The plan proposes a $17.2 billion-cut to the program by 2019 and will replace monthly cash benefits with a food box delivery program, according to reports.
Many anti-hunger advocates and analysts are equally skeptical of the proposed "food box", which - if approved - would impact 16.4 million households.
- President Trump's federal budget proposal includes a big change to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program that provides food assistance for low-income families. According to Fox Business, the plan would provide almost 80 percent of active food stamp recipients [VIDEO] with boxes of food grown by American farmers instead of standard #SNAP aid.
Unlike Blue Apron, which includes meat and produce, the food delivery box would include only shelf-stable foods like canned goods, rice and pasta, and other processed foods.
"This proposal focuses on ensuring that all SNAP recipients receive the nutritious food they need at substantial savings by harnessing USDA's purchasing power and America's agricultural abundance", Department of Agriculture spokesman Tim Murtaugh said. He received electronic benefits each month on a card. "The boxes also will not contain any fresh fruit or vegetables".
This budget - including this proposal - is morally unsound.
Replacing food stamps: This had many of you talking today.
The budget notes that the food box plan "has the potential to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse by limiting opportunities for benefits to be misused or trafficked".
"What they're trying to do is demean these people", said U.S. Rep. David Scott, D-Atlanta, a senior member of the House Agriculture Committee who served with Perdue in the Georgia Senate in the 1990s.
Mitch Gruber, Chief Programs Manager at Foodlink says logistics alone, the plan would be hard to accomplish. The box will be available every month and be filled with non-perishable food items.
The Trump administration proposal could shake up the country's largest program created to battle domestic hunger issues.
Boxed or canned food is typically packed with sodium and sugar, two additives that the USDA and nutritionists have repeatedly said that Americans need to cut back on.
"Typically like other governess programs they don't cover all of the costs, so we'd end up having to do more fundraising to cover this government program", said Miller.
"It's a risky scheme that threatens families' ability to put food on the table", said Stacy Dean, vice president for food assistance policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. They feared it would upend a much-needed benefit for more than 80% of those in the program.