Inside one state's fight to save child care
is a policy correspondent for Vox covering social policy. She focuses on housing, schools, homelessness, child care, and abortion rights, and has been reporting on these issues for more than a decade.
Welcome to Field Notes, a reporter's log that gives readers an inside look into some of our most exciting reporting trips. This first appeared in the member-exclusive newsletter the Vox Explainer.
Hi, hello!
This is Rachel Cohen, a reporter at Vox, and I'm here to share a dispatch from a recent reporting trip to Boise, Idaho — where a unique and heated political fight unfolded in the world of child care policy. The piece not only looks at a growing partisan divide in child care but also a broader conservative push to deregulate the sector and redirect public funds away from the license-based centers government subsidies have historically favored.
For both time and budget reasons, I don't get to travel for most stories I work on. In this case though, thanks to a grant from the Bainum Family Foundation to support child care reporting, I was quite fortunate to spend four days meeting with lawmakers, parents, and child care advocates in Idaho. There I worked to understand a very complex, sensitive, and confusing story. In journalism, what I've realized over the years is that oftentimes the very act of traveling to a region can signal to otherwise hesitant sources that you are taking this story seriously. It shows you are investing resources into getting it right, which increases the chances that people will help you and talk with you. They see you're making a greater effort than just picking up the phone, and that really does mean something in this line of work.
Sometimes reporting trips are to collect more vivid detail and description to bring a narrative to life. I wanted to do that, certainly, but this trip was primarily for me to better understand what was really going on, to sit down with people face-to-face, and clarify a series of fast-moving and complicated ideas. I did make a lot of calls. I did review all the existing local reporting before I flew out. And I filed my own public records request with the state of Idaho. But I suspected that going there would prove valuable in being able to report this story better than just doing those things in isolation. Given all the flight delays and other travel complications, I'm very glad that turned out to be true.
You can find the story here. Here's a look inside my reporting.
Field Notes
SUNDAY, MARCH 9
10:30 am: I flew from Washington, DC, where I live, to Atlanta, and then on to Boise. After dealing with some delays with my flight layover, I finally reached my hotel a little after midnight. The long day of travel gave me a lot of time to review my notes and get ready for what I knew would be a busy week.
At the Boise Airport, I was greeted by a nice reminder that I was surrounded by some famous potatoes.
A sign that greeted me at the Boise Airport when I arrived. Rachel Cohen/Vox
MONDAY, MARCH 10
12 pm: My first meeting was at the (very beautiful) Idaho State Capitol, a short walk from my hotel. I learned I was in what is known as the 'Gem State,' a nickname first coined when Idaho was just a US territory in honor of all the precious gemstones around.
I sat down with Democratic state Rep. Megan Egbert to learn more about the H243 bill and what she was hearing from her constituents. She was actively involved in the legislative opposition.
The main entrance really was beautiful, and to my surprise — maybe just because I'm used to stricter protocol — there was no security. Anyone could walk right in. Rachel Cohen/Vox
2 pm: Later that afternoon, I went over to the Idaho Association of Commerce & Industry, which is basically their state chamber of commerce, and met with the longtime president to discuss how the lack of child care access affects the state's workforce and economy.
I turned left. We sat in a big conference room for our meeting. Rachel Cohen/Vox
7 pm: At night, I had some calls with child care providers. Idaho is two hours behind DC, and being able to talk to people in their own time zone made reporting a whole lot easier. Oftentimes people can only talk with the media after work, so coordinating evening discussions was just a whole lot easier on Mountain time.
TUESDAY, MARCH 11
10:30 am: I spent the morning meeting with sources off the record (so I can't share specifically who), but I can say I had some very clarifying coffee dates. Then I made my way over to Lakewood Montessori, a reputable child care center in Boise where I got to tour and sit down with the owner, Mary, to talk about the proposed bill. It was a beautiful day, and I knew I wanted to speak with as many child care providers as I could while I was in town.
From my tour of the Boise Montessori child care center. It was a really lovely facility, and seeing such cute kids always makes the drier parts of the reporting process worth it. Rachel Cohen/Vox
2 pm: After lunch, I headed back to the state Capitol where I met separately with both of the bill's co-sponsors, Rep. Rod Furniss and Rep. Barbara Ehardt. I learned that the bill was going to be amended the next day to restore maximum staff-child ratios, and I spoke with the lawmakers about why they believed deregulation was a good idea in the first place.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12
10 am: Today I had several more off-the-record meetings with sources and calls with child care providers around the state.
