Skip to main content

By Ashley Burnside

Families throughout the nation are facing a worsening affordability crisis. Tax credits, like the Child Tax Credit (CTC), can provide a temporary cash influx during tax season to help families pay off high-interest debt, afford bigger expenses like a car repair, or bolster their savings for an emergency. But because the CTC has an earnings requirement, it won’t reach 19 million children because their families don’t earn enough. It will also exclude 2.6 million children with parents who don’t have Social Security numbers. The CTC lifted approximately 2.4 million children above the poverty line in 2024, reducing child poverty by about 20 percent. In comparison, an expanded CTC would lower the child poverty rate by nearly half. Lawmakers should expand the CTC to reduce child poverty and to invest in families.

Raising a child has always been expensive, but parents across the country are facing steeper costs each month, while wages are not keeping up. Rent and housing costs are increasing, as are the costs for groceries, child care, utility bills, and more. The war in Iran has also skyrocketed gas prices, which will hit families who rely on driving to commute to work especially hard. The CTC alone will not solve this affordability crisis, but it is one tool that can help parents pay their bills and provide more enrichment opportunities for their children during tax time.

The CTC is a tax credit available to families with children under the age of seventeen who meet income and eligibility criteria. H.R. 1 (also called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act), which became law last summer, increased the maximum CTC from $2,000 to $2,200 per child and indexed the credit to inflation. But the law did not increase the CTC for the families who need it most.

An estimated 19 million children, or thirty percent of all kids, won’t get the full CTC due to their families not earning enough in 2026. This is because families must have a certain amount of earnings to be eligible for the full credit due to the way it is structured. As a result of many systemic factors, including employment and wage discrimination, generational racism, and segregated housing opportunities, the children not receiving the full CTC due to their families not earning enough are likelier to be Black, Latino, or Native American compared to white and Asian children. [Note: This statistic includes Asian communities as an aggregate, and therefore may mask specific outcomes for Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander subgroups.] About half of Black children won’t get the full CTC in 2026; neither will 42 percent of Latino children or over half of Native American children, compared to about one in five white and Asian children. Meanwhile, a family making up to $400,000 per year will be eligible for the full CTC under current law.

The H.R.1 law also newly made certain immigrant families ineligible for the CTC. Individuals who are not eligible for Social Security numbers can use an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) to file their taxes. Up until the passage of H.R.1 last summer, if the child in the household had a Social Security number, their parents could claim the CTC on their behalf if they have ITINs. Now, at least one parent must have a Social Security number to claim the CTC for the child.

CLASP estimates that 2.6 million children who are U.S. citizens will be newly ineligible for the CTC this year due to this discriminatory policy change. They won’t be the only children left out; because of a policy enacted under the 2017 Trump tax bill, children must have Social Security numbers to be eligible for the CTC. This policy means that about 1 million additional children without Social Security numbers have been excluded from receiving the CTC for the last eight years. These policies will have profound impacts on many immigrant populations and increase the number of people living in poverty.

The small increase to the CTC passed under H.R.1 pales in comparison to the tax breaks that were passed for the very wealthy and for corporations. For example, the law cuts the estate tax, allowing more higher income families to inherit generational wealth without facing the estate tax. It also reduced the top marginal tax rate from 39.6 percent to 37 percent, benefitting those with incomes over $640,000 ($768,000 for married couples). The rich will get richer under this bill, while families will only get a maximum of $200 more per child under the CTC. And this law leaves millions of children out from benefitting from that credit altogether.

Lawmakers should permanently expand the CTC, make it fully available to the thirty percent of children who will be left out of getting it this year, and remove the discriminatory eligibility restrictions for families with ITINs. The American Family Act (H.R 2763/S.1393) is one bill that would make these changes. Lawmakers should also expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to help it reach more young workers and workers without dependent kids. Finally, lawmakers should also reinstate the Direct File tool that helps tax filers claim their taxes for free.

The tax code is an important tool for investing in families and workers. Lawmakers have advanced tax policies that don’t reach people living in poverty and that exclude immigrant families, while allowing the wealth gap to widen by implementing changes allowing the rich to get richer.

This statement can be attributed to Wendy Chun-Hoon, president and executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP). 

