Retirees are heading into 2026 with a lot on their minds. The cost of living may be rising more slowly than it was a few years ago, but higher prices have settled in for the long haul, and inflation has been ticking back up, too. As a result, everything from Medicare premiums to homeowners’ insurance is expected to inch upward next year, leaving many older Americans wondering how to balance stability and flexibility on a fixed income. At the same time, one major financial resource continues to stand out: home equity. 

After years of steady home appreciation, many homeowners over age 62 now hold more wealth in their homes than they do in their retirement accounts. And as economic conditions continue to shift, the idea of unlocking some of that equity with a reverse mortgage, which removes the monthly payment obligations of a traditional loan, has resurfaced as a serious consideration for homeowners who qualify.

In turn, more retirees and near-retirees are asking the question of whether opening a reverse mortgage will be worth it in 2026. The answer isn’t simple, but the conditions shaping that decision are changing in ways that homeowners shouldn’t ignore. Below, we’ll detail what to consider right now.

Learn what your reverse mortgage loan options are here.

Will a reverse mortgage be worth opening in 2026?

Whether a reverse mortgage makes sense for you in the coming year depends on your specific financial situation and goals. That said, it could be worth considering as part of a broader retirement plan in 2026. Here’s why:

Rates may stabilize, keeping borrowing conditions more favorable

Reverse mortgage interest rates can differ by lender, but they largely track broader rate trends. If current projections hold, rates will likely continue to gradually ease through the remainder of 2025 and may continue to do so into 2026. Even modestly lower rates can make a reverse mortgage more cost-effective over time, reducing the interest accumulation on the loan balance that will be due if the homeowner dies or the home is sold. For homeowners who have been waiting for a more favorable rate environment, next year could bring a window of opportunity.

Find out more about the benefits of a reverse mortgage now.

Rising home values could translate into higher borrowing limits

Although price growth has cooled compared to the frenetic pace of 2021 and 2022, national home values remain historically high. If this trend persists, the amount of equity available to borrow through a reverse mortgage will likely remain substantial. That can lead to higher potential payouts, whether in lump sum, monthly installments or a line of credit, with the added benefit that the associated credit lines can grow over time. In other words: Strong equity plus a growing line of credit could offer retirees long-term financial flexibility next year, at a time when economic uncertainty remains common.

Retirees may need new ways to supplement fixed incomes

Even with Social Security cost-of-living adjustments, many retirees are feeling squeezed by rising insurance premiums, medical expenses and elevated consumer goods prices. A reverse mortgage can help create breathing room by supplementing monthly income without requiring loan payments. This alone may make the option more appealing next year, particularly for homeowners who have limited retirement savings but substantial equity.

Reverse mortgages can fund major expenses without draining savings

A growing number of retirees are using reverse mortgages strategically, not as emergency funding, but as part of a broader financial plan. Homeowners can use reverse mortgage funds to cover long-term care, pay off a traditional mortgage, fund home accessibility updates or delay tapping retirement accounts that are subject to market volatility, which could come in handy if the stock market continues to fluctuate in 2026. When used this way, a reverse mortgage becomes more of a planning tool than a last-ditch effort.

Stronger consumer protections continue to make them safer

Reverse mortgages used to be known for the risks that came with them, but over the past decade, reverse mortgages have undergone rule and policy updates aimed specifically at reducing that risk for borrowers. These protections include financial assessments, limits on upfront withdrawals, non-borrowing spouse safeguards and counseling requirements. And, these safeguards remain in place now, helping ensure borrowers fully understand the terms before opening a loan. For many homeowners, these improvements have made reverse mortgages feel more trustworthy and manageable, making them a smart option to consider in 2026.

The bottom line

A reverse mortgage won’t be the right choice for every retiree in 2026, but for homeowners with substantial equity, limited liquid assets and a desire to remain in their homes, these borrowing tools can serve as a valuable financial tool. Still, you’ll want to approach the decision with clear eyes about both the benefits and the costs, have an understanding how it fits into your broader retirement strategy and ensure that you’re not using it to solve a financial problem that might be better addressed through other means.

Edited by

Matt Richardson

States administering a federal food aid program serving about 42 million Americans faced uncertainty Monday over whether they can — and should — provide full monthly benefits during an ongoing legal battle involving the U.S. government shutdown.

President Donald Trump’s administration over weekend demanded that states “undo” full benefits that were paid under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program during a one-day window between when a federal judge ordered full funding and a Supreme Court justice put a temporary pause on that order.

A federal appeals court now is considering whether to impose a longer halt to the full benefits. And Congress is considering whether to fund SNAP as part of a proposal to end the government shutdown.

Some states are warning of “catastrophic operational disruptions” if the Trump administration does not reimburse them for those SNAP benefits they already authorized. Meanwhile, other states are providing partial monthly SNAP benefits with federal money or using their own funds to load electronic benefit cards for SNAP recipients.

Trump’s administration initially said SNAP benefits would not be available in November because of the government shutdown. After some states and nonprofit groups sued, two judges each ruled the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely.

The administration then said it would use an emergency reserve fund to provide 65% of the maximum monthly benefit. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell said that wasn’t good enough, and ordered full funding for SNAP benefits by Friday.

Some states acted quickly to direct their EBT vendors to disburse full monthly benefits to SNAP recipients. Millions of people in those states received funds to buy groceries before Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson put McConnell’s order on hold Friday night, pending further deliberation by an appeals court.

Millions more people still have not received SNAP payments for November, because their states were waiting on further guidance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers SNAP.

Trump’s administration has argued that the judicial order to provide full benefits violates the Constitution by infringing on the spending power of the legislative and executive branches.

On Sunday, the Trump administration said states had moved too quickly and erroneously released full SNAP benefits after last week’s rulings.

“States must immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025,” Patrick Penn, deputy undersecretary of Agriculture, wrote to state SNAP directors. He warned that states could face penalties if they did not comply.

Wisconsin, which was among the first to load full benefits after McConnell’s order, had its federal reimbursement frozen. As a result, the state’s SNAP account could be depleted as soon Monday, leaving no money to reimburse stores that sell food to SNAP recipients, according to a court filing submitted by those that had sued.

Some Democratic governors vowed to challenge any federal attempt to claw back money.

In Connecticut, Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont said “those who received their benefits should not worry about losing them.”

“No, Connecticut does not need to take back SNAP benefits already sent to the 360,000 people who depend on them for food and who should have never been caught in the middle of this political fight,” Lamont said. “We have their back.”

___

Associated Press writers Scott Bauer in Madison, Wisconsin; John Hanna in Topeka, Kansas; and Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.

Paging more doctors to the Inland Empire.

Answering the call to help fix the region’s shortage are students such as 25-year-old Markus Saavedra.

Inspired by his veterinarian grandfather, the California Baptist University student always knew he wanted to be in the medical field. But when Saavedra researched the amount of training it took to become a doctor, he pivoted down the shorter physician assistant path.

“He didn’t work with humans, but he would always speak to people on their level, no matter where they came from,” said Saavedra, who is from Lancaster. “I saw how it really made a difference in the way patients felt heard and received care, how they were treated and so I wanted to model that.”