5:30 pm: I had the pleasure of having dinner with my old editor, Haley, who I interned for 12 years ago at the Washington Monthly. She now lives in Boise with her husband and two kids.
In Haley's kitchen! Rachel Cohen/Vox
THURSDAY, MARCH 13
8 am: My last day in town proved valuable. After persistent badgering, several sources finally agreed to talk, including from Wonder School — a company facing public backlash for supporting the bill — and officials from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. I also connected with people I'd talk with further when I returned to DC as more legislative developments unfolded throughout March.
11 pm: I got home and spent another three-and-a-half weeks reporting and writing the article!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
4 hours ago
- Vox
The big, beautiful bill is bad news for student loans
is a correspondent at Vox, where he covers the impacts of social and economic policies. He is the author of 'Within Our Means,' a biweekly newsletter on ending poverty in America. If the 'big, beautiful bill,' President Donald Trump's signature legislative priority, eventually becomes law, it would gut some social programs that many people rely on. As my colleague Dylan Scott wrote in a thorough explainer, the package, which House Republicans passed last month, could result in millions of people losing their health care because of proposed work requirements on Medicaid. There's also another part of the bill that really stands out when it comes to how Trump's domestic policy package will hurt low-income families: its overhaul of student loan programs. From changing eligibility requirements for Pell Grants, which help low-income students pay for college, to capping how much money students can borrow to cover the cost of tuition, the legislation would put a college education further out of reach for many Americans. Within Our Means A newsletter about ending poverty in America, from correspondent Abdallah Fayyad. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. These cuts aren't inevitable. The bill still has to pass through the Senate through an expedited process called reconciliation before Trump can sign it into law, and the unfolding (and very public) drama between the president and Elon Musk over the bill makes it unclear how congressional Republicans will proceed. But in the meantime, here's what's at stake: Pell Grant recipients are in trouble According to the liberal think tank New America, the lack of publicly available data makes it difficult (or impossible) to analyze the full projected impact of the bill, but numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) show that more than half of Pell Grant recipients would see a reduction in aid, and at least 10 percent would lose their grants altogether. That's mainly because of how the bill changes eligibility requirements for Pell Grant recipients. The biggest change would be the number of course credits students have to take in order to remain eligible for the amount of aid they currently get. To receive the maximum Pell Grant of $7,395, students would have to take 30 credit hours each year, up from 24. The number of credits for part-time students would go up from 12 to 15. The bill also eliminates eligibility for students who are considered less than half-time students. These grants are crucial in helping students from low-income families attend college. In the 2023–2024 academic year, around 6.5 million students received a Pell grant. According to the Washington Post, the vast majority of Pell Grant recipients come from families making less than $60,000 a year, with about two-thirds coming from families earning less than $30,000. Because Pell Grants aren't loans and don't need to be paid back, they make college more affordable to students who otherwise might not be able to access an education beyond their high school diploma. Undermining these grants would ultimately make college — and a future with higher earning potential — out of reach for too many people living in poverty. While proponents of the bill might argue that the eligibility changes would simply require students to focus more of their time on school, the reality is that many students — especially part-timers — have other responsibilities, including jobs and family, and are unlikely to be able to take on more course work. As a result, the cuts to Pell Grants will likely hurt students who need it most. The proposed changes are especially worrisome for community colleges, where many part-time students who stand to see their grants reduced are enrolled. According to the American Association of Community Colleges, some 400,000 Pell Grant recipients who attend community colleges might see their aid entirely eliminated. Other changes in the bill It's not just Pell Grants that Republicans are targeting with the big, beautiful bill. If the legislation becomes law, students from low- and middle-income families might also see the cost of college actually increase. The bill proposes to eliminate subsidized loans, which don't accrue interest while students are in school. The bill also imposes a lifetime cap on how much students can borrow, including a limit based on the median cost of a given program. And while capping how much money people can borrow is generally a good idea because higher amounts of debt can drag people down, the proposed limits don't account for varying costs by state or university. Professional programs, including medical school, would be especially difficult to finance, which is why some have been warning that the bill could worsen America's doctor shortage. Another way these cuts might make college more expensive is that students might turn to private lenders with higher interest rates. As Julie Margetta Morgan, the president of the Century Foundation, recently told me, 'It's not only cutting Pell Grants and the affordability of student loan programs in order to fund tax cuts to the wealthy, but it's also creating a gap where [private lenders] are all too happy to come in.' So while Musk and Trump argue (at least in part) over whether this bill is cutting enough spending, the reality is the legislation as proposed would already be devastating for many families. And just like the proposed Medicaid cuts, the provisions involving student loans make it clear that the bill's burden will fall on some of the country's most vulnerable people. This story was featured in the Within Our Means newsletter. Sign up here.