Washington, D.C., April 6, 2026–The Trump Administration’s budget proposal predictably cuts support for children, families, and workers, at a time when families are already struggling to make ends meet. It’s the same tired story from this administration, asserting that within the proposed $8 trillion budget, our country must cut funding for the programs that help families get by so they can increase defense funding and underwrite their immigration enforcement that rips families and communities apart. 

CLASP documented the many ways the Trump Administration went out of its way to hurt families and communities in 2025, and this budget is another step in that direction. It would increase the number of people in poverty even further, on top of all of the other policies the administration has signed into law, like denying millions of people their health coverage and food assistance through H.R.1.  

The Trump Administration has proposed even more drastic cuts to vital programs that workers rely on for workforce development and access to jobs that pay living wages. On top of that, rising inflation and increased strain on state budgets from H.R. 1 mean that cuts and level funding to programs like Head Start, SNAP, and public health programs, which support mental and maternal and child health, along with grants that support child care and housing would further reduce access to essential services. All of this contributes to the administration’s attacks on affordability and the social safety net.

We know what we need to invest in to support families – health care, food assistance, housing, child care, worker development programs, education. But instead, this budget slashes funding to programs that support families while continuing to inflate the budget of immigration enforcement agents who are separating families and traumatizing communities. 

The President’s budget is unacceptable. Congress should reject it and work to pass a budget that actually reflects the needs of our communities. 

By Jesse Fairbanks 

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has proposed a rule that would expand work requirements and term limits in federal rental assistance programs. The rule permits providers to discontinue rental assistance after a family has lived in their home for only  two years and/or require recipients to report how many hours they work. Neither of these policy options will increase assisted households’ income enough to afford basic needs without help. HUD’s plan ignores the cruel housing and labor markets that plague people with low incomes. Millions of families are at risk of eviction and homelessness should this rule become finalized. 

There is little research regarding work requirements and time limits in rental assistance programs. Only 1 percent of public housing authorities (roughly 30 out of 3,000) have implemented either policy, and even fewer have had their programs evaluated. However, extensive evidence from public benefits programs like SNAP, Medicaid, and TANF shows that these policies do not help people get jobs that pay a living wage. In fact, most research suggests that work requirements and time limits don’t increase employment rates at all. They instead punish people when they are facing challenges, such as getting laid off, at great cost to providers.

Under the proposed rule, public housing authorities and certain landlords could:

Of the roughly five million households that receive federal rental assistance, a little under half may be considered “work-eligible” and therefore subject to the requirement. People with disabilities; who have some caregiving responsibilities; who are pregnant; or who are enrolled in college are excluded from the rule. However, these exemptions don’t include people caring for a child in elementary school or a loved one who lives outside of the home, though providers can choose to exclude additional groups of people. Data suggests that carving out exemptions for special populations does not prevent them from losing assistance, as people still have to go through complicated processes to prove their exemption.

While the rule is discretionary, meaning a provider of federal rental assistance is not mandated to adopt either policy, state policymakers could pressure providers to implement work requirements or time limits. Trigger laws exist in Arkansas and Wisconsin that would force public housing authorities to adopt a work reporting requirement. It’s likely that providers in states with conservative governors or legislatures will not have the freedom to decide if they want to implement either expensive policy option. 

The proposed rule requires providers who adopt either policy to offer supportive services. However, what qualifies as a “supportive service” is broad, ranging from referrals to workforce development centers to transportation support, and the federal government will not release additional funds to provide these services. Therefore, a provider could give a household a pamphlet referring them to the local organizations with a job training program and claim that it has met this requirement. 

Implementing expensive reporting requirements or term limits will leave providers with fewer resources to invest in supportive services that actually help people find quality jobs. Over 700 providers have made progress toward improving employment outcomes through a successful voluntary program called the Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program. Families participating in FSS are offered meaningful supportive services that help them increase their earned income. When a family’s income increases, they must pay more for rent. Providers help participating families create savings despite the rent increase by depositing a matching amount into an interest-bearing FSS account that families can access upon completing the program. Families who participate in FSS leave the program with an average of $10,800 in savings. Thirty-five to forty percent of families who completed FSS exited rental assistance within one year, and 15 percent became homeowners. Over time, sinking government money into enforcing work reporting requirements and time limits could undermine funding for effective mobility programs like FSS. 

