The Republican budget package that President Donald Trump signed into law last summer included a change requiring states to fund a larger portion of the costs of administering the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food aid to tens of millions of Americans.

That change, which advocates and experts warned would impose unsustainable burdens on some states and potentially result in more cuts to food aid, took effect late last week, amid a nationwide affordability crisis that has forced many Americans to turn to food banks and other sources of support to meet their families’ needs.

Katie Bergh, a food policy expert at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), explained that—under the Trump-GOP budget law—“every state now gets half as many federal dollars to ensure SNAP gets to eligible families on time and in the right amount.”

“Some states didn’t increase state funding to make up for this federal funding cut, which could lead to staff shortages, backlogs, and low-income families waiting months for help,” Bergh warned. “Other states and counties are weighing property tax increases or cuts to other services to fill the gap.”

CBPP has estimated that more than 5 million people, including more than a million children, have lost SNAP since Trump signed the Republican budget measure into law last year.

Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) condemned the newly implemented SNAP changes in a statement, noting that Trump and the Republican Party have created new work requirements—and thus new bureaucratic burdens for states and aid recipients—while also slashing administrative funding, a potentially disastrous combination.

“It’s a devastating gut punch and it’s intentional,” said Brown. “This is a plan to wreck state SNAP programs and push millions off of SNAP and into hunger.”

The Food Research & Action Center estimated in a recent analysis that the new cost burden for states “ranges from $3 million in Wyoming to $168 million in New York.”

“States are being asked to administer a more complicated program with fewer federal resources. That is not an efficiency strategy. It is a fiscal transfer,” the group said. “Ultimately, this policy does not simply affect state agencies. It affects every family waiting for an application to be processed, every community experiencing rising food insecurity, and every state budget attempting to balance growing needs with fewer available resources.”

From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.