Vox
6 hours ago
- Vox
Trump's big, beautiful bill, explained in 5 charts
covers politics Vox. She first joined Vox in 2019, and her work has also appeared in Politico, Washington Monthly, and the New Republic. President Donald Trump, joined by Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, speaks to members of the media as he arrives for a House Republican meeting at the Capitol on May 20, fight over President Donald Trump's so-called big, beautiful bill is turning ugly. After passing the GOP-controlled House, the bill has moved to the Senate, where Republicans are facing a bitter divide over how to balance their competing priorities. They want to extend and expand Trump's tax cuts, which disproportionately benefit the rich and come at a steep price tag, as well as bolster immigration enforcement and defense spending. However, some are reluctant to do so while increasing the national debt by almost $2.6 trillion and slashing Medicaid benefits. Republicans want to pass the bill by July 4 through a complex process known as budget reconciliation, which requires only 51 votes to pass. There are 53 Republicans in the Senate, but it's unclear whether they will be able to resolve their disagreements in time. Some Republican senators, including Ron Johnson (R-WI.) and Rand Paul (R-KY), have criticized the current version of the bill as unreasonable. Trump megadonor (and newly sworn enemy) Elon Musk has called on lawmakers to rework the legislation, which he dubbed a 'disgusting abomination.' 'Call your Senator, Call your Congressman, Bankrupting America is NOT ok! KILL the BILL,' Musk said in a post on X Wednesday. Today, Explained Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day, compiled by news editor Sean Collins. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. House Speaker Mike Johnson has said that Musk is 'flat wrong' about the bill and that there is not enough time to go back to the drawing board. So, what exactly is in the bill, and what does it mean — for the deficit and for Americans? We break it down, in charts. The bill would cause the US deficit to skyrocket This spending bill is expensive, and short of truly drastic cuts to nearly all social programs (and perhaps not even with such cuts), it's not clear that the government could feasibly pass it without increasing the national debt. The version that passed the House would raise the deficit by trillions of dollars over the next decade, not accounting for the potential effects the bill would have on the US economy. That spending is concentrated between 2025 and 2028, coinciding with the next presidential election. Republicans once campaigned against raising the national debt during the Obama administration, framing it as a national security threat and a burden to future generations. But it's no longer the rallying cry it once was. There are reasons to be concerned about a growing national debt. As my colleague Dylan Matthews writes, the bond market is already bristling at the prospect of such a significant increase in the deficit, a warning of potential economic downturn or even further increasing debt due to higher servicing costs if the bill becomes law. Tax cuts are what make the bill so expensive Trump wants to build on the tax cuts he passed during his first term. They are set to expire this year if Congress does not act, and the spending bill would keep them in place. It would also add some new ones, including the elimination of taxes on tips. That is going to cost the US government. A breakdown of the bill's budgetary effects published by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that the House Ways and Means Committee, which presides over tax policy, would be permitted to contribute an additional $3.8 trillion to the deficit — far more than any other House committee. That's at least in part because tax revenue would be lower under the bill. Meanwhile, the Armed Services and Homeland Security committees are the only others where Trump is seeking significant increases in spending as he seeks to deliver on his campaign promise of 'mass deportations' with assistance from the military. Any spending cuts in other areas aren't nearly enough to counterbalance the resulting increase in the US deficit. That would likely require Republicans to slash public benefits even further than they already have in this bill. While they haven't gone so far as to touch Social Security benefits, they have gone after Medicaid and insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act. Millions could become uninsured under the spending bill Republicans have also included measures in the bill that would greatly increase the number of people without health insurance, according to a CBO estimate. One provision allows enhanced premium tax credits for ACA insurance plans to lapse, which would increase premiums for millions of Americans who rely on them. After the Covid-19 stimulus bill was signed in 2021, these tax credits became available to anyone whose premiums were over 8.5 percent of their household income — not just people earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line. Enrollment in ACA plans subsequently doubled to 24.3 million people between 2020 and 2025. The House bill would allow those expanded tax credits to expire this year, effectively driving people out of the ACA marketplaces with higher costs. Another provision would significantly decrease Medicaid enrollment by creating a work requirement for people under the age of 64 who do not have a dependent under 7 years old. While not directly slashing Medicaid benefits, the work requirement would create additional barriers to Medicaid access, including administrative hurdles that could result in lower enrollment even among people who do work. (It's