If the Trump Administration cared about the 16 million households who need help affording rent, they would invest in federal rental assistance so that families don’t remain waitlists for upward of two years. Rents are too expensive. Fewer than half of all full-time workers earn wages high enough to afford rent for a one-bedroom home. Fully funding the housing choice voucher program would cost the federal government about $100 billion. Establishing a federal renter’s tax credit would cost $78 billion. Compare those figures to ICE’s current $85 billion budget, or the $12 billion the U.S. government has spent on the war on Iran so far. The federal government succeeds at increasing self-sufficiency when it invests in recipients, not when it penalizes them for struggling to find work that pays enough to make rent. 

Advocates can express opposition to this rule by submitting a comment on regulations.gov no later than May 1, 2026. This template co-created with the National Housing Law Project provides an example comment, with prompts for individuals to customize it. CLASP and our partners have created a fact sheet and potential impact for every state to support commenting efforts. 

Updated March 23, 2026, by Priya Pandey; Spanish version added September 2025 (see link below)

Originally published in 2019 by Rebecca Ullrich, updated in February 2022 by Alejandra Londono Gomez, and updated further in January 2025 and March 2026 by Priya Pandey.

Early childhood programs play an important role in the lives of young children and their families. But in our current political climate, families across the country are questioning whether it’s safe to attend or enroll.

In January 2025, the Trump Administration rescinded the Biden Administration’s guidelines for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection enforcement actions in certain “protected areas.” Immigration enforcement actions had previously been restricted at or near these locations, which include early childhood programs such as licensed child care, preschool, pre-kindergarten, and Head Start programs.

In response to the administration’s actions in January 2025 and since, we have updated “A Guide to Creating ‘Safe Space’ Policies for Early Childhood Programs,” which gives practitioners, advocates, and policymakers information and resources to design and implement “safe space” policies that safeguard early childhood programs against immigration enforcement, as well as protect families’ safety and privacy. The guide also includes sample policy text that early childhood providers can adapt for their programs.

Download in English here

Disponible en español aqui

By Ashley Blair, member of the Community Partnership Group,

Ashley is a member of CLASP’s Community Partnership Group (CPG) and VOICE (Victory Over Injustice Creates Equality). In this final installment of her CPG blog series, she embodies the work of VOICE by uplifting the voices of people who have lived experience of using SNAP, WIC, and other public benefits programs. Read her first blog here and her second blog here.

For many mothers and fathers, becoming a parent is an incredibly rewarding journey. From hearing the child’s heartbeat for the first time to hearing their first cry, parenthood is a beautiful experience. Many people dream of the day they become parents and place all the love they have inside of them into this tiny human. 

While much about parenthood is wonderful and loving, it can also cause financial and mental hardships, even affecting education and career choices that could place parents in a better financial position. As a mother of two, I can attest to how my financial focus has shifted to my children’s needs, and how I’ve given things up because of those needs. While this is my experience, I’ve gathered the lived experiences from three mothers and one father who candidly shared how parenthood, while a beautiful experience, comes with its challenges.

A 33-year-old mother of three from Memphis shares how becoming a parent has affected her financially and in her career. When I ask how her financial situation changed after having children, she replies that it “changed quite a bit. I’ve had to budget and make it a priority to only get what my children need, which is still at times difficult. My babies could only drink Gerber Good Start formula, which was not on the WIC list at the time, so I had to pay out of pocket for it.” She also remembers how she has had to, and still must, sacrifice her own needs. For example, she left the workforce to become a full-time student in order to graduate sooner in hopes of getting a better-paying position to support her children. This mother credits her faith in Jesus Christ for sustaining her and her family on the days she feels overwhelmed or mentally drained. 

At the end of our conversation, I ask how she thinks societal or governmental support could be improved for parents. She responds, “I would have to say, increase wages to help us parents stay afloat with our bills and afford our children’s needs. That way it doesn’t feel like we have to choose between two important needs, whether paying rent to keep a roof over our family’s head, paying for medications, keeping lights on, and having enough food.” 

“As long as I can remember, I’ve had to work two to three jobs to ensure my children had everything they needed. I believe that it’s just what has to be done. You just have to do what you have to do.”

