Connect with us

Politics

How a ‘game-changer’ child tax credit for families became a priority for Harris, Vance

Published

on

How a ‘game-changer’ child tax credit for families became a priority for Harris, Vance

A child tax credit is quickly emerging as a major family-friendly issue and a possible bipartisan point of agreement in this year’s presidential campaign, touted by both Vice President Kamala Harris and Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance.

During a speech Friday in the battleground state of North Carolina, Harris proposed restoring the popular pandemic-era child tax credit of up to $3,600, and offering an additional $6,000 credit to families with newborn babies.

“That is a vital, vital year of critical development of a child, and the cost can really add up, especially for young parents who need to buy diapers and clothes and a car seat and so much else, and we will do this while reducing the deficit,” Harris said.

And in an appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation” last Sunday, Vance said he supported an increase to the child tax credit.

“Look, I’d love to see a child tax credit that’s $5,000 per child,” he said. “But you, of course, have to work with Congress to see how possible and viable that is.”

Advertisement

Engage with our community-funded journalism as we delve into child care, transitional kindergarten, health and other issues affecting children from birth through age 5.

What is the child tax credit?

The child tax credit was first enacted in 1997 as a way to give middle- and upper-income families an extra $500 nonrefundable tax credit per year for each of their children. The credit has been expanded several times under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

In 2017, President Trump signed into law an increase that raised the credit up to a maximum of $2,000 per child. The lowest-income families received a smaller credit than middle-class families — currently, up to $1,600 per child.

Advertisement

Then in 2021, during the height of the pandemic, President Biden signed into law a temporary, fully refundable increase that expanded the child tax credit to $3,600 per child under 6, and $3,000 for older children. This expansion allowed all families — even those earning the lowest incomes — to receive the full amount and have it deposited in monthly allotments directly into their bank accounts. The one-year expansion cost an additional $105 billion.

A historic drop in child poverty

This regular, monthly payment of $250 to $300 each month was a “game-changer” for families, said Christy Felling, director of communications for the nonprofit First Five Years Fund. “That’s really what had a dramatic impact on child poverty.”

The policy had an immediate and enormous impact. In 2021, the child poverty rate dropped by nearly half compared with the year before, from 9.7% down to 5.2% — a historic low.

“We know this works and has a direct impact on so many issues, including child poverty,” Harris said Friday.

Elyssa Schmier, a vice president at the advocacy group MomsRising, described the credit as “life-changing for a lot of people” and “wildly popular.”

Advertisement

Research has found that families spent the money on food and housing, as well as children’s clothing, books and toys. Some stay-at-home parents were able to afford the child care they needed to return to work. The biggest impacts were seen felt Black and Latino families, said Christopher Wimer, director of the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University. “Its hard for me to pinpoint another policy that would be as effective at lifting kids out of poverty,” he said.

But when the expansion of the child tax credit expired at the end of the year, Congress did not extend it, and the child poverty rate skyrocketed to 12.4% — even higher than pre-pandemic levels.

At least 15 states, including California, have child tax credits of their own, in addition to the federal credit. Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, Harris’s running mate, signed into law a credit of $1,750 per eligible child, among the most generous state policies.

A mom kisses her her 4-year-old daughter's cheek from behind, laughing as she pushes her away.

Are you a SoCal mom?

The L.A. Times early childhood team wants to connect with you! Find us in The Mamahood’s mom group on Facebook.

Share your perspective and ask us questions.

Advertisement

Where does the child tax credit stand today?

The current child tax credit of up to $2,000 per child is set to expire in 2025. Because it is not fully refundable, 24 million low-income children receive a smaller credit than middle-class families.

Legislation to increase the credit again has recently garnered bipartisan support in Congress. In January, the House passed a smaller version of an expansion, but the legislation ran up against Republican opposition in the Senate earlier this month and failed. Despite his stated support for an expanded child tax credit, Vance did not show up for the vote.

“It’s really, really hard to get legislation passed right now. It got swept up into the chaos,” said Felling, of The First 5 Years Fund.

Advertisement

So far, Trump has not mentioned the child tax credit during his speeches and rallies.

Harris’ focus on raising the child tax credit is among her first economic policy proposals of the campaign — and has advocates optimistic about another expansion.

“There are so many hot-button issues facing the United States right now, that just to get the spotlight and attention on child-related issues from both sides is half the battle,” said Felling.

Wimer said Harris’ proposal to provide an extra $6,000 to infants in the first year of life was particularly exciting.

“Our research that the birth of a child is quite often like a poverty-inducing event,” he said.

Advertisement

All of the costs of a newborn — including a crib, diapers, formula — add up quickly and can cause real economic stress for a struggling new family. An influx of money during one of the most developmentally sensitive moments of a child’s life has the potential to make a real difference, he said.

This article is part of The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.

Politics

DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’

Published

on

DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

EXCLUSIVE: Newly obtained financial statements shed light on claims that former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s company made millions from a DHS advertising campaign.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem faced intense questioning during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, and Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., specifically called out the agency for contracting a public relations firm headed by McLaughlin’s husband, Benjamin Yoho.

