Skip to main content

By Marquelle Ogletree

I grew up in a modest, working-class household in north Florida that was rooted in Black American and Caribbean heritage. I’m deeply grateful for the sacrifices of my parents and grandparents; each generation strove to provide a better life for their children than they had, including for me and my two younger sisters. In my family’s history I can see a clear arc of social mobility across borders and generations, but progress has stalled in my own lifetime.

That mobility didn’t keep pace for my immediate family was due not to a lack of effort but, rather, rising costs, stagnant wages, and other systemic reasons. This circumstance isn’t unique to my family. Compared to other demographic groups, social mobility among Black families is not sustainable between generations, even among middle-class households and those who are college educated.

According to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, the median wealth of Black households is just $44,900, compared with $192,900 nationally. This significant discrepancy seems almost uncomprehensible, yet given the long history of excluding Black Americans from federal wealth-building programs, it is unsurprising. From the Homestead Act of 1862 to the GI Bill and early Social Security, government initiatives built white middle-class wealth while locking out Black families through discriminatory policies and enforcement.

My Family’s Story

My maternal grandparents immigrated to the U.S. from Barbados in the 1970s, seeking the opportunity they couldn’t find at home despite strong education and high literacy rates. My paternal grandparents grew up on the east and west coasts of the United States, shaped by different kinds of poverty but bound by the same determination. The circumstances of their poverty looked different: rural poverty in Southern California; inner-city poverty in Baltimore; underdevelopment in Christ Church, Barbados; and lack of economic opportunity in St. James Parish, Barbados. Both sides of my family valued education and worked hard, but that wasn’t enough to guarantee lasting mobility in a system designed to favor others.

All of my grandparents were first-generation college students, and two earned graduate degrees as well. My mother, a teacher, has a bachelor’s degree; my father attended some college and built a career in a state business services job with his accounting background. My younger sister and I are both recent college graduates.

But degrees alone do not close racial wealth gaps. According to a 2018 analysis of data from the National Center for Education Statistics’ 2008 cohort of the Baccalaureate and Beyond longitudinal study, white graduates with at least one college-educated parent tend to earn more than their Black counterparts. A greater share of Black graduates fall into the lowest income category compared to whites which limits homeownership: more white college graduates own homes compared to Black graduates due to greater access to generational wealth. A higher proportion of Black families rent—which was true for my family for a long time until recent years—compared to white graduates.

Though both of my parents provided basic needs for me and my sisters, financial trade-offs still shaped our lives. My mother paused her career for nearly a decade when my sisters and I were young, since the cost of childcare would have outweighed her earnings. This didn’t only affect her career advancement; it meant living on one income and relying on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Special Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Equitable wages, access to benefits, and paid support for domestic labor could help families build wealth and stability: for example, if my father had earned more, that could have offset my mother’s unpaid labor and given us greater financial security.

Social and Historical Trends

White middle-class wealth was formed through public benefits that excluded Black people. The first public benefit, 1862’s Homestead Act, gave white families 160 acres of land (often stolen from Native Americans) after ten years of settlement and a small fee. During the New Deal, white people benefited from the expansion of the so-called welfare state with the introduction of the first food stamp program and the creation of Social Security, which intentionally excluded Black Americans from building wealth. Even when Black people created their own wealth, as in Tulsa, Oklahoma’s “Black Wall Street,” it was violently destroyed because of racial animosity with no guarantee of restoration. This history has created a gap between white and Black economic fortunes that persists to this day.

Capitalism continues to reinforce these inequities. It commodifies basic needs like food and housing, putting working-class and Black families at a disadvantage. Until the current system is reimagined, survival, well-being, and mobility depend on access to capital. If we care about the well-being of Black youth, adults, and elders—or any part of our communities—then equipping people with the resources to thrive is imperative. So much wealth has been hoarded by the top one percent for generations. But through philanthropy, progressive taxation, unrestricted cash transfers, and other initiatives, it is not only possible but necessary to redistribute assets in ways that empower the most impacted.

Repair, Invest, Empower: The Path to Generational Justice

Many advocates have worked to reform public benefit programs to better serve communities of color, individuals with low incomes, and people with disabilities. Yet in the current political climate, many advocates have been preoccupied protecting existing public benefits programs rather than transforming them. Public benefits were designed to help people meet basic needs including housing, food, and health, but survival alone is not enough.

If we truly want to invest in Black well-being, policy must go beyond helping people just get by and instead focus on building wealth, ensuring that Black families thrive and can pass down resources across generations. Doing this means pairing strong public benefits programs with true wealth-building tools—investments, homeownership, business capital, and direct cash empowerment—so that social mobility becomes a lasting reality. These investments can look like:

As I think about living out the hard work and sacrifices my parents and grandparents made to improve my family’s quality of life, I know my individual decisions alone will not be enough to sustain and build generational wealth. This is as true for me as it is for any other Black person. Equitable investment and rectifying past predatory harms are needed to ensure Black people collectively can thrive not just today, but for generations.

