
Who benefits from Republicans' 'big beautiful' bill depends largely on income. Children are no exception
House reconciliation legislation, also known as the One, Big, Beautiful Bill, includes changes aimed at helping to boost family's finances.
Those proposals — including $1,000 investment 'Trump Accounts' for newborns and an enhanced maximum $2,500 child tax credit — would help support eligible parents.
Proposed tax cuts in the bill may also provide up to $13,300 more in take-home pay for the average family with two children, House Republicans estimate.
'What we're trying to do is help hardworking Americans who are trying to provide for their families and make ends meet,' House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said during a June 8 interview with ABC News' 'This Week.'
Yet the proposed changes, which emphasize work requirements, may reduce aid for children in low-income families when it comes to certain tax credits, health coverage and food assistance.
Households in the lowest decile of the income distribution would lose about $1,600 per year, or about 3.9% of their income, from 2026 through 2034, according to a June 12 letter from the Congressional Budget Office. That loss is mainly due to 'reductions in in-kind transfers,' it notes — particularly Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, formerly known as food stamps.
20 million children won't get full $2,500 child tax credit
House Republicans have proposed increasing the maximum child tax credit to $2,500 per child, up from $2,000, a change that would go into effect starting with tax year 2025 and expire after 2028.
The change would increase the number of low-income children who are locked out of the child tax credit because their parents' income is too low, according to Adam Ruben, director of advocacy organization Economic Security Project Action. The tax credit is not refundable, meaning filers can't claim it if they don't have a tax obligation.
Today, there are 17 million children who either receive no credit or a partial credit because their family's income is too low, Ruben said. Under the House Republicans' plan, that would increase by 3 million children. Consequently, 20 million children would be left out of the full child tax credit because their families earn too little, he said.
'It is raising the credit for wealthier families while excluding those vulnerable families from the credit,' Ruben said. 'And that's not a pro-family policy.'
A single parent with two children would have to earn at least $40,000 per year to access the full child tax credit under the Republicans' plan, he said. For families earning the minimum wage, it may be difficult to meet that threshold, according to Ruben.
In contrast, an enhanced child tax credit put in place under President Joe Biden made it fully refundable, which means very low-income families were eligible for the maximum benefit, according to Elaine Maag, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.
In 2021, the maximum child tax credit was $3,600 for children under six and $3,000 for children ages 6 to 17. That enhanced credit cut child poverty in half, Maag said. However, immediately following the expiration, child poverty increased, she said.
The current House proposal would also make about 4.5 million children who are citizens ineligible for the child tax credit because they have at least one undocumented parent who files taxes with an individual tax identification number, Ruben said. Those children are currently eligible for the child tax credit based on 2017 tax legislation but would be excluded based on the new proposal, he said.
New red tape for a low-income tax credit
House Republicans also want to change the earned income tax credit, or EITC, which targets low- to middle-income individuals and families, to require precertification to qualify.
When a similar requirement was tried about 20 years ago, it resulted in some eligible families not getting the benefit, Maag said. The new prospective administrative barrier may have the same result, she said.
More than 2 million children's food assistance at risk
House Republican lawmakers' plan includes almost $300 billion in proposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, through 2034.
SNAP currently helps more than 42 million people in low-income families afford groceries, according to Katie Bergh, senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Children represent roughly 40% of SNAP participants, she said.
More than 7 million people may see their food assistance either substantially reduced or ended entirely due to the proposed cuts in the House reconciliation bill, estimates CBPP. Notably, that total includes more than 2 million children.
'We're talking about the deepest cut to food assistance ever, potentially, if this bill becomes law,' Bergh said.
Under the House proposal, work requirements would apply to households with children for the first time, Bergh said. Parents with children over the age of 6 would be subject to those rules, which limit people to receiving food assistance for just three months in a three-year period unless they work a minimum 20 hours per week.
Additionally, the House plan calls for states to fund 5% to 25% of SNAP food benefits — a departure from the 100% federal funding for those benefits for the first time in the program's history, Bergh said.
States, which already pay to help administer SNAP, may face tough choices in the face of those higher costs. That may include cutting food assistance or other state benefits or even doing away with SNAP altogether, Bergh said.