worth noting that most nondisabled Medicaid recipients already work.) Some states have already implemented similar work requirements with disappointing results. Arkansas and Georgia saw Medicaid enrollments plummet thereafter, with a court eventually overturning the Arkansas requirements on the basis that they violated federal Medicaid law. The spending bill disproportionately benefits the rich Under the tax cuts passed by Trump during his first term, the top 1 percent of earners saw the most significant gains, both in dollar amounts and as a percentage of their incomes. This time is no different. Top earners will again profit significantly from the House spending bill, according to the CBO. The lowest earners, meanwhile, will see their household resources shrink, primarily due to reduced access to public benefits programs such as Medicaid and SNAP and higher ACA insurance premiums. The bill could have a big impact on immigrant populations and their families abroad The House bill advances numerous provisions targeting immigrants and undermining their US-citizen relatives, from restricting access to public benefits for families in which at least one person is undocumented to imposing new fees on asylum-seekers. However, there is one that would have a sizable impact well beyond America's borders: a new tax on remittances, the payments that immigrants typically send to their families in their home countries. The US is the largest source of remittances worldwide. Some of the top receiving countries include America's neighbors in Central and South America — countries that have produced high numbers of migrants in recent years. That's significant because remittances have historically accounted for much larger sums than any foreign aid provided by the US and represent efficient, direct payments to individuals who can spend that money on what they need, mitigating economic incentives for them to migrate.
Vox
2 days ago
- Vox
Elon Musk couldn't change Trump's mind on electric vehicles
is a correspondent at Vox writing about climate change, energy policy, and science. He is also a regular contributor to the radio program Science Friday. Prior to Vox, he was a reporter for ClimateWire at E&E News. Elon Musk and President Donald Trump — two of the most powerful, outspoken billionaires in America — are still tangled up in a messy breakup over a variety of issues. It's no shock that these two men with huge egos would have friction, but it's interesting to look at some of the specific things that seem to be causing trouble between them. In particular, Trump's and Musk's differing views on climate change and clean energy have evidently become an irritant again. Recall that Musk, CEO of the electric car company Tesla, participated in White House councils during Trump's first term, but left after Trump began the process of pulling the US out of the Paris climate agreement. But Musk began to drift to the political right. He publicly backed Trump's campaign for a second term — onstage and with money — and was rewarded with a high-profile quasi-governmental post as the head of the new Department of Government Efficiency that laid off thousands of federal workers. It seemed like they were accomplishing their mutual goals. Trump even turned the White House into a sales lot for Tesla and got one himself. However, Tesla made about one-third of its profits over the past decade from selling compliance credits to other carmakers in states that adopted California's vehicle emissions rules as well as in several other countries. The Trump administration is also targeting the programs that created this line of business through executive orders. The back-and-forth over the years between Trump and Musk was mirrored in the perceptions of Tesla's products. The sleek electric cars were once rolling billboards projecting that their owners were concerned about climate change and are now attacked as endorsements of fascism. More broadly, it shows that there are stubborn political divides on how people view clean technology — electric vehicles, renewable energy, battery storage, and so on. A poll this week from the Pew Research Center showed that Republicans have less and less favorable views of clean tech. The exception is nuclear energy, which has seen increasing support among both Democrats and Republicans. Pew Research Center But on the flip side, Republicans tend to strongly support fossil fuel extraction from offshore oil drilling, hydraulic fracturing, and coal mining — far more than Democrats do. California and 11 other states now plan to end the sales of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035. Two-thirds of Americans say they are against this idea, but here, too, there's a political divide, with 85 percent of Republicans and 45 percent of Democrats in opposition. Looking back over the past five years, it's apparent that even when Trump and Musk were in alignment, they couldn't change the political valence of electric cars. Pew Research Center Now, at least one more Republican has soured on EVs: Trump is reportedly looking for a buyer for his red Tesla Model S after his dustup with Musk. It will take more than a thumbs-up from the White House or the enthusiastic backing of a billionaire to change Republicans' minds about technologies that help limit climate change. There are some outliers, though, like the Iowa Trump supporters who also back wind power. Related Meet the Trump supporters who love wind energy But the momentum behind these tools is massive and mounting. Wind, solar, EVs, and grid batteries have all seen tremendous price drops, huge performance gains, and surging deployment in recent years. The Trump administration's policies could sap some of this momentum, but they can't stop it.