By Suzanne Wikle 

Access to health insurance and health care has never been a right in this country. There has always been a division between those that are considered “worthy” and those that are not, mostly along wealth and racial lines. The recent political conversations about Medicaid unfortunately reinforce this division.  

When policy makers debate eligibility criteria for Medicaid and other programs, they are really making a value statement about who deserves health care, food, or any other assistance. The new Medicaid rules, which will go into effect for the Medicaid expansion population in most states in 2027, make strong statements about who is worthy of Medicaid and who is not.  

The recent bill pushed by President Trump and passed by Republicans in Congress on razor-thin margins cuts over $800 billion from Medicaid—“saving” money by causing people to lose their health insurance. One of the primary ways the bill does this is by changing eligibility for Medicaid and attaching a “work requirement” for the 20 million people who are eligible for the Medicaid expansion program in their state. More than 10 million people are expected to lose their Medicaid insurance as a result of this Republican-led legislation.   

About half of people in the country have health insurance through their job, so it may seem like a natural step to attach Medicaid insurance to employment. Nothing could be further from the truth. This fundamental change in Medicaid eligibility undermines the intent of Medicaid and a large portion of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), puts lives at risk, and ultimately declares with more clarity than ever who is deemed worthy of health insurance and who is not. A core vision of the ACA was to provide a pathway to affordable health insurance outside of employment. This meant creating affordable options for people who owned small businesses, retired early, don’t have employer-provided insurance, or aren’t employed. 

Who is “Worthy”? 

In practice, the new Medicaid law draws arbitrary lines that determine eligibility. For example: 

If you’re a parent with a low income and a child under age 13, you are worthy of Medicaid for your health insurance. If you’re a parent with a low income and your child is 14 or older, you’re not worthy unless you’re working at least 80 hours a month. 

If you’re a waitress earning a low income and working at least 80 hours a month, you’re worthy. But if you get sick and need a few days off, you’ve worked less than 80 hours that month and are no longer worthy. 

If you work for a landscaping company and work at least 80 hours per month during the busy seasons, you’re worthy of Medicaid. But if there’s a particularly rainy month or cold snap and your hours are cut below the threshold set by Congress, you are no longer worthy.  

If you’re working in the gig economy to pay your bills and you are able to prove at least 80 hours of work per month, you are worthy and eligible. But if business slows down, your care is getting repaired for a few days, or you simply can’t produce the right documentation, you may not be worthy. 

If you’re able to navigate the complex paperwork requirements to prove your work hours, then you’re eligible. But if you can’t navigate the system or you don’t have adequate internet access to upload your documents, you’re not worthy enough. 

Racial Inequities in Health Insurance 

It’s not a coincidence that large racial inequities exist in health insurance rates. Systemic racism and states choosing not to expand Medicaid are two major reasons behind the disparities. In 2023, for adults ages 19-64 (the Medicaid expansion age range), white and Asian Americans had uninsurance rates of 7 percent and 6 percent, respectively. All other racial and ethnic groups had uninsurance rates at least double those: 23 percent for Hispanics, 12 percent for Black people, 21 percent for American Indian and Alaskan Natives, and 15 percent for Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders.  

Medicaid disenrollments due to work reporting requirements, like other administrative burdens, will exacerbate these inequities. People of color are disproportionately insured by Medicaid and will disproportionately be harmed by additional red tape.  

The ACA took many steps toward righting these wrongs and ensuring access to health insurance for everyone. It created a marketplace where people can get subsidies to purchase insurance that is required to cover essential health benefits. The ACA also expanded Medicaid to those with the lowest incomes—under 138 percent of the poverty line, or $36,777 per year for a family of three. 

Collectively, the three pillars of the ACA—employer-based insurance, marketplace insurance, and Medicaid—should have provided affordable health care to nearly everyone. When the Supreme Court ruled Medicaid expansion as a decision left to states, that core pillar of the ACA was cracked because it wouldn’t be part of the health insurance landscape in many states. Ten states are still refusing billions in federal dollars to expand their Medicaid program. 

The Current Landscape 

What Congressional Republicans and President Trump have done in 2025 is another significant blow to Medicaid. Tying eligibility for Medicaid expansion population to proving work hours will have one outcome: people will lose their health insurance. People won’t lose their insurance because they aren’t working; most people are working, or caring for someone else, or will meet another exemption. The evidence from other programs is crystal clear: this is a red tape and bureaucratic hurdle created to deter people from applying or making it too difficult to complete the application process. This is not about promoting work and will not increase employment. 

A Medicaid work reporting requirement also means that Medicaid will no longer be the safety net that someone can turn to when they lose their job. For those of us that receive health insurance through our employer, a job loss also means a loss of health insurance. For many in this position, keeping their insurance through COBRA is unaffordable. If they live in a Medicaid expansion state and their income drops below 138 percent of poverty, they have access to Medicaid.  

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic when millions of people lost their jobs, Medicaid was there for them. People who lost their jobs or were furloughed were 70 percent less likely to become uninsured if they lived in a Medicaid expansion state. Under the new eligibility rules mandating a work reporting requirement, people won’t have Medicaid to turn to when they are suddenly unemployed.  

These decisions have real-life consequences. People will lose their health insurance, which will cause them to forgo medical care and accrue medical debt; and some people will die. Millions of others will live far below the level of dignity they could have if they were guaranteed access to health care.  

Health insurance and health care access are policy decisions. CLASP strongly disagrees with the policy decisions of those who supported H.R. 1 and will continue to advocate for health care to be a basic human right for all. 

By Ashley Burnside 

July is an important month for the disability community, especially this year. Commonly referred to as Disability Pride Month, July commemorates the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, a hard-fought legislative achievement that provides the disability community with comprehensive civil rights protections. This year marks the 35th anniversary of the ADA’s passage. 2025 also represents the 60th anniversary of the Medicaid program, which provides life-saving health care for millions of people. People with disabilities have fought for decades to achieve basic civil rights protections, including access to public spaces, public education, adequate health care, and more. 

Amid these celebrations, this month also marks the passage of a law that will cause great harm for people with disabilities: President Trump’s budget reconciliation law. This new law will result in disabled people losing health care and nutrition assistance. 

During Disability Pride Month, lawmakers should be investing in and celebrating the disability community, not stripping away public benefits that help people afford food, remain healthy, and live in their homes and communities. The reconciliation law will restrict access to health care and food for the disability community, despite false claims from lawmakers to the contrary.  

The Reconciliation Law Will Cut Medicaid Access   

Medicaid provides life-saving services and care for people with disabilities throughout the nation. Fifteen million people with disabilities use Medicaid, representing 1 in 3 disabled people. Unfortunately, the reconciliation law will make devastating cuts to Medicaid, ultimately leaving just over 10 million people uninsured, including people with disabilities.  

One of the changes the law will make is adding work reporting requirements to Medicaid for the expansion population of at least 80 hours per month, which will create red tape for millions of people trying to enroll in Medicaid and for Medicaid recipients. Research has repeatedly found that while work reporting requirements do nothing to improve employment, they do create bureaucratic complexity for recipients and state agencies. 

Lawmakers have claimed that people with disabilities will be exempt from the work reporting requirements. But unfortunately, disabled people will inevitably be included in these mandates, and will lose their health insurance unless they can meet the paperwork requirements. Some disabled people qualify for Medicaid due to their disability status, typically having severe health conditions that meet a strict definition of being disabled. People in this category should be exempt from work reporting requirements, but in reality, that will depend on how well states implement the policy.  

There are also many people with disabilities who qualify for Medicaid through other pathways because their disability is not deemed ‘severe enough’ to qualify them through the disability eligibility criteria. Most people in this category will qualify for Medicaid through Medicaid expansion. In the ten states that have not expanded Medicaid, people may qualify if they have dependent children at home and extremely low incomes, but are likely to not be insured. 

People with disabilities who qualify for Medicaid through their state’s Medicaid expansion but are unable to work 80 hours per month due to their disability will need to prove their disability makes them exempt from the work reporting requirement, a process that requires time, money, appointments, and paperwork. They will likely have to reprove their disability every six months.    

Disabled people who can work and qualify for Medicaid through their state’s Medicaid expansion could face further problems if they have a chronic disability that makes it harder for them to work continuously, or during medical episodes. For example, a cashier may be able to work 80 hours one month but then be unable to work that many hours the following month if they have a chronic pain flare-up that prevents standing for longer shifts. This person might lose their Medicaid eligibility because they were unable to meet the 80-hour requirement every single month. And because recipients can’t average the number of hours worked across multiple months, someone who could only work 70 hours one month can’t ensure they remain eligible by working 90 hours the next. The ways that disabilities impact people are often not “one size fits all,” and that will make meeting such an inflexible work reporting requirement impossible for some people.  

The indirect results of the Medicaid cuts will also harm members of the disability community who rely on medical care from hospitals and clinics. If hospitals lose federal funding and are forced to close, this will disproportionately affect those who may be unable to drive further distances to get the care they need, especially if they live somewhere without public transportation.  

Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) are a crucial Medicaid service for disabled people but are not required by federal statute. One area that states may explore is cutting these services, including reducing payments to care providers or not enrolling people who are stuck on waiting lists.    

Disabled immigrants will also be cut off from health care due to the reconciliation law. Previously, lawfully present immigrants who were ineligible for Medicaid due to their immigration status could enroll in marketplace coverage if they earned under 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. The new law terminates this coverage, as well as other opportunities for Medicaid, Medicare, and Children’s Health Insurance Program access for certain populations of immigrants. 

Collectively, all the Medicaid cuts—including key financing changes—will leave states with fewer federal Medicaid dollars and force states to cut their Medicaid programs.  

The Reconciliation Law Will Strip Access to Food 

The reconciliation law will also make devastating cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), ending nutrition assistance for an estimated 5 million people. Disabled people are likelier to face food insecurity than people without disabilities, and about 4 million SNAP non-elderly recipients identified as being disabled in 2023. People with disabilities will be cut off SNAP due to the stricter work reporting requirements unless they prove they can meet an exemption, which can be burdensome and time-consuming.   

The new law will also require states to spend more of their own revenue to fund the SNAP program, meaning states will either need to make cuts to the program, remove recipients, eliminate SNAP altogether, or make other cuts in their state budget to critical programs, such as child care or education. Some disabilities require specialty diets that are more expensive, meaning disabled people could be especially harmed if states implement such cost-saving measures. 

We Must Commit to Advocating for Policies that Allow Disabled People to Thrive 

During Disability Pride Month and every month of the year, we must celebrate our progress toward access, equity, and justice for the disability community while also acknowledging areas where improvements are needed. People with disabilities deserve health care, food, and housing and the chance to thrive in their communities with their loved ones, just like everyone else. The recent reconciliation law will be a major setback for the disability community. Lawmakers at the state and federal level should invest in people with disabilities through fully funding HBCS, removing work reporting requirements in the Medicaid and SNAP programs, and ensuring that all people have access to adequate health care and nutrition, regardless of their income or ability status.  

By Ashley Burnside

On July 4, President Trump signed his reconciliation law that will make changes to the Child Tax Credit (CTC). The reconciliation law provides tax breaks for the wealthiest people by slashing Medicaid and food assistance funding, and will make changes to how states earn revenue.  

The CTC is a tax credit available to eligible families with children. In 2017, lawmakers temporarily doubled the maximum credit; restricted children without Social Security numbers from being eligible; and made the credit available to families with higher incomes, among other changes. In 2021, lawmakers temporarily expanded the CTC, which helped to decrease child poverty by nearly half. These changes expired after one year. Now, President Trump’s new reconciliation bill will change how big the CTC will be and will cut some families off from accessing it. 

Here are ten things you should know about the CTC:  

1. Most families receive the CTC.

Families who file their taxes, have an eligible child, and have incomes within the allowable limits are generally eligible to claim the CTC each year. The program is far-reaching, doesn’t require additional paperwork beyond filing taxes, and lifts millions of people out of poverty each year.

2. The maximum CTC available to families will be $2,200 per child beginning in tax year 2025.

Under prior law, the maximum CTC was $2,000 per child. Beginning in 2026, the maximum credit amount will be adjusted annually for inflation.

3. The CTC helps families afford essentials and invest in their kids.

The CTC allows parents to afford investments for their family, like summer camp, new toys, or a musical instrument. CLASP survey research concluded that in 2021 parents spent their expanded CTC monthly payments on both essentials (groceries, bills, and rent/mortgage payments) and enrichment activities for their children

4. The income limits for the CTC are the same, and families with the lowest incomes will continue to be left out.

Married couples making up to $400,000 per year are eligible for the maximum CTC. But because of the way the credit is structured, families with lower earnings are not eligible for the full credit. The credit phases in at 15 cents per dollar earned above $2,500 per year, and is only partially refundable. A married couple with two children needs to make at least $41,500 per year to get the full CTC, for example. An estimated 19 million children are in families who will continue to not get the full credit because their parents don’t earn enough.

5. Black and Latino children are disproportionately left out from getting the maximum CTC due to the way the credit is structured.

An estimated 39 percent of Black children and 36 percent of Latino children didn’t get the full credit in 2023 because their parents did not earn enough. This is due to the structural and historical racism within our laws and labor market that have left communities of color with deep inequities, resulting in workers of color receiving lower wages and fewer opportunities for economic prosperity.

6. Families are eligible for the CTC if their children are under age 17 at the end of the tax year.

The 2021 law temporarily extended the age of eligibility for the credit to include seventeen-year-olds, but this provision expired after one year.