While the bill does not directly propose cuts to school meal programs, it does put children's eligibility for them at risk, according to Bergh. Children who are eligible for SNAP typically automatically qualify for free or reduced school meals. If a family loses SNAP benefits, their children may also miss out on those benefits, Bergh said.
Health coverage losses would adversely impact families
Families with children may face higher health care costs and reduced access to health care depending on how states react to federal spending cuts proposed by House Republicans, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
The House Republican bill seeks to slash approximately $1 trillion in spending from Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program and Affordable Care Act marketplaces.
Medicaid work requirements may make low-income individuals vulnerable to losing health coverage if they are part of the expansion group and are unable to document they meet the requirements or qualify for an exemption, according to CBPP. Parents and pregnant women, who are on the list of exemptions, could be susceptible to losing coverage without proper documentation, according to the non-partisan research and policy institute.
Eligible children may face barriers to access Medicaid and CHIP coverage if the legislation blocks a rule that simplifies enrollment in those programs, according to CBPP.
In addition, an estimated 4.2 million individuals may be uninsured in 2034 if enhanced premium tax credits that help individuals and families afford health insurance are not extended, according to CBO estimates. Meanwhile, those who are covered by marketplace plans would have to pay higher premiums, according to CBPP. Without the premium tax credits, a family of four with $65,000 in income would pay $2,400 more per year for marketplace coverage.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
38 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Dumb and Dumber To or Idiocracy? What to watch instead of Trump's big boy birthday party
What are you up to this weekend? If you're American, then there's only one right answer to the question: celebrating the 79th birthday of our lord and saviour, Donald John Trump. As you will know, and already have marked in your calendar, there's a big military parade happening in Washington DC on Saturday 14 June. Nominally this is to mark the US army's 250th anniversary, but thanks to the machinations of time and space it happens to fall on Trump's birthday: the parade has been widely branded as a big boy birthday party for the president. If you can't get to DC to physically watch Trump's parade then I'm sure you're desperate to watch it on TV. ABC News, which recently dropped its correspondent Terry Moran for a social media post calling Stephen Miller, the Trump administration deputy chief of staff a 'world class hater', plans to cover the parade across programs and platforms, beginning 6pm on Saturday. Networks such as CBS and NBC seem to have relegated coverage to their streaming channels. Fox and NewsNation, meanwhile, will be going all out for dear leader's celebrations. Which will be lavish: the event is costing as much as $45m, not including all the damage that military vehicles are going to do to the roads in DC. And the best part of all this? You, the taxpayer, are footing the bill! Who needs money for schools and infrastructure, eh? We the people want to see big tanks, goose-stepping soldiers and missiles that go boom. In the event that you, in fact, do not want to see these things then I do have some alternatives for you. Please find below a helpful list of things to watch on Saturday other than Trump's birthday parade. As I'm a little brown woman on a green card I'd like to make very clear that I am not encouraging you to snub Trump. Nope, all of the below are their own sort of homage to the man we are so lucky to have as president. Ulrich Mühe's Oscar-winning drama is set in East Berlin in the 1980s, before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Capt Gerd Wiesler is a Stasi (secret police) officer who is initially loyal to the regime until he starts to empathize with the people he spies on. Wiesler must choose between loyalty to an oppressive regime and being a good person. Eventually he chooses the latter. The movie reportedly had some real-life consequences. In 2014, 43 Israeli intelligence veterans refused to serve in Palestinian territories because of the widespread surveillance of innocent residents. According to the New York Times, one of the Israeli captains had a moral awakening after watching The Lives of Others. 'I felt a lot of sympathy for the victims in the film of the intelligence,' the captain said. 'But I did feel a weird, confusing sense of similarity, I identified myself with the intelligence workers. That we were similar to the kind of oppressive intelligence in oppressive regimes really was a deep realization that makes us all feel that we have to take responsibility.' Much like Trump 2.0, this Jim Carrey romp is a terrible sequel that should never have happened. There is a meandering plot involving a kidney transplant and a pork chop but the real drama here actually comes from how the film was made. From 2009 to 2015, more than $4.5bn was 'misappropriated' from a Malaysian government fund and laundered in various ways across the world. In 2016 and 2017 the justice department claimed millions of dollars from that fund were funneled to a production company to make The Wolf of Wall Street, Dumb and Dumber To and Daddy's Home. Now that 'daddy' Trump (as Tucker Carlson likes to call him) is home in the White House, it looks like money laundering is going to be made great again. Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation's policy blueprint for Trump's second term, calls for Congress to 'repeal the Corporate Transparency Act', which makes money laundering harder by requiring limited liability companies to disclose their owners. Asif Kapadia's drama-doc takes place in (you guessed it!) 2073, 37 years after 'The Event', which is an unspecified disaster that changed the world. The film opens with dystopian footage from Gaza with the chilling insinuation that soon everywhere will look like Gaza; soon all of us will be treated like Palestinians. Trumps loom large in 2073: it features Ivanka Trump celebrating her 30th year ruling over a dystopian police state. 'That [sequence] where Ivanka Trump is celebrating her 30th year in power is there because the idea of a two-term American presidency, I don't think, will be around forever,' Kapaida told Variety. Big military parades, however? Those might be around forever even if we're all living in bunkers or (as is the case in 2073), the ruins of shopping malls and trying to dodge drones trying to detect everyone undesirable to the state. A bunch of middle-aged friends go on a camping trip and are murdered by a disillusioned door-to-door orange salesman whose weapon of choice is his prosthetic hook and a bag of oranges. I know it sounds ludicrous but suspend your disbelief. We live in ludicrous times. This dystopian thriller is set in 2027 when decades of pollution-induced human infertility have left society on the brink of collapse. '[W]hat would happen to us all, psychologically, if the end of the world was at hand?' the Guardian's Peter Bradshaw asked in a review of the film. '[One character says] that he personally gets by from day to day by simply not thinking about what is happening, and his stunned, bleak acquiescence in the creeping horror of global death is symptomatic of the vast spiritual sterility which ushered in the catastrophe in the first place.' If that sounds bleak then the good news is that, come 2026, we might get a remake called Children of Musk where humanity is saved by Elon Musk donating his sperm to everyone and sending all his kids to Mars. This documentary on El Salvador's civil war is available on a number of platforms. Probably good for people in the US to know a thing or two about the country in case you end up getting shipped there. Stanley Kubrick's famous satire deals with a mad-dog American general called Jack Ripper who goes rogue and initiates a nuclear attack ('Wing Attack Plan R') on the Soviet Union. (Like many people in the Trump administration, by the way, General Ripper is absolutely obsessed with fluoride, believing it to be part of a communist conspiracy to '[pollute] our precious bodily fluids'.) An ineffectual president called Merkin Muffley convenes a crisis meeting to try and stop a doomsday scenario. I won't tell you how it ends. But I will say that you should probably just stop worrying and learn to love all of Trump's big, beautiful bombs. In Mike Judge's anti-corporation cult hit, the meek don't inherit the earth, the morons do. An average Joe called Joe is placed in hibernation via a US army experiment and wakes up in 2505 where the most popular show on The Violence Channel is called Ow, My Balls! and everyone is … how do you say in English? ... unintelligent. In a 2017 interview, Terry Crews, who played President Camacho in the film, called it 'so prophetic in so many ways it actually scares people'. And its Urban Dictionary entry reads: 'A movie that was originally a comedy, but became a documentary.' Elon Musk, meanwhile, has shared the opening scene to try and scare intelligent-identifying people into having kids. Perhaps Musk has watched the film too many times, however, because he appears to have morphed into one of his characters. When the billionaire, sporting sunglasses indoors, theatrically wielded a chainsaw at CPAC earlier this year it drew numerous comparisons to President Camacho's machine-gun-waving showmanship in the movie. And that showmanship, of course, will be nothing compared to the big guns at Trump's birthday parade. Goodbye the rule of law and a government of the people; hello dumbocracy.


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
What's left for the Supreme Court to decide? 21 cases, including state bans on transgender care
The Supreme Court is in the homestretch of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump 's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May, including a push by Republican-led states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The court typically aims to finish its work by the end of June. Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: The oldest unresolved case, and arguably the term's biggest, stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law from transgender minors and their parents who argue that it is unconstitutional sex discrimination aimed at a vulnerable population. At arguments in December, the court's conservative majority seemed inclined to uphold the law, voicing skepticism of claims that it violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. The post-Civil War provision requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. The court is weighing the case amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use. In April, Trump's administration sued Maine for not complying with the government's push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports. Trump also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming care for those under 19 and a conservative majority of justices allowed him to move forward with plans to oust transgender people from the U.S. military. Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment.


