Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.

Claim: President Trump “immediately discontinued” an aid program to Central America which is the cause of surging immigration across the U.S.-Mexico border.

Q1: What aid program is being talked about here?
A1: Biden was referring to the “U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America,” which began under Obama in fiscal year 2016 at a level of $750 million, according to a June 12 report by the Congressional Research Service, an arm of the Library of Congress. (See Table 5, page 13.)

Q2: How much had the program decreased before Trump was elected?
A2: Appropriations for the program had already decreased to just under $685 million by fiscal year 2017, which began Oct. 1, 2016, before Trump was elected and nearly four months before he took office.

Q3: How much further did it reduce during Trump's administration?
A3: From there, appropriations fell further to an estimated $527.6 million in the current fiscal year, according to the CRS report. That’s a reduction of just under 23 percent.

Trump’s budget request for fiscal 2020, which begins Oct. 1, calls for a further cut to $445 million — which would represent a cumulative reduction in annual appropriation levels of 35 percent since the last fiscal year that began under Obama.

Q4: Did this result in an increase in immigration across the U.S.-Mexico border?
A4: Yes, because At the time Trump spoke, March apprehensions of immigrants illegally attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border were surging to 92,840, more than triple the level of March 2015, prior to the aid program to which Biden referred. Far from being “abated,” the “crisis” of which Biden spoke had come back with a vengeance.
user
justification: Answer support a drop in funding but not an immediate discontinuation which makes the further points of the claim invalid however there was an increase in attempted crossings.

verdict: 'Refuted'
assistant