7. Children must have a Social Security number (SSN) to be eligible for the CTC.

The reconciliation bill has permanently excluded children from the CTC who don’t have an SSN. This will make an estimated 1 million children ineligible for the credit, a misguided exclusion that will hurt children’s outcomes and force children and families further into poverty.

8. At least one parent must have an SSN to be eligible for the CTC.

Under prior law, parents could claim the CTC for their child if they have an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), but the reconciliation law changed this policy. Now, at least one parent must have an SSN to claim the credit. (A married couple where one spouse has an SSN and one spouse has an ITIN would be eligible.) This will exclude an estimated 2.6 million U.S. citizen children from getting the CTC because their parents don’t have SSNs.

9. The CTC is not available monthly to families.

Under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the CTC was distributed monthly to families from July through December 2021. Since that law has expired, families can now only get the credit annually when they file their tax return.

10. Lawmakers should permanently expand the CTC.

Permanently making the credit fully available to families with lower incomes; permanently increasing the size of the credit to at least the levels provided in 2021 (up to $3,600 for children ages zero through five); permanently making the credit available monthly; and permanently extending credit eligibility to seventeen-year-olds would deliver an income boost from the CTC to more than 60 million children and help families afford essentials. 

The changes to the CTC passed under President Trump’s reconciliation law will cut off some immigrant families from accessing the CTC and will continue to leave families with the lowest incomes out of the full credit, disproportionately excluding Black and Latino families. The CTC doesn’t reach the families who would benefit the most from receiving it. Lawmakers should fix this backwards structure by making the credit fully available to families with low earnings and by ending the ITIN restrictions. 

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., July 10, 2025 – This week, several federal agencies—including the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Education (ED), and Department of Labor (DOL)—issued notices regarding reinterpretation of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act that restricts eligibility for some federal programs to “qualified immigrants.” These notices are in response to the Trump Administration’s executive order in February that seeks to deny federal benefits to undocumented immigrants, despite the fact that they are already ineligible for most federal benefits. These latest actions only serve to restrict access to such programs for immigrant families, including U.S. citizen children.

The Trump Administration is undermining more than 30 years of rules between federal and state governments about how grant dollars can be used. These changes will present states, counties, and cities with challenges about how they administer these programs.  

Several essential programs are implicated in the HHS rule, including the community health center program, critical mental health and substance use funding for states, community services funds to bolster communities with low incomes, and funding to support foster youth. Head Start is a key program also subject to reinterpretation, potentially compromising eligibility for children in immigrant families, with grave consequences for their early learning and development. For 60 years, Head Start has ensured that children from birth to age 5 and their families have access to educational, health, and family support. Along with the programs noted above, Head Start is specifically designed to support families with low incomes, including immigrant families, by addressing both immediate and comprehensive needs. Additionally, Migrant and Seasonal Head Start helps farmworker families achieve stability and break the cycle of poverty.   

Other impacts could include specific ED adult education and postsecondary career and technical education programs, along with certain DOL workforce training programs. While other programs for which immigrants are eligible, including SNAP and WIC, are not currently affected, the uncertainty and confusion around these new notices and guidances could have a wider chilling effect on numerous benefit programs. 

This is just the latest assault on immigrants and immigrant families from the Trump Administration, which has used numerous executive orders and the reconciliation bill to cause great harm to immigrant children and families.  Although several of these notices only reaffirm existing policy, in some cases–where eligibility is further restricted–agency guidance and possibly public comments will need to be considered before any eligibility is changed.   

We urge our partners and allies to submit public comments where possible and join us in opposing efforts to strip away essential supports from immigrant families and undermine our collective well-being. We also urge community members to seek out information from trusted sources on how their eligibility for programs may be affected, including from our partners at the Protecting Immigrant Families Coalition.  

By  

(EXCERPT)

The initiation of the pilot was surely born of advocacy for a more progressive approach to evaluating TANF that does not look at workforce as the only possible successful outcome of the support. Here is the Center for Law and Social Policy’s view of Work Participation Rate, or WPR:

CLASP has deep concerns about the WPR, including that it is a) grounded in racist stereotypes about the need to force public
benefit recipients to work; b) does not measure the effectiveness of work activities; c) does not give states credit for engaging
recipients in activities such as full-time education and training beyond a year, or for addressing issues such as mental health
needs or substance abuse treatment; and d) forces caseworkers to focus on compliance and spend undue amounts of time tracking.

Read the full article here

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., July 3, 2025 – This afternoon, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the budget reconciliation bill, which President Trump is expected to sign on July 4. This bill will cause unprecedented harm across the country, particularly to communities with low incomes, people of color, immigrants, workers, women, and children. CLASP has vociferously opposed the reconciliation bill and is busy working on a strategy for supporting the people at the heart of our mission who will be left to deal with the bill’s catastrophic cuts and spiteful policy changes. Our fight to ensure the dignity, security, and well-being of those who have been most marginalized is far from over, and CLASP is ready to meet the moment. 

