
Trump voucher plan would divert billions in taxes to private schools
Congressional Republicans, backed by the White House, are pushing for a new tax credit that would direct billions of dollars a year to school voucher programs — and not just in conservative states.
The program would be fueled by a powerful, never-before-tried incentive: Taxpayers who donate to voucher programs would get 100 percent of their money back when they file their taxes. That means the tax break for giving to voucher programs would dwarf tax incentives for giving to churches, hospitals, food banks and every other charity.
Taxpayers who donate to other charities might qualify for a tax deduction — meaning they would not pay taxes on the dollars they contribute. But donors to voucher programs would get a dollar-for-dollar tax credit, meaning they could subtract the full value of the donation from their bottom line tax liability.
One version of the plan would cost the federal government $5 billion a year in lost revenue; another version, $10 billion. At $10,000 per student, $5 billion would be enough to pay for about 500,000 vouchers, which families could use to send their children to private schools or to pay for home schooling expenses. Under a version of the bill approved by the House Ways and Means Committee last fall and a new version introduced this year, all but the wealthiest families would be eligible to receive vouchers.
'It would be transformational,' said Jim Blew, co-founder of the Defense of Freedom Institute, which advocates for school choice programs. 'Although the numbers are very small in the federal context, in the context of the school choice movement, these are huge numbers.'
About 46 million American children — nearly nine in 10 — attend public schools; about 5 million are enrolled in private schools, according to federal data.
Blew and others argue that public schools have failed many students, and families deserve the opportunity to choose alternatives with taxpayer support, just like public school students get taxpayer support. Backers often point to poor test scores and schools that were kept closed for long periods during the pandemic as reasons more choice is needed. They call the movement 'education freedom' and sometimes deride public education as 'government schools.'
'Giving students a brighter future, no matter their background or address, is critical to move American K-12 education forward,' said Rep. Adrian Smith (R-Nebraska), co-sponsor of legislation to create the tax credits.
But opposition is fierce from those who say these plans drain resources from public schools, which are required by law to take all children. Public school advocates are mobilizing publicly and privately against the plan, lobbying Republicans who might oppose it based on the merits or the cost.
'We're making sure the public understands this is the greatest threat to public education we've ever had at the federal level,' said Sasha Pudelski, director of advocacy for AASA, the School Superintendents Association, who helps lead a coalition of more than 60 groups opposed to the voucher plan.
Pudelski noted that unlike public schools, private schools can reject students based on their religion, test scores, disability or ability to pay tuition. The vast majority of vouchers in existing state programs go to religious schools.
'It would be the first time the federal government is choosing to subsidize a secondary private system of education that can pick and choose the students it educates over the one that welcomes all,' she said.
Voters, too, have opposed these plans. In November, ballot measures to allow vouchers in Kentucky and Colorado failed, while voters in Nebraska voted to repeal a voucher program put into place by the legislature.
But the federal plan enjoys robust support from the most powerful people in today's Republican Party. President Donald Trump has repeatedly vowed to create a federal school choice program. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) have both co-sponsored versions of the voucher legislation.
Supporters hope the tax credit will be included in the massive budget reconciliation bill that is moving through Congress using a procedure that allows passage in the Senate with a simple majority. It's not a given. The budget bill's primary purpose is to extend trillions of dollars in tax cuts set to expire, and lawmakers are searching for savings to fill that hole. The tax credit would make the hole deeper.
Victory in Congress would mark the biggest, but not the only, advance for the school choice movement this year.
Last month, the governors of Tennessee and Idaho signed legislation creating new voucher programs, bringing the total number of states with voucher programs available to all or nearly all families to 16, according to EdChoice, an advocacy group that tracks state policy.
In Texas, where voucher plans have been blocked for years, lawmakers appear poised to enact a program after Gov. Greg Abbott intervened in GOP primaries to replace Republicans who opposed vouchers with Republicans who support them.
And in January, Trump signed an executive order directing the Education Department to look for ways to divert existing federal spending into voucher programs.
'Parents want and deserve the best education for their children,' the order said. 'But too many children do not thrive in their assigned, government-run K-12 school.'
The first voucher programs date to the 1990s, and they were initially touted as a way to help families who cannot afford private school and were stuck in low-performing public districts. The early programs limited participants based on income, location or both. Some were targeted to children with disabilities.
Later, backers overcame opposition by creating tax credit programs — a way to offer vouchers without directly allocating money from the state budget. Instead, states offered generous tax credits to corporations and individuals who donated to nonprofit 'scholarship granting organizations.' The organizations, called SGOs, then used the donations to give scholarships, or vouchers, to pay for private school.
Twenty-one states have tax credit scholarship programs in place, according to EdChoice.
