.

CBO estimated that by 2034, average monthly SNAP benefits would be $213 under Section 10101 compared with $227 in its January 2025 baseline.[19] That $14 monthly difference may appear modest in isolation, but SNAP households generally have low incomes and high food-budget pressure. The practical effect is a gradual erosion of benefit adequacy relative to a baseline that assumed future Thrifty Food Plan re-evaluations would increase benefit levels.

Consumers most likely to feel the change include:

Consumer group	Likely effect
SNAP households with children	Reduced future benefit adequacy may increase pressure on household grocery budgets.
Older adults and disabled participants	Fixed incomes may make even modest benefit reductions harder to absorb.
Rural households	Limited grocery competition and transportation costs may make a constrained benefit less adequate.
Households with medically specific diets	The statutory cost-neutrality rule may make it harder for benefit levels to reflect evolving nutrition guidance or diet costs.
Residents of high-cost food areas	Existing geographic adjustments continue for Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, but most state and local food-cost variation remains outside household-specific benefit calculations.

The section may also indirectly affect food banks and charitable food networks if households exhaust SNAP benefits earlier in the month and seek supplemental food assistance.

Effects on Businesses

The business impact is concentrated in the food retail sector. SNAP benefits are spent at authorized retailers, including supermarkets, grocery stores, convenience stores, farmers markets, and some smaller food sellers. Lower benefit growth means less federal purchasing power flowing through SNAP than would have occurred under the prior-law baseline.

Large retailers may absorb the effect across broad sales volumes. Smaller grocery stores, rural retailers, corner stores, and farmers markets in high-SNAP communities may feel the change more acutely because SNAP redemptions can be a meaningful share of local food spending.

Potential business effects include:

Business type	Potential effect
Grocery stores and supermarkets	Lower future SNAP purchasing power may reduce sales compared with baseline expectations.
Small food retailers	Stores in low-income neighborhoods may see more noticeable reductions in monthly SNAP-driven demand.
Farmers markets and direct food vendors	Reduced benefit adequacy may limit discretionary purchases of fresh foods.
Food manufacturers and distributors	Aggregate effects are likely diffuse, but reduced SNAP purchasing power can modestly affect demand for staple foods.
Charitable food suppliers	Food banks and pantry networks may face higher demand, which can increase procurement and logistics pressure.

Section 10101 does not impose a new reporting requirement on retailers. Retailers will continue to operate under existing SNAP authorization and redemption rules. The business effect is economic, not regulatory.

Environmental and Climate Impact

Section 10101 has no direct environmental permitting, emissions, land-use, energy, or climate mandate. Its environmental effect is indirect and uncertain.

The main environmental connection is through food purchasing patterns. If future SNAP benefits are lower than they otherwise would have been, households may have less flexibility to buy fresh, perishable, locally produced, or higher-cost nutritious foods. That could shift purchasing toward lower-cost shelf-stable foods, though the direction and magnitude of environmental effects would depend on household behavior, local food prices, retailer access, and supply chains.

The section also limits USDA’s ability to translate updated dietary guidance into higher benefit levels if future guidance would require a more expensive food basket. Because dietary guidance can affect the balance of foods in the Thrifty Food Plan, the cost-neutrality rule may constrain nutrition-policy adaptation even when food system conditions change.

Likely environmental and climate effects are therefore:

Impact area	Assessment
Direct emissions	No direct emissions effect.
Federal environmental review	No new construction, permitting, or land-management activity.
Food consumption patterns	Possible indirect effect if lower benefits change household purchasing choices.
Food waste	Unclear; reduced purchasing power could reduce some waste but also increase reliance on cheaper bulk or shelf-stable foods.
Climate resilience	No direct climate-resilience funding or program authority.

Overall, the environmental and climate impact is indirect, likely modest compared with the consumer and budget effects, and difficult to isolate from broader SNAP, food-price, and retail-market trends.

Impact Summary

Section 10101 is a major SNAP benefit-indexing change disguised in technical budget language. It does not cut households off SNAP directly, and it does not create a new appropriations account. Instead, it limits how much future SNAP benefits can grow by preventing USDA from increasing the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan through future market-basket re-evaluations.

The most important practical consequence is that SNAP benefits may become less responsive to real-world changes in nutrition science, food consumption, and food prices. Annual inflation adjustments continue, but future USDA re-evaluations cannot raise the plan’s cost even if the updated evidence shows that a healthy low-cost diet costs more.

For government, the section narrows USDA discretion and simplifies the political controversy over future Thrifty Food Plan increases by imposing a statutory ceiling. For households, it means lower future benefits than the prior-law baseline. For businesses, especially food retailers in high-SNAP communities, it means less SNAP purchasing power than expected. For public tracking, the effect will be visible mainly through CBO estimates, annual allotment comparisons, and aggregate SNAP outlay data, not through a separate Section 10101 spending account.

Key References and Sourcing

Source	Relevance
Public Law 119-21	Primary statutory text for Section 10101 and the amended Thrifty Food Plan language.
Congressional Budget Office, Estimated Effects of Public Law 119-21 on Participation and Benefits Under SNAP	Provides CBO’s section-specific estimate of the effect on average SNAP benefits and participation.
Congressional Research Service, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Related Nutrition Programs in P.L. 119-21	Summarizes prior law, enacted changes, and policy context for the Thrifty Food Plan provision.
USDA Food and Nutrition Service, One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025	USDA implementation page identifying Section 10101 and related SNAP implementation materials.
USDA Food and Nutrition Service, Thrifty Food Plan, 2021	Explains USDA’s 2021 Thrifty Food Plan re-evaluation and how it serves as the basis for SNAP allotments.
Government Accountability Office, Thrifty Food Plan: Better Planning and Accountability Could Help Ensure Quality of Future Reevaluations	Provides oversight context for USDA’s Thrifty Food Plan re-evaluation process.
American Medical Association, Select Provisions and Implementation Dates OBBBA Summary	Provides an implementation summary citing an estimated ten-year SNAP spending reduction associated with the Thrifty Food Plan restriction.

Footnotes

Footnotes

Discussion

Continue DiscussionLoading…