This statement can be attributed to Isha Weerasinghe, Director of Public Benefits Justice at the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)

Washington, D.C., July 1, 2025—The budget reconciliation bill passed today by the Senate on a vote of 51-50, with Vice-President Vance casting the tie-breaking vote, will cause significant harm to millions of children and families, all for the sake of providing more tax breaks for the wealthy. The bill includes substantially more funds to accelerate the devastating immigration enforcement actions that are tearing families apart and undermining the safety and well-being of vulnerable children, including those who are U.S. citizens and asylum seekers.

The Senate’s version of the bill contains deeper cuts to Medicaid than the version passed by the House last month, excludes many lawfully present immigrants from eligibility, and expands the House’s work requirement to include some parents, which will cause millions more people to lose health insurance. This means that children and seniors, along with millions of middle-class and working families, people who need long-term care, and those who live in nursing homes will be at risk of losing their health insurance. An estimated 17 million people will lose health insurance, and 8 million people will be at risk for losing food assistance–in the same bill that gives tax breaks to billionaires and corporations. 

In addition to these harmful Medicaid cuts, the bill also adds dangerous provisions to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that will restrict access, tighten eligibility, and shift major costs from the federal government to states, potentially forcing them to end their SNAP programs entirely. This represents a major threat to the health care and food assistance that millions of families depend on for their health, well-being, and stability. The bill also denies immigrants key federal benefits like Medicaid and SNAP that they contribute to, and creates barriers for them to apply for legal or permanent status by raising fees.  

The bill will also cut off access to the Child Tax Credit for an estimated 2.6 million U.S. citizen children simply because their only caregiver(s) lack a Social Security number. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy indicates that, under this bill, the wealthiest households in the country will see an average tax cut of about $65,000, while the households with the lowest incomes will only receive an average tax cut of $110. This disparity is particularly stark, given that this bill does nothing to support the needs of families with low incomes who are especially harmed by the lack of affordable child care and increased cost of living. 

The Senate bill also affects college affordability and the financial well-being of students by limiting student loans for programs and eliminating repayment options for new borrowers facing economic hardship or unemployment. The bill would also restrict access to Pell Grants for over 4.4 million students, making it harder for students with low incomes to cover costs and finish their programs. 

The bill will now go to the House, whose leadership has made it clear that they will push it through as quickly as possible to meet a self-imposed July 4th deadline. Given the disregard for children, workers, immigrants, and families shown in the House’s reconciliation bill, provisions targeting the most vulnerable are likely to remain intact. 

Like the House bill, the Senate’s version will harm the health, security, and well-being of communities across the country. CLASP urges House lawmakers to reject this damaging bill and focus on policies that prioritize workers, children, and families over billionaires.

By Teon Hayes

Black women in America are more than three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications than their White, Latina, and Asian counterparts—a devastating disparity rooted in this country’s systemic failures.1 Even more troubling, this heightened risk persists regardless of income or education, proving that both individual and systemic racism is the driving force behind these outcomes. No matter how “successful” a Black woman may be, she is still more likely to lose her life during pregnancy, childbirth, or the postpartum period. 

As a Black woman who recently gave birth, I know this fear intimately. It was terrifying to know that there were forces far beyond my control that could have a fatal impact on both me and my son. No one should have to carry that fear while preparing to bring new life into the world. This stark statistic has become a rallying cry in health equity circles, sparking overdue attention to racism in maternal care. But one critical factor remains overlooked in too many of these conversations: food insecurity. 

The nation’s food system is facing serious threats. In just the past year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture ended funding for several local and regional food programs that helped bring fresh, affordable food to communities in need. Current budget reconciliation proposals include hundreds of billions in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is the nation’s largest anti-hunger program. At the same time, the President’s budget for fiscal year 2026 calls for deep cuts to WIC, a vital source of nutrition support for pregnant women, infants, and young children. 

These attacks on the nation’s food system come amid rising living costs and in the midst of a deepening Black maternal health crisis. If this trajectory continues, it will further impact the communities already facing the highest maternal mortality rates and could drive those numbers even higher. 

Food insecurity or the lack of consistent access to enough food for an active, healthy life is not just a symptom of poverty; it’s a silent force exacerbating the Black maternal health crisis. In many Black and historically underfunded communities, expecting mothers are navigating pregnancy while skipping meals, stretching limited food supplies, or relying on corner stores with few healthy options. 