“I have personally reviewed the allegations against Ms. McLaughlin, and I find them to be baseless,” DHS General Counsel James Percival told Fox News Digital. “Nothing illegal or unethical occurred with respect to these contracts. Ms. McLaughlin was not involved in selecting any subcontractors.

“She is, however, a superstar in the public affairs world, so I am not surprised that she married a successful businessman whose services were attractive to these outside firms.”

Advertisement

Newly obtained financial statements address allegations that former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s firm improperly profited from a multimillion-dollar DHS ad campaign. Lawmakers pressed Secretary Kristi Noem over the contracts during a heated Senate hearing. (Jack Gruber/USA Today)

Kennedy alleged that Yoho’s firm, The Strategy Group, “got most of the money” out of what the Louisiana Republican senator says was $220 million in “television advertisements that feature [Noem] prominently.”

“I’m sorry,” Kennedy said. “Safe America Media was a company formed 11 days before you picked them. And that the Strategy Group got most of the money. And the head of that is married to your former spokesperson.”

“It’s just hard for me to believe knowing the president as I do, that you said, ‘Mr. President, here’s some ads I’ve cut, and I’m going to spend $220 million running them,’ that he would have agreed to that,” Kennedy explained. “I don’t think Russ Vought at OMB [Office of Management and Budget] would have agreed to that.”

‘YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!’: PROTESTER DRAGGED FROM KRISTI NOEM’S SENATE HEARING

Advertisement

Senate scrutiny intensified over a DHS advertising campaign after Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., questioned whether a firm linked to McLaughlin’s husband benefited unfairly. DHS officials and the company deny any wrongdoing or multimillion-dollar profits. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The Strategy Group is a conservative advertising agency for which Yoho serves as CEO.

Figures obtained by Fox News Digital show a slightly lesser total advertising expenditure of approximately $185 million, with a total of roughly $146.5 million going to a campaign called “Save America.”

However, of the total that went to “Save America,” roughly $348,000 went to production costs, while the remaining $142 million went to “media buys.”

Sources at DHS say that media buys are the cost of actually buying the ads themselves, whether purchased from social media or for a TV ad.

Advertisement

Kennedy also alleged that the bidding process for the contracts never took place and that Safe America Media’s recent founding was a cause for concern and collusion between McLaughlin and her husband’s business. 

WATCH THE MOST VIRAL MOMENTS AS KRISTI NOEM’S HEARING GOES OFF THE RAILS

Debate over DHS’ “Save America” ad campaign intensified as senators challenged its costs and contractor ties, even as agency officials touted the initiative as a historic success in promoting self-deportation. (Graeme Sloan/Getty Images)

“Yes they did,” Noem responded during the hearing. “They went out to a competitive bid, and career officials at the department chose who would do those advertising commercials.”

The Strategy Group posted to X Tuesday that it never had a contract with the department. While it did receive several hundred thousand dollars for production costs associated with the advertising campaigns, The Strategy Group never made millions.

Advertisement

“The Strategy Group has never had a contract with DHS,” the post said. “We had a subcontract with Safe America [Media] for limited production services. Safe America paid us $226,137.17 total for 5 film shoots, 45 produced video advertisements and 6 produced radio advertisements.

DHS SPOKESWOMAN TRICIA MCLAUGHLIN TO LEAVE TRUMP ADMIN, SOURCE CONFIRMS

Critics raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest in a high-dollar DHS advertising effort, but department representatives say McLaughlin recused herself and that subcontracting decisions were made independently. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“If you’re going to try to question our integrity, bring actual evidence — we did,” the post concluded.

Because these ads were purchased using public funds, all contract totals are publicly available. 

Advertisement

Lauren Bis, who took up the role of assistant secretary once McLaughlin left office, told Fox News Digital Tuesday that scrutiny from Republicans and Democrats over the advertising spending was unjustified because the campaigns resulted in “the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history.”

“Sanctuary politicians are attacking this ad campaign because it has been successful in CLOSING our borders and getting more than 2.2 million illegal aliens to LEAVE the U.S.,” Bis said. 

“The DHS domestic and international ad campaign was the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history. The results speak for themselves: 2.2 million illegal aliens self-deported, and we now have the most secure border in American history.”

KRISTI NOEM TO FACE SENATE GRILLING OVER MINNEAPOLIS SHOOTINGS AS DHS SHUTDOWN HITS WEEK 3

The Trump administration reaffirmed that all illegal immigrants are eligible for deportations as they focus on arresting violent criminals first.  (Raquel Natalicchio/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)

Advertisement

Bis also compared the cost of arresting and deporting an illegal migrant to that of the minimal cost of an illegal migrant self-deporting. The department says the advertising campaign played a key role in marketing self-deportation.

A spokesperson at DHS also told Fox News Digital that contractors decide who they hire, fulfilling the terms of a contract, not the department itself. 