The lived experience of a 69-year-old mother of two who also lives in Memphis shows how much hasn’t changed in regard to parenthood as an entry point into poverty. “As long as I can remember, I’ve had to work two to three jobs to ensure my children had everything they needed. I believe that it’s just what has to be done. You just have to do what you have to do.” Eventually, she was able to become a manager at one of the top logistics companies in Memphis, a job she kept until she retired. While she doesn’t regret her choices, when this mother looks back over her life, she knows there had to be and should be a better way. Raised during the Civil Rights movement, this woman had experienced many injustices in her childhood that led to poverty and worked hard to ensure her children did not have to continue that cycle. “Breaking generational cycles,” she says about that achievement. “If I have to sacrifice my needs for my children, so be it,” she adds passionately. This mother is adamant about change and would like to see parents enjoying their children more and not being stuck at work to make ends meet. “The policies have gotten a little better, but there is still much work to be done,” she tells me. “I would like to see policies shaped by people who have actually been in these conditions. It will create more opportunities for parents to get ahead.”

A 36-year-old father of two from Nashville absolutely adores his children. He speaks so highly of them, and beams with joy at just the mention of their names. He is and has always been present to help his wife and children and would not trade this life for the world. After his first child was born, he recalls having to work a second job for two years just to take care of additional expenses like clothes, formula, and diapers. “After that second year, my wife and I had our second child and could no longer occupy the space of a one-bedroom loft, so we purchased a home which, as you can imagine, brought … unexpected expenses.” Through this transition, he had to be very diligent about spending habits to ensure he could provide for his family. “As a traveling musician, it is not always easy to accept a gig. I have to be intentional with work and schedule choices to stay present in my home. I’ve also had to gain better financial literacy to set up a future for my children’s interest and future finances.” Contrary to popular belief, even two-parent households can face financial and career hardships. 

A 35-year-old mother of one child from Birmingham, AL, became overcome with emotion recounting the events that led to her giving up her dream career. “Before I had my daughter, I was chasing my dream of living in Los Angeles and becoming a film producer. I had already completed my college degree and was fully committed to building that life for myself. But right before I became a mother—and without financial support from her family—the reality of trying to survive in Los Angeles became overwhelming.” With tears streaming down her face, she recounted what her life could have been and the version of herself that she once imagined. In addition to grieving her long-held dream, becoming a mother has kept her from excelling in her current career. This mother now has to prioritize flexibility over rapid career growth. “I’ve had to think not just about what would advance my career, but what realistically allows me to be present and available for my child.” When I ask how she thinks societal or government support could be improved for parents, she raises some valuable points. “The eligibility requirements for assistance programs like food benefits should better reflect the real cost of living. Many parents earn just enough to disqualify them from programs like SNAP, but not enough to comfortably afford rent, groceries, child care, utilities, and health care.” Being a parent who falls into that “in-between” income bracket has caused her to face challenges when accessing resources like SNAP, and she feels that tiered support levels would help prevent families from constantly living paycheck to paycheck. 

Something I noticed that all these lived experiences have in common is the love the parents have for their children! Their willingness to sacrifice their dreams and to go without so their children can have a better life speaks volumes. Even in the midst of teetering on the edge of, or falling into, poverty as defined by the government, these women and men are putting their children first.Being a parent is no small feat. Being responsible for a helpless little human being is an amazing gift, but the world we live in makes it a little difficult to survive with children. There may be many programs to help mothers specifically gain access to resources for their children, but often men do not have that same access. Parents are parents and resources should be accessible to all. I pray these testimonies give light to the hardships people face when entering parenthood and how they can put a strain on finances, emotional well-being, and career opportunities. I personally believe this can be overcome by uplifting the voices of the parents who have lived in or close to poverty so that the government can understand what is actually going on in communities around the country. There is strength in our voice!

By Parker Gilkesson Davis and Teon Hayes

For years, much of CLASP’s food assistance work has centered on protecting and strengthening federal programs like SNAP and WIC. SNAP helps millions of families put food on the table, and WIC supports pregnant people, babies, and young children at some of the most vulnerable points in their lives. These programs save lives, and we will continue to fight for them.

But events in 2025 made something painfully clear: federal programs alone cannot be the only plan.

Since January 2025, we’ve watched a steady stream of political attacks on SNAP—through budget cuts, expanded work requirements, and rhetoric that treats hunger as a personal failure rather than a systemic one. At the same time, our long-standing work with the Community Partnership Group (CPG), and our own lived experiences have been telling us the same thing: people are already struggling to get enough food, even with SNAP.