Congress based the tax credit plan it is now considering on these models. In states that don't have these programs — typically those run by Democrats — scholarship-granting organizations could be created to participate in the federal plan without any state action.
In the meantime, conservative states have become more willing to create direct voucher programs, and they have made them available to families of all incomes, arguing government should support any school that a parent chooses. They typically also offer families money to pay expenses associated with home schooling.
In many states that keep track, most of the families receiving the subsidies were already sending their children to private schools. In some cases, private schools have raised their tuition, now that families have access to additional funding.
Under the proposed federal plan, families earning up to three times their area median income would qualify for vouchers. That's more than $450,000 per year in D.C., or more than $270,000 in Morgantown, West Virginia
This bill marks the second big push for this idea in Congress. In 2017, at the start of Trump's first term, a similar budget reconciliation bill was being negotiated. Betsy DeVos, the education secretary at the time, lobbied hard for the tax credit plan to be included, but it was left out.
At the time, some conservatives opposed it, including the influential Heritage Foundation, which argued that the tax credit would complicate the tax code, allow for future regulations on private schools, improperly broaden the federal role in education and require 'massive new spending.'
'A new federal tax-credit scholarship program would make private schools increasingly dependent on federal funds … greatly expanding Washington's reach into K-12 education generally, and private school education, specifically,' wrote Lindsey Burke, who directs education policy at Heritage.
But Burke changed her position. In Project 2025, the conservative blueprint for a new president, she wrote that Congress 'should consider' a school choice tax credit.
Burke declined an interview request to discuss why she changed her view.
The plan under consideration would be a first for federal policy. No other donations qualify for a 100 percent federal tax credit, tax experts say.
Under the plan, both individuals and corporations could qualify for the tax credit. For individuals, the credit applies for donations up to $5,000 or 10 percent of adjusted gross income, whichever is higher. For corporations, it's up to 5 percent of taxable income.
'There is nothing like this at the federal level,' said Carl Davis, research director at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. 'This is not normal tax policy.'
For other charitable donations, a tax deduction functions as an incentive or a match — the government is paying part and the taxpayer is paying part. In this case, the government is paying all of it.
But Davis's bigger concern is with another element of the bill. Taxpayers would be allowed to claim a tax credit for donations of stock, as well as cash. When people donate stocks, they would not have to pay capital gains taxes on accumulated earnings. That means that taxpayers who donate stock to a scholarship granting organization would first avoid the capital gains tax and then receive the value of the stock back in the form of a tax credit.
For instance, imagine someone buys $1,000 in stock and, five years later, wants to sell. The stock is now worth $5,000. Normally, a sale would trigger capital gains taxes on the $4,000 of earnings. But using this maneuver, a taxpayer could avoid those taxes by donating the stock to a scholarship organization, and then get the full value — $5,000 — back as a tax credit.
A report his group plans to release next week calculates that a $10 billion annual tax credit will cost the federal government $134 billion over 10 years, including the lost revenue from capital gains taxes.
Davis predicted wealthy people with no particular interest in vouchers will be advised to donate stock to voucher programs to get the combined power of these two tax incentives.
'That is the quintessential definition of a tax shelter,' he said.
Dan Hungerman, an economics professor and expert on charitable giving at the University of Notre Dame, agreed that this would offer a powerful incentive not seen elsewhere in the tax code.
'You're kind of double dipping,' he said, 'avoiding the tax and getting a benefit for the donation.'
Hashtags

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


Politico
27 minutes ago
- Politico
Inside Trump world's reaction to the Zelenskyy reset
3. Trump offered to go straight to a trilateral meeting. The senior administration official told POLITICO that when Trump called Putin to offer his presence at a meeting between Zelenskyy and the Russian leader, Putin said, 'You don't have to come. I want to see him one on one.' Trump's team 'started working on that,' the official said. 'Steve Witkoff has the assignment to get it figured [out].' 4. Alaska paved the way for the 'security guarantees' discussion. If there was any concern within the administration about how the Putin meeting in Anchorage went down, Monday all but evaporated it. 'After Alaska, we were excited that Putin was at least talking and there were signs we could negotiate,' a second senior administration official told POLITICO. One of those signs came on the topic of security guarantees: Putin was 'engaging on a conversation about security guarantees instead of, 'Nyet, nyet, nyet,' this second official said. 'If Alaska was not successful and Putin didn't give us a little bit of an opening, we wouldn't have [had] the Europeans at the White House.' Of Putin: 'He'll drive a hard bargain, but that opening is huge.' 5. Those security guarantees could be a sticking point internationally. It remains unclear just how big a commitment the U.S. has on the line here. 'We haven't even started [that discussion] other than a commitment,' the first senior administration official told POLITICO. 'The question is, 'Who participates to what percentage?' But the president did commit that we would be a part of it. No specifics. And then he said he would also help it get organized. And he alone could sell that to Putin. I don't think Putin would pay any attention to the others, and I'm not sure the others would do it without him.' 6. And those same guarantees could be a problem for Trump domestically. Does the administration have a red line when it comes to committing U.S. troops to keep a peace in Ukraine? 'I don't think there's a red line,' the first senior official told POLITICO. 'So I think it just kind of remains to be seen. [President Trump] would like the Europeans to step up. But I think if the last piece of the puzzle was for a period of time to be a part of a peacekeeping force, I think he would do it.' Meanwhile, as European leaders arrived at the White House, MAGA coalition minder Steve Bannon took to his influential 'War Room' podcast to warn about the U.S. security guarantees in Ukraine. 'I'm just lost how the United States offering an Article 5 commitment for a security guarantee to Ukraine is a win for the United States,' Bannon said on his show Monday morning . 'President Trump has done more than enough to bring the parties together,' Bannon told POLITICO late Monday night. 'Once again, this is a European problem; we have all the leverage here. If we don't fund this, it stops happening. The only way this goes forward — the only way this continues every day — is American money and American arms. The Europeans don't have enough either military hardware and/or financial wherewithal.' Bannon said he hopes Trump 'eventually stops listening to the [Sens.] Lindsey Grahams and Tom Cottons and the Mitch McConnells, and realizes that there can't be any guarantee here from the United States, because that's going to inextricably link us to this conflict.' In a Truth Social post on Monday about the next steps, Trump said 'Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, are coordinating with Russia and Ukraine.' That callout was striking. 'That's the first time JD and Marco have been dragged into a big foreign policy issue together,' the second senior administration official told POLITICO. 'If it's JD and Marco and Witkoff, who gets the credit and who gets the blame if it fails? This could be the first test of 2028.' Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO's Playbook newsletter.

USA Today
29 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump approval holds at 40%, lowest of his term, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
WASHINGTON, Aug 18 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's approval rating held at 40% in recent weeks, matching the lowest level of his current term, amid weak ratings from Hispanic voters, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on Monday. The six-day poll was conducted as economic data showed signs the U.S. labor market is weakening and as Trump oversees a sweeping immigration crackdown, while at the same time the Republican has been engaged in intense diplomacy to end a war between Russia and Ukraine. Trump's approval rating was unchanged from a late July Reuters/Ipsos poll, but has dropped seven percentage points since his first days back in the White House in January, when 47% of Americans gave him a thumbs-up. The latest poll showed Hispanics, a group that swung toward Trump in last year's election, have also soured on the president. Some 32% approved of his performance in the White House, matching their lowest level of approval for Trump this year. More: Trump approval rating round-up: Where does president stand in recent polls? More than half of respondents -- 54%, including one in five Republicans -- said they thought Trump was too closely aligned with Russia, even as he ramped up a push to broker peace between Moscow and Kyiv. Trump has appeared to embrace Russia's claim that Ukraine must cede territory to Russia in order for the war to stop. Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, and the poll closed just ahead of the president's meeting on Monday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Just 42% of respondents approved of Trump's performance on crime and 43% thought he was doing a good job on immigration policy. On all policies, Trump's support came overwhelmingly from Republicans. After returning to the White House in January, Trump ordered a sweeping crackdown on people living in the country illegally, deploying masked agents to arrest and deport migrants across the country. The policy has triggered mass protests in cities including Los Angeles, where about half the population identifies as Latino and many people have family members who are recent immigrants. More: What is Trump's approval rating? See states where he is most, least popular More recently, Trump ordered federal agents and National Guard troops to aid in law enforcement in Washington, D.C., arguing that crime was rampant there. Statistics show that violent crime shot up in 2023 but has been rapidly declining since. The Reuters/Ipsos poll surveyed 4,446 U.S. adults nationwide and online and had a margin of error of about 2 percentage points. (Reporting by Jason Lange; editing by Scott Malone and Deepa Babington)


