Proposed federal budget cuts threaten the future of food aid. What does this mean for Milwaukee?
Wisconsin’s FoodShare program allows low-income residents to buy healthy food. The program faces immense budget cuts in a federal budget proposal.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food benefits to low-income families, stands to lose billions of dollars if a federal budget proposal in the U.S. House of Representatives is adopted.
In Wisconsin, where the program is called FoodShare, 11% of households rely on funding. The program brought the state an average of $94 million in aid every month in 2023, according to the Food Research & Action Center, a national organization advocating against poverty-related hunger.
U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Milwaukee) said in a statement that she would “strongly oppose the attacks on our safety net.”
Moore, along with U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Madison), were the only Wisconsin representatives to vote against the budget proposal. “SNAP is the difference between having food on the table and going hungry,” Moore said.
Here are some things you should know.
Will benefits be affected?
“It’s not a done deal,” said Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP deputy director at the Food Research & Action Center.
The federal budget will expire on Friday, March 14. Congress will need to either pass a final spending bill, extend existing federal funding or face a partial federal government shutdown.
But the budget proposal has significant support among Republican lawmakers – all but one Republican in the House of Representatives approved the proposal when it passed on Feb. 25.
The proposed budget would direct the House Agriculture Committee, which oversees SNAP, to cut at least $230 billion through 2034. This $230 billion cut is expected to come almost entirely or all from SNAP, said Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in a recent article.
A cut this large would mean immediate decreases in benefits for all SNAP participants, stricter guidelines that would end SNAP eligibility for many or a combination of the two.
Who will this affect?
The largest impact, Plata-Nino said, will be seen in the lives of ordinary people.
As of 2022, SNAP supported 11% of households in Wisconsin. Of SNAP households, 43% included children, 45% included a person with a disability, and 35% included older adults.
But SNAP funding doesn’t just help individuals and families – SNAP funds are spent at local businesses such as grocery stores, which are large employers and contribute to local taxes.
According to the Food Research and Action Center, retailers in Wisconsin redeemed over $1.7 billion from SNAP in 2023. Any program cuts could be significant enough to affect local tax revenue and municipal funding, Plata-Nino said.
“It’s an ecosystem that is balanced incredibly carefully,” Plata-Nino said. “If these funds are not coming in, it is municipalities and states that are going to suffer.”
FoodShare and local charities have also seen a rise in the need for food assistance in Milwaukee in recent years.
“Wisconsinites rely on FoodShare to have affordable access to healthy foods for themselves and their families,” said Matt King, CEO of Hunger Task Force, a Milwaukee-based food bank, in a statement.
“FoodShare is vital to our state and local economies,” King said.
What happens now?
As of now, SNAP eligibility and benefits in Wisconsin, administered through FoodShare, are still the same as they have been since late 2024. Families with an income at or below 200% of the federal poverty level are eligible for the program.
If SNAP funding is cut significantly, as the budget proposal intends, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for states and localities to make up the difference, Plata-Nino said.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, SNAP is “the nation’s most important anti-hunger program,” providing an estimated nine meals for every meal provided by a food pantry.
“Wisconsin is receiving over $1 billion (annually),” Plata-Nino said. “Yes, there are also private organizations and charities . . . but charities just cannot fill this gap in the long term.”