“By law, DHS cannot and does not determine, control or weigh in on who contractors hire or use to fulfill the terms of the contract,” a DHS spokesperson told Fox. “Those decisions are made by the contractor alone. We have only become aware of these companies because of this inquiry and did not hire those companies.”

The spokesperson also noted that McLaughlin “recused herself” from interactions with subcontractors to avoid “any perceived appearance of impropriety.”

“Upon hearing who the subcontractors were for production of the ad, Ms. McLaughlin recused herself from any interaction or engagement with any subcontractors to avoid any perceived appearance of impropriety,” the spokesperson continued. “DHS Office of Public Affairs is the program officer. Ms. McLaughlin oversees the DHS Office of Public Affairs, which is simply the vehicle for this contract.”

Advertisement

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem takes her seat as she arrives to testify during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)

McLaughlin told Fox News Digital the criticism of her and her family by senators at the hearing is a matter of public manipulation.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“This is yet another example of politicians intentionally trying to dupe and manipulate the public to try to manufacture division and anger,” McLaughlin told Fox News Digital. “The ad spend and contracts are a matter of public record, and the process was done by the book.

“These politicians would rather smear private citizens and American small businesses than do any basic research.”

Advertisement

Fox News Digital’s Alexandra Koch contributed to this report.

Related Article

DHS defends ad blitz amid Senate scrutiny, says campaign drove 2.2M self-deportations and saved taxpayers $39B
Continue Reading

Politics

Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran

Published

on

Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran

Senate Republicans blocked a war powers resolution Wednesday designed to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities in Iran, as the Trump administration accelerates its military campaign in a conflict that has killed hundreds, including at least six American service members.

The motion failed in a vote of 47-53.

In addition to pulling out military resources from the Middle East, the measure — introduced by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) — would have required Congress’ explicit approval before future engagement with Iran, a power granted to the legislative branch in the Constitution.

The House, where Republicans also hold an advantage, is scheduled to weigh in on a similar measure Thursday. Even if both Democratic-led measures were to succeed, President Trump was widely expected to veto the legislation.

“We are doing very well on the war front, to put it mildly,” President Trump said at a White House event on Wednesday afternoon. The president, who has come under scrutiny for offering shifting explanations on the war’s endgame, said that if he was asked to scale the American military operation from one to 10, he would rate it a 15.

Advertisement

Democrats dispute that Trump possesses the authority to wage the ongoing operation in Iran without explicit congressional approval.

Acknowledging the measure was unlikely to succeed, they framed the vote as a strategy to force lawmakers to put their support for or opposition to the war on record.

“Today every senator — every single one — will pick a side,” Schumer said. “Do you stand with the American people who are exhausted with forever wars in the Middle East, or stand with Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth as they bumble us headfirst into another war?”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and most of his Republican colleagues have maintained that the president carried out a “pre-emptive” and “defensive” strike in Iran, giving him full authority to continue unilateral military operations.

Republicans saw the vote as the “last roadblock” stopping Trump from carrying out his mission against the Islamic Republic.

Advertisement

“I think the president has the authority that he needs to conduct the activities and operations that are currently underway there. There are a lot of controversy and questions around the war powers act, but I think the president is acting in the best interest of the nation and our national security interests,” Thune said at a news conference.

Senators largely held to party loyalties, with the exception of Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, who broke ranks to support the measure, and Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman, who opposed it.

The vote comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the war against Iran is “accelerating,” with American and Israeli forces expanding air operations into Iranian territory. He pointed to evidence released by U.S. Central Command of a submarine strike on an Iranian warship, and also lauded other strikes throughout the region as civilian casualties in Iran surpassed 1,000 on the fourth day of the conflict, according to rights groups.

“We’re going to continue to do well,” Trump said Wednesday. “We have the greatest military in the world by far and that was a tremendous threat to us for many years. Forty-seven years they’ve been killing our people and killing people all over the world, and we have great support.”

Republicans blocked a similar war powers vote in January after the president ordered U.S. special forces to capture and extradite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in Caracas on drug trafficking charges.

Advertisement

GOP leaders argued that the outcome of that mission equated to a quick success in the Middle East, despite an uncertain timeline from the Department of Defense.

In the House, lawmakers will vote on a separate war powers effort Thursday. That bill is led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the two lawmakers who authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

“Instead of sending billions overseas, we need to invest in jobs, healthcare, and education here,” Khanna said on X.

In addition to that proposal, moderate Democrats in the House have introduced a separate resolution that would give the administration a 30-day window to justify continued hostilities in the Middle East before requiring a formal declaration of war or authorization from Congress.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: U.S. ‘Accelerating’ Military Assault in Iran, Hegseth Says

Published

on

Video: U.S. ‘Accelerating’ Military Assault in Iran, Hegseth Says

new video loaded: U.S. ‘Accelerating’ Military Assault in Iran, Hegseth Says

On the fifth day of the war in Iran, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that the U.S. military operation was intensifying and that more warplanes were arriving in the region.

By Christina Kelso

March 4, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending