Cracker Barrel’s “new dining rule” goes viral, but company says it isn’t new

A viral internal travel memo has put Cracker Barrel in the spotlight this week after it told corporate employees to eat most of their meals at Cracker Barrel restaurants while traveling for work. The guidance, which circulated widely on Tuesday, February 3, 2026 (ET), quickly ignited debate over whether the policy is a harmless cost-control move or an unusually strict way to manage staff expenses on the road.

Cracker Barrel has since emphasized that the expectation is conditional—tied to practicality, location, and schedule—and that employees may eat elsewhere when needed. The company also stressed that the bigger change was a tighter stance on alcohol reimbursement.

What the “new dining rule” says

The memo’s core message is straightforward: when employees travel for work, they are expected to dine at Cracker Barrel for all or the majority of their meals when practical. In the same guidance, the company also tightened rules around alcohol—generally removing it from reimbursable expenses unless an exception is approved in advance.

In effect, it’s a two-part push:

1. steer meal spending toward company-owned restaurants when it’s feasible, and

2. reduce discretionary expense items that often spike on work trips.

That combination is what gave the story traction. It’s not just “skip the steakhouse,” but “default to our own dining rooms.”

Cracker Barrel’s clarification: “not new” and not mandatory

After the memo spread, Cracker Barrel publicly framed the policy as a restatement rather than a brand-new edict. The company described the expectation to dine at Cracker Barrel during business travel—when practical based on location and schedule—as an existing approach, not a fresh requirement.

It also pushed back on the idea that employees are forbidden from eating elsewhere. The company’s message was that Cracker Barrel is preferred when feasible, but not the only option, especially in places where there isn’t a nearby location or where time constraints make it unrealistic.

The piece that has been positioned as an update is the alcohol rule: fewer reimbursements, more approvals, and a clearer default of “no” unless there’s a specific reason.

Why it’s happening now: cost pressure and a rough patch

The timing is part of what made the memo combustible. Cracker Barrel has been navigating a tough period marked by weaker sales trends and heightened scrutiny following last year’s branding turbulence. That context makes any internal belt-tightening feel less like routine policy and more like a sign of financial strain.

Within companies broadly, travel budgets have been shrinking—fewer trips, cheaper hotels, stricter meal caps, and more pre-approvals. Cracker Barrel’s memo lands squarely in that environment, but it stands out because it tells employees to spend travel money inside the company’s own restaurants rather than simply setting a dollar limit.

That creates a second layer of controversy: it can read as both frugality and forced brand loyalty, depending on how you view workplace rules.

What employees (and customers) are reacting to

The loudest reactions have centered on tone and practicality, not the concept of expense discipline. For many workers, travel meals are one of the few “perks” left in corporate life, so a directive about where to eat can feel unusually personal—even if it’s framed as flexible.

Critics have also questioned whether the policy makes sense for employees with dietary restrictions, tight meeting schedules, or travel routes far from Cracker Barrel locations. Supporters counter that “whenever practical” is the key phrase, and that it’s reasonable for a restaurant chain to encourage spending within its own ecosystem when it’s convenient.

Key takeaways

• The expectation is to eat at Cracker Barrel for most travel meals when practical, not as a hard-and-fast rule.

• The stricter shift appears to be alcohol reimbursement, with approvals required for exceptions.

• The memo’s virality reflects broader workplace frustration around shrinking travel perks and tighter corporate budgets.

What to watch next

The policy itself may not change, but the public reaction could influence how the company communicates it. If internal guidance is rewritten, the most likely adjustments would be clearer carve-outs—explicit language about dietary needs, time constraints, and location availability—so managers and employees have less ambiguity.

There’s also a reputational angle: after a year of heightened customer attention, even internal corporate memos can become public-facing brand moments. Companies that assume “internal” equals “private” are finding that assumption doesn’t hold—especially when rules touch everyday quality-of-life issues like meals.

For now, the “cracker barrel new dining rule” story is less about a single line in a memo and more about what it represents: a corporate cost-cutting moment that collided with social-media speed and a broader sense that work travel has become noticeably less generous.

Sources consulted: The Wall Street Journal; USA TODAY; Fast Company; Newsweek