CT Lawmakers Propose $40M Plan to Offset Federal SNAP Cuts

Connecticut Democratic lawmakers and advocates rallied at the State Capitol Tuesday to push for a $40 million state food assistance program that would catch residents losing federal SNAP benefits under new eligibility rules passed as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

The proposal, advanced by the legislature’s Human Services Committee, would create a bridge program offering up to a year of food assistance for specific populations now subject to new federal work requirements. Those groups include veterans, people experiencing homelessness, and young adults aging out of the foster care system.

Sen. Matt Lesser, D-Middletown, who co-chairs the Human Services Committee, framed the stakes plainly at Tuesday’s press conference. “The concern that I have, and that advocates who are here have, is that tens of thousands of residents in the state, without further action, are going to go hungry this year,” he said.

Federal work requirements for SNAP, introduced through H.R. 1, took effect in December. The state’s Department of Social Services estimates that 36,000 Connecticut residents could lose benefits as a result. The bridge program would be funded by drawing $40 million from Connecticut’s $500 million Federal Cuts Response Fund, which the state established last November specifically to shore up social services programs threatened by federal cuts and government shutdowns.

Advocates have also separately asked the legislature to direct $70 million from that same emergency fund toward Care4Kids, a program helping low- and moderate-income families pay for child care. That proposal puts additional pressure on a fund that, while substantial, now faces competing demands from multiple fronts.

Sen. Paul Honig, D-Simsbury, who co-chairs the Veterans and Military Affairs Committee, called out the particular harm to veterans navigating the transition back to civilian life. Under the new federal requirements, some veterans may not qualify for food assistance until they can formally document their disabilities, a process that can stretch for months. “For the federal government to put obstacles in the way of veterans returning to civilian life who need food assistance is just absolutely shameful,” Honig said.

The bill faces a difficult path despite the documented need. Gov. Ned Lamont’s proposed budget does not include funding for the program. Budget director Joshua Wojcik said the administration’s priority was to keep as many people on their existing federal SNAP benefits as possible rather than build a parallel state system.

The question of who controls the emergency fund adds another layer of complication. Only the governor can authorize spending from it. A panel of six legislative leaders holds veto power over those expenditures, but cannot independently direct any funds. That structure puts Democratic lawmakers in the position of advocating loudly for a program they cannot technically compel the governor to fund.

Department of Social Services Commissioner Andrea Barton Reeves submitted written testimony Tuesday raising concerns about the proposal, though the full scope of her objections was not available at publication time.

The political fault line here is worth watching closely. Lamont has generally tried to maintain a pragmatic relationship with the federal government even as Washington has cut deeper into Connecticut’s social services budget. Lawmakers on the Human Services Committee, closer to the advocates and constituents most directly affected, are pushing for a more aggressive response. That tension is not new in Hartford, but the scale of potential hunger among veterans, unhoused residents, and aging-out foster youth gives it a sharper edge this session.

Connecticut has real tools available. The Federal Cuts Response Fund was created precisely for moments like this one. The question now is whether the governor will treat a projected 36,000 residents losing food assistance as the kind of emergency the fund was designed to address, or whether the administration will continue to prioritize negotiating within the federal system rather than building around it.

The Human Services Committee’s bill will need to move through the full legislature and ultimately gain executive support before any funds flow. With the legislative session moving toward its spring close, advocates and lawmakers are pressing for answers quickly.