Then came the government shutdown in late 2025.

Parker: As I sat with the reality of what could happen if SNAP benefits truly weren’t administered, I found myself asking a very simple question: What are people going to do? I began searching for organizations in my hometown of Peoria, IL, that could provide food at scale outside of food banks or small, short-term local efforts. And I kept hitting a wall. The truth is, we do not have many systems in place to feed people outside of federal programs. If SNAP really ended, there was no backup plan.

That moment forced a reckoning for Teon Hayes and me who lead our food assistance work, and honestly, our entire team.

It became clear just how commodified our food systems have become and how dependent we are on institutions and markets that can disappear or fail us overnight. And it made me realize that we have lost touch with something our ancestors understood deeply: food sovereignty. The ability to feed ourselves and one another, no matter what.

I think often about conversations I had as a child with my grandmothers. I asked them what it was like growing up during the Great Depression. Both of them said something similar: they couldn’t really tell the difference. 

Both of my grandmothers were Black, growing up under the Black Codes and Jim Crow, living in poverty long before the Great Depression ever had its name. Hardship was already a reality. But they told me this: no matter what was happening around them, our people knew how to survive. Farming, bartering, cooking, canning, sharing food, and feeding one another. These were not hobbies or trends—they were collective skills passed down, refined, and relied on.

While the rest of the country was learning how to survive the Great Depression, our ancestors already had the code.

That history matters right now.

What this moment is calling us to do is remember. To return to the ways our communities have always cared for one another. To build food systems that are rooted in people, not politics. To recognize that while federal programs like SNAP and WIC must be protected and strengthened, they cannot be the only answer.

Here on CLASP’s Public Benefits Justice Team, we are expanding how we think about food assistance—not because SNAP doesn’t matter, but because people matter more. We are looking beyond federal programs to uplift community-led solutions, local and state initiatives, and the work that community-based organizations have been doing for generations. We see our role as learners and connectors—listening to what’s already working, sharing information, and helping connect community power to policymaking power.

Ensuring that everyone eats feels urgent, but it also feels possible. Our ancestors showed us how. They fed one another through conditions far worse than this. They survived because they had each other.

This is a call to remember. To reconnect. And to build food systems that can carry us through yet another moment—together.

To learn more about why we’re expanding our approach to food assistance, what food resources are available to communities right now, and how this work is playing out on the ground, click here to read our full paper about this new approach, which includes a real-life example from Peoria—because if it plays in Peoria, it can play anywhere.

By Teon Hayes and Parker Gilkesson Davis

Threats to SNAP other food assistance programs reveal the urgent need for a broader food sovereignty approach to solving hunger. The authors promote community power, focus on local food systems, and sustained targeted investment. The brief highlights how Black, Indigenous, and immigrant communities have long fed themselves despite disinvestment, land theft, and policy barriers. The brief takes a look at Peoria, Illinois, as a prime example, showing both the strengths and limitations of local response. Local communities can bridge gaps, but policymakers must act to ensure that everyone can access proper nutrition and thrive.

>>Read more

CLASP joined an amicus brief filed with the United States Supreme Court in Trump v. Barbara challenging Executive Order 14160, which seeks to end birthright citizenship. The brief outlines the immediate and long-term harms to babies and children if birthright citizenship is eliminated. It was co-authored by Persyn Law & Policy on behalf of First Focus on Children, CLASP, Children Now, the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights, and child health and development experts.

>> Download here

By Parker Gilkesson Davis

CLASP’s Parker Gilkesson Davis was featured on an episode of “Say That With Love,” a podcast from the National Black Child Development Institute, for a conversation with Dr. Leah Austin about food, health, and family well-being. In the episode, Parker discusses how healthy eating can be accessible and affirming rather than restrictive, and reflects on the broader connections between nutrition, care, and supporting children and families. The conversation highlights practical and values-driven ways to think about nourishment and community wellness.

Watch the full episode below:

The Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) submitted this comment in response to the U.S. Department of Education’s Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) Committee’s ongoing rulemaking to implement student financial aid provisions under Public Law 119–21 and the Office of Postsecondary Education’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued on January 30, 2026.

>>Download the comment here.