Poor nutrition during pregnancy is linked to high blood pressure, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, low birth weight, and complications during delivery. These are not rare or abstract conditions; rather, they’re some of the most common contributors to maternal death in the United States. When an expecting mother can’t access fresh fruits, vegetables, or protein-rich foods, she’s more vulnerable to a fatal outcome. These health risks are compounded by broader systemic inequities that shape where and how people live. The barriers to good nutrition and safe pregnancies are not just medical; they are rooted in longstanding structural inequities. 

Food deserts don’t appear by accident. They are the result of decades of redlining, disinvestment, and discriminatory policies that have stripped Black neighborhoods of grocery stores, public transit, health services, and economic opportunity. One out of every five Black households is situated in a food desert. Many of the same communities where food insecurity is highest are also maternity care deserts. These are areas that do not have access to birthing hospitals, birth centers that offer obstetric care, or obstetric providers. This double bind means Black women are more likely to experience poor nutrition and receive substandard prenatal care.  

That’s why protecting and strengthening nutrition programs is critical. Policymakers must take a holistic view and consider the ripple effects these decisions will have on communities. Undermining the nation’s food system will only widen racial inequities and may further increase Black maternal mortality rates. These outcomes aren’t the result of individual failures—they reflect systemic ones. Addressing food insecurity requires fully funding and restructuring the food system and maternal care infrastructure to ensure every Black birthing person has consistent access to nutritious food, while also dismantling inherently racist policies that restrict access and deepen health inequities. 

This multifaceted approach should include but not limited to: 

If we’re serious about ending the Black maternal mortality crisis, we have to think beyond hospital walls. A mother’s health starts long before labor. It begins with the food on her plate, the safety of her neighborhood, and the policies that shape her access to care.

—–

1  CLASP recognizes that people of all genders can be pregnant and give birth. Some use the terms “birthing people” and “pregnant people” to capture this. In most cases, we have chosen to use “women” to be consistent with the terminology used in the statistics throughout this piece.  

By Juan Carlos Gomez

Families are already struggling with higher costs of living, and the Senate’s budget reconciliation bill will only increase the costs of health care, food, and everyday necessities. The bill’s text affirms that at its core, this is legislation that will drain money from the families with the lowest incomes in order to benefit the wealthy. 

Millions Could Lose Health Care, Food Assistance, and Economic Stability

The bill would make the largest cuts to Medicaid and SNAP in history, dismantling the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace that make it effective in providing affordable health coverage and many free health care services to millions. The proposed language in the Senate makes even deeper cuts to Medicaid and, in total, could cause up to 16 million people to become uninsured. These cuts will cause widespread harm and impact essential workers, like child care providers, who rely on Medicaid due to a lack of access to benefits and low-paying jobs. When Congress tried to repeal the ACA in 2017, they failed because it was deeply unpopular and people understood that weakening the Marketplace would leave millions without affordable health coverage.

Burdensome Work Requirements Are Cuts by Another Name

Additionally, the drastic cuts to SNAP could leave over 8 million people with little to no food assistance, harming our economy. Every dollar that goes to SNAP results in up to $1.80 in economic ripple effects that benefit farmers, grocery stores, truck drivers, payment processors, food manufacturers, and others as the funds circulate in the local economy. Less funding for SNAP means families are spending less, impacting more than 250,000 SNAP-authorized retailers nationwide.

The House-passed bill and Senate proposal would create the first mandate for states to implement work requirements in Medicaid programs and make existing SNAP work requirements even more burdensome. Decades of research show that work requirements don’t increase stable employment or economic security. Instead, they lead to large drops in program participation by creating complex, burdensome paperwork that eligible people often can’t navigate. This causes people to lose benefits not because they’re ineligible, but because the system becomes too difficult to access. These policies are especially harmful to people in low-wage jobs, caregivers, and those with health conditions, many of whom already face systemic barriers like discrimination, lack of child care, or unreliable transportation. Work requirements are simply cuts to life-saving programs under a different name.

Millions of Children and Families Will be Barred From Economic Supports

While the Senate bill increases the maximum Child Tax Credit (CTC) to $2,200 per child, it does not make the credit fully available to families with little to no earnings. Under the Senate bill, 17 million children will continue to be left out of receiving the full CTC. Additionally, families that do not have at least one parent with a Social Security number would be barred from accessing the CTC under the Senate bill. This would restrict access to the CTC for 2.6 million citizen children. 

The bill would make the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) more difficult to claim for 17 million families with low to moderate incomes by adding a burdensome pre-certification requirement. This would create needless red tape and stress for families with children as they file to claim the EITC. Lawmakers have decreased funding and staffing for the IRS, meaning the agency will have less capacity to provide adequate customer support to parents as they navigate this new policy.