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
The cost of staying alive could become a lot more expensive for millions of Americans because of Trump drug tariffs
Americans would likely pay more for necessary everyday prescription drugs, such as insulin, painkillers, chemotherapy, or antibiotics, if President Donald Trump were to enact tariffs on pharmaceuticals, experts warn. In an effort to incentivize drug manufacturers to bring production back to the United States, Trump has proposed tariffing pharmaceuticals made overseas – which account for an overwhelming majority of everyday medicine used in the U.S. 'We're going to be doing that,' Trump said of pharmaceutical tariffs in April. 'That's going to be like we have on cars. You know we have a 25 percent tariff on cars, we have a 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum, and that's what the [pharmaceutical] category fits right now.' 'The higher the tariff, the faster they come,' Trump said. But experts say that's not necessarily true and there would be tangible consequences to such action, from higher brand-name drug prices to generic drug shortages. 'If tariffs were applied to prescription drugs, one of the most immediate consequences could be price increases — on prices that we already pay way in excess of other countries,' Dr. Mariana Socal, an associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said. The U.S. imports a majority of its branded prescription drugs – or medications that are patented with a brand name such as Viagra, Wegovy, or Zoloft – from high-income countries. Dr. Jeromie Ballreich, an associated research professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said much of the manufacturing comes from Ireland, Germany, and Switzerland because they have favorable tax policies for companies. As a result, adding a tariff would only make it more expensive for pharmacies and insurance companies to keep them in supply. 'We would expect pharma to pass the costs onto the insurers and we would expect insurers to pass the cost onto the individual patients,' Ballreich said. 'So, if there is a 50 percent tariff on your insulin product because it's coming from Ireland, patients in Mississippi who get insulin – they will either be faced with a higher cost when they go up to the pharmacy to fill their insulin or they're going to face a higher indirect cost because the premiums of the insurance plan are going to go up,' he said. Ballreich said a tariff on countries that produce high quantities of branded drugs would put 'pressure' on public insurers like Medicare or Medicaid and private insurers. However, branded drugs only account for roughly 10 to 15 percent of prescriptions. A majority of Americans, up to 90 percent, use generic drugs, often manufactured in India and China, because they're cheaper. Making branded drugs less accessible through tariffs would only increase reliance on generic drugs, which could exacerbate shortages that already impact millions of Americans. Generic drugs would become less available '[Shortages] can have very significant implications in day-to-day clinical practice,' Socal said. 'For example, if you are administering chemotherapy for an oncology patient, that may have significant consequences even for the prognosis of that case moving forward.' In 2024, the U.S. experienced a shortage of more than 300 drugs – 70 percent of which were generic prescriptions. Socal said that when patients are not able to access a more affordable version of their prescription, it means they may put their health at risk by skipping a dosage, taking a lower dosage, or not filling their prescription at all. Otherwise, they're forced to turn to the more expensive branded version. 'Those more expensive drugs are not always the best,' Socal said. 'Very frequently, and we saw this with chemotherapy shortages, the available drugs are second-line drugs.' Tariffs won't necessarily increase domestic manufacturing The president has indicated that any negative impact from tariffs may be temporary and worth it to bring manufacturing and jobs back. 'We're doing it because we want to make our own drugs,' Trump said. But Ballreich and Socal are more skeptical. 'Tariffs are a very blunt instrument to incentivize domestic U.S. manufacturing of the branded drugs we use,' Ballreich said. Given pharmaceutical companies have moved outside of the U.S. for tax purposes, Ballreich says tax policy may be a better way to incentivize them, especially since many of those drugs are more difficult to manufacture. 'It's not just a very simple chemical plant; these tend to be very complex,' he said. Socal suggested a better strategy would be to understand where drugs are being manufactured and which ones would make more sense to bring to the U.S. — since even those manufactured locally often rely on certain imported ingredients and materials. 'Having tariffs on pharmaceutical products coming from abroad can actually also hurt our domestic manufacturers,' he says. While the president has not officially implemented any tariff policy on pharmaceuticals yet, he said, in April, that the plan would take effect in the 'not too distant future.'