Los Angeles Times
29 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Newsom's redistricting move isn't pretty. California GOP leaders are uglier
King Gavin is at it again! That's the cry coming from Republicans across California as Newsom pushes the state Legislature to approve a November special election like none this state has ever seen. Voters would have the chance to approve a congressional map drawn by Democrats hoping to wipe out GOP-held seats and counter Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's Trump-driven redistricting. The president 'doesn't play by a different set of rules — he doesn't believe in the rules,' the governor told a roaring crowd packed with Democratic heavyweights last week at the Japanese American National Museum in Little Tokyo. 'And as a consequence, we need to disabuse ourselves of the way things have been done. It's not good enough to just hold hands, have a candlelight vigil and talk about the way the world should be. ... We have got to meet fire with fire.' California Republicans are responding to this the way a kid reacts if you take away their Pikachu. 'An absolutely ridiculous gerrymander!' whined Rep. Doug LaMalfa, who represents the state's rural northeast corner, on social media. Under the Democratic plan, his district would swing all the way down to ultra-liberal Marin County. The California Republican Party deemed the new maps a 'MASTERCLASS IN CORRUPTION' (Trumpian caps in the original). National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Christian Martinez said 'Newscum' was giving 'a giant middle finger to every Californian.' Intelligent minds can disagree on whether countering an extreme political move with an extreme political move is the right thing. The new maps would supersede the ones devised just four years ago by an independent redistricting commission established to keep politics out of the process, which typically occurs once a decade after the latest census. Good government types, from the League of Women Voters to Charles Munger Jr. — the billionaire who bankrolled the 2010 proposition that created independent redistricting for California congressional races — have criticized Newsom's so-called Election Rigging Response Act. So has former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a fierce Trump critic who posted a photo of himself on social media working out in a T-shirt that read, 'F*** the Politicians / Terminate Gerrymandering.' I'm not fully convinced that Newsom's plan is the MAGA killer he thinks it is. If the economy somehow rebounds next year, Republicans would most likely keep Congress anyway, and Newsom would have upended California politics for nothing. I also don't discount the moderate streak in California voters that pops up from time to time to quash what seem like liberal gimmes, like the failed attempt via ballot measure to repeal affirmative action in 2020 and the passage last year of Proposition 36, which increased penalties for theft and drug crimes. Nearly two-thirds of California voters want to keep redistricting away from the Legislature, according to a POLITICO-Citrin Center-Possibility Lab poll released last week. If Californians reject Newsom's plan, that would torpedo his presidential ambitions and leave egg on the face of state Democratic leaders for years, if not a generation. For now, though, I'm going to enjoy all the tears that California Republicans are shedding. As they face the prospect of even fewer congressional seats than the paltry nine they now hold, they suddenly care about rescuing American democracy? Where were they during Trump's fusillade of lawsuits and threats against California? When he sent the National Guard and Marines to occupy parts of Los Angeles this summer after protests against his deportation deluge? When his underlings spew hate about the Golden State on Fox News and social media? Now they care about political decency? What about when LaMalfa and fellow California GOP House members Ken Calvert and Darrell Issa — whose seats the Newsom maps would also eliminate — voted against certifying Joe Biden's 2020 victory? When the state Republican Party backed a ridiculous recall against Newsom that cost taxpayers $200 million? Or when the Republican congressional delegation unanimously voted to pass Trump's Big Bloated Bill, even though it's expected to gut healthcare and food programs for millions of Californians in red counties? Or even when Trump first pushed Abbott to pursue the very gerrymandering Newsom is now emulating? We're supposed to believe them when they proclaim Newsom is a pompadoured potentate who threatens all Californians, just because he wants to redo congressional maps? Pot, meet black hole. If these GOPers had even an iota of decency or genuine care for the Golden State, they would back a bill by one of their own that I actually support. Rep. Kevin Kiley, whose seat is also targeted for elimination by the Newsom maps, wants to ban all mid-decade congressional redistricting. He stated via a press release that this would 'stop a damaging redistricting war from breaking out across the country.' That's an effort that any believer in liberty can and should back. But Kiley's bill has no co-sponsors so far. And Kevin: Why can't you say that your man Trump created this fiasco in the first place? We live in scary times for our democracy. If you don't believe it, consider that a bunch of masked Border Patrol agents just happened to show up outside the Japanese American National Museum — situated on a historic site where citizens of Japanese ancestry boarded buses to incarceration camps during World War II — at the same time Newsom was delivering his redistricting remarks. Sector Chief Gregory Bovino was there, migra cameramen documenting his every smirk, including when he told a reporter that his agents were there to make 'Los Angeles a safer place, since we won't have politicians that'll do that, we do that ourselves.' The show of force was so obviously an authoritarian flex that Newsom filed a Freedom of Information Act request demanding to know who authorized what and why. Meanwhile, referring to Trump, he described the action on X as 'an attempt to advance a playbook from the despots he admires in Russia and North Korea.' Newsom is not everyone's cup of horchata, myself included. Whether you support it or not, watching him rip up the California Constitution's redistricting section and assuring us it's OK, because he's the one doing it, is discomfiting. But you know what's worse? Trump anything. And even worse? The California GOP leaders who have loudly cheered him on, damn the consequences to the state they supposedly love. History will castigate their cultish devotion to Trump far worse than any of Newsom's attempts to counter that scourge.