Attacks on Immigrant Communities Will Have Ripple Effects for All Families

Undocumented immigrants are already ineligible for the CTC, Medicaid, Medicare, Affordable Care Act coverage, and SNAP. This legislation bars immigrants who are primarily authorized for humanitarian reasons to be in the United States, like refugees, asylees, and domestic violence survivors, from accessing these programs; in some cases, even green card holders could be blocked. These policies will impact both adults and children: approximately 40 percent of individuals granted refugee status and asylum in FY23 were children.

On top of further limiting immigrant access to essential benefits, this legislation increases funding for mass deportation. Immigrants–including those with authorization–and U.S. citizens alike have been subject to immigration enforcement actions without due process. Over 5 million children have at least one undocumented parent they are at risk of being separated from, and 2.6 million citizen children in the U.S. have only an undocumented parent(s) and are at risk of being left with no one to care for them due to their parent’s detention or deportation. As the Trump Administration continues to strip immigrants of their legal statuses and eligibility for support, the number of children who are harmed by immigration enforcement will grow, the vast majority of whom are U.S. citizens. Fears of immigration enforcement will also cause a chilling effect even among immigrants who qualify for food and health insurance assistance. They will disenroll or not enroll in these lifesaving programs, impacting access for their children and their well-being.

Tax Breaks for the Wealthy Reduce Funding That Supports Children and Families

This bill centers wealthy families by offering tax breaks for the rich while cutting and eliminating essential programs that meet the needs of families. These significant tax breaks mean less revenue to support programs that families rely on and undermine their basic needs. Decisions about investments in programs will come with challenging tradeoffs and will, without a doubt, leave families and children, especially those with the lowest incomes, out to dry. Programs like child care, Head Start, and services for people with disabilities will suffer, and positive progress will be lost. 

States and Our Health Care System Will Bear the Burden as Federal Government Withdraws Support

Children and families’ needs for health care and food do not go away just because the federal government chooses not to fund them. Instead, states and local governments–which already have strained budgets–will have to figure out how to implement new, burdensome provisions of the bill and deal with cuts to funding in order to support their residents by shifting costs from other important needs or forcing families off of Medicaid, SNAP, and other essential programs. This bill creates impossible situations for states, forcing them to make decisions about which basic needs they are able to support for the very same families. 

As millions of people lose health insurance, the cost of uncompensated care skyrocket, causing tremendous strain on our health care system. This, in turn, could cause hospitals and health care centers to shutter services or close altogether. This will be especially devastating for rural communities where children and families already face barriers to accessible health care, and over 4 in 10 hospitals are already losing money. 

The Budget Reconciliation Bill Sets Students, Workers, Children, and Families Up to Fail

Students Will Likely Experience Increased Financial Pressure 

Education-related cuts include severe restrictions on federal student aid for students with low incomes at a time when many students already struggle with the increasing cost of pursuing a college degree. Nearly 4.4 million Pell Grant recipients would see their award amounts reduced, and new student loan borrowers would be forced to make larger payments even if they are unemployed or struggling to pay bills. These provisions will drive more borrowers into defaulting on their loans and, as a result, have their CTC and EITC refunds seized. For universities, these restrictions would compound through states being potentially forced to cut education spending to make up for the loss of federal funding for health care and other social services. Institutions would also be forced to no longer offer access to federal student loans, close certain academic programs, or shutter their campuses due to the bill requiring colleges to pay a percentage of unpaid debt.

Workers Face Pay Cuts, Weakened Unions, and Job Insecurity

Workers will see lower wages with rising costs, including for utilities, food, and other necessities in the household. With the continued attacks on unions, all workers face an increase in job security and risk their health and safety at the workplace. And while civil servants have already faced numerous challenges this year due to rounds of layoffs, this bill would cut take-home pay for new civil servants while undermining their workplace rights and limiting federal labor unions’ ability to protect their members. 

On top of reducing take-home pay for civil workers, this bill also places a 10 percent tax on labor unions for solely existing in the workplace. Under this bill, it will be increasingly challenging for employees to contest unlawful dismissals or discrimination, and the financial repercussions will be considerably greater for workers aiming to maintain their rights. These changes will affect federal agencies’ ability to retain and recruit workers while placing additional financial burdens on federal workers, their families, and their children.

Young Children and Families Will Not Have Access to Necessary Child Care and Early Education Support

While a child care crisis persists in our country, this bill does nothing to support access to affordable and accessible child care for children and families. While the bill includes a number of tax incentives and credits related to child care, it does not address the true needs of children and families. In fact, even these tax provisions would not benefit families with low incomes, as they are targeted at employers, higher-income jobs, and families with tax liability. It puts no effort into making child care more affordable for the children and families who need it most or supporting the undervalued and underpaid child care workforce. 

Resources on budget reconciliation: