News
Harris reveals good-vibes economic polices. Experts weigh in.
Kamala Harris reveals economic plans for homeowners, new housing
The vice president will call for a $25,000 credit for first-time homeowners at a speech in North Carolina.
Cheddar
Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris revealed for the first time some big economic plans on Friday, but these experts had mixed reactions on how much some of them would help everyday Americans.
Harris, who said in a fact sheet she’s focused on “some of the sharpest pain points American families are confronting,” plans to ease rent increases, cap prescription drug prices for everyone, boost first-time home buyers, end grocery price gouging and bolster the child tax credit.
Many of these plans resonate with voters who have struggled in the past few years with soaring inflation, but some experts are wary of what they call “price controls” to fight high prices and how she intends to pay for some of her proposals. Any changes to the tax code also would require congressional approval and depend heavily on which party controls the House and Senate, tax experts say.
“It’s optimistic and targeted to improving the middle class; however, we have yet to see details, and it’s unclear how the congressional elections will impact the likelihood of passage,” said Mark Baran, managing director at consulting firm CBIZ MHM’s National Tax Office.
Former Republican New York Congressman and senior vice president at tax consultant alliantgroup Rick Lazio said in an email that the Harris campaign will need to consider “the societal costs of unsustainable higher public debt and its impact on inflation and the ability to respond to unplanned events, like recession, wars, pandemics, and natural disasters.”
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimate her full plan would increase deficits by $1.7 trillion over a decade and grow to $2 trillion if temporary housing policies were made permanent. “The Harris campaign has said this would be paid for through taxes on corporations and high earners and that they support the revenue raisers in the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget but has not put forward specific offsets as part of their agenda to lower costs for American families,” it said in a release.
To get a better view of what experts liked and questioned, USA Today has compiled a more detailed look of each proposal.
Child tax credit
- A return to COVID-era child tax credit (CTC) policies, which were $3,600 for qualifying children under age 6 and $3,000 for other qualifying children under age 18.
The CTC is currently $2,000 per qualifying child under age 17 that phases out for single filers earning over $200,000 and married couples with more than $400,000 in income. Republican vice-presidential nominee J.D. Vance has floated a $5,000 CTC and hinted at no income thresholds.
- New, expanded tax relief of up to $6,000 for families with a newborn.
“We were super excited to see her propose this big expansion,” said Mary Nugent, advisor of domestic policy at nonprofit Save the Children US. “To put it front and center and to be including this new kind of bonus for new parents with those youngest kids is really exciting in terms of the impact.”
The plan would reduce child poverty by at least half, she estimates. “Most families would see an increased credit and, the top line there is that we would see massive cuts in child poverty.”
Health care and food prices
- $35 price cap on insulin for Medicare recipients to cover insulin and annual out-of-pocket costs of $2,000 for all Americans, not just seniors.
- Stiffer regulations and strict antitrust enforcement to prevent increased costs for consumers on drugs and food.
- First-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries.
The Groundwork Collaborative, a nonprofit progressive advocacy group, praised Harris’ push to hold companies accountable. “When just a handful of big companies control the majority of the market, or even control the market in a single region, they have the power to raise prices without worrying about a competitor nipping at their heels,” said Lindsay Owens, the group’s executive director, in a statement.
Economists were less enthusiastic, calling Harris’ efforts “price controls.”
“Harris is continuing with the Biden administration theme of blaming high inflation on corporate greed and price gouging – be it oil producers, pharmaceutical firms or, in this case, grocery retailers – rather than excessively loose pandemic-era fiscal and monetary policies,” wrote Paul Ashworth, chief North America economist for research firm Capital Economics, in a note. “She wants Congress to pass a federal ‘price-gouging’ ban. It sounds uncomfortably like price controls, which could lead to product shortages.”
Housing
- Block data firms from hiking lease rates, and prevent Wall Street investors from buying homes in bulk to resell at a premium.
- New tax incentives for builders who construct “starter homes.”
- Provide up to $25,000 in down-payment support for first-time homeowners.
“I’m encouraged by the recognition of by Vice President Harris of the affordable housing crisis in America,” Lazio said. “There is no congressional district in the nation that hasn’t seen a spike in the housing supply imbalance. Having said that, the devil is in the details and some of the initiatives like the subsidy for first time homebuyers regardless of their wealth or income needs to be rethought.”
Ashworth also noted many developed countries around the world “have tried to boost homebuilding but have struggled to achieve their goals because of capacity constraints in the construction industry or other bottlenecks, like zoning regulations.”
Tax-free tips: Trump, Harris agree on one thing: No taxes on tips. Here’s how it could impact the budget
What wasn’t discussed?
- Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which expires at the end of 2025, is a massive tax package passed in 2017 that included provisions that touch almost every American. If it expires, tax rates for most Americans will rise, income brackets will narrow, and the standard deduction would get cut in half which could force many Americans to itemize again, among many other things.
It’s the “big elephant in the room,” said Baran. “Letting it expire completely will hurt middle class Americans because tax rates will go up.”
Ashworth also noticed the lack of discussion “of whether she would support the extension of the original Trump tax cuts, even for those making less than $400,000 per year. That potential fiscal cliff that would hit at the end of next year is the real policy battleground.”
This is “bad economic policy, but understandable from a political standpoint given that it could be enough to win the election race in Nevada,” Ashworth said. “Assuming there are limits on the amount of income that can be counted as tips and that only income taxes are eliminated rather than payroll taxes too, that tax cut might cost up to $150 billion over the next decade.”
- Small and medium sized businesses.
“I’m disappointed that there was nothing today that spoke to the need to protect and incentivize these businesses that employ half of all Americans, and up until recently have generated most of the industry innovation in America,” Lazio said. He said he’d like to see Harris endorse tax incentives for research and development to spur innovation and to keep tax rates for small businesses steady.
“Small business people are middle class people, too,” Baran said.
Medora Lee is a money, markets, and personal finance reporter at USA TODAY. You can reach her at mjlee@usatoday.com and subscribe to our free Daily Money newsletter for personal finance tips and business news every Monday through Friday morning.
Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency Saturday night as plumes of black smoke continue to rise from the Lineage Logistics warehouse fire, still burning on the 1400 block of South Los Palos Street in Boyle Heights.
The fire started inside a freezer area at the cold storage facility Wednesday afternoon and was initially extinguished before reigniting on Thursday, according to officials.
Newsom’s declaration allows the state to use additional funding for firefighting efforts, public health services and disaster recovery as Los Angeles continues to deal with the emergency.
“California is mobilizing to support Los Angeles as firefighters and emergency personnel continue their work to contain this fire and protect surrounding communities,” Newsom said in a statement Saturday. “While local officials continue to lead this response, the State of California is prepared to help safeguard public health, support emergency operations, and assist impacted residents. We are coordinating closely with our local partners, deploying specialized expertise, and pre-positioning critical supplies so communities have the support they need both now and throughout recovery.”
Although local officials have not asked for additional state resources at this time, Newsom preemptively made the declaration to provide the region with resources as soon as they are needed, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Director Caroline Thomas Jacobs said.
“Cal OES is working side-by-side with the City and County of Los Angeles and our regional partners to ensure they have the resources, information, and support necessary to respond to this incident,” Jacobs said. “The State of Emergency allows us to further streamline coordination efforts and leverage additional state capabilities as needed. Our focus remains on protecting communities and supporting locally led response operations.”
-
Smoke from Boyle Heights warehouse fire continues to blow over downtown Los Angeles on Saturday, June 20, 2026. (KTLA) -
A massive plume of toxic smoke is seen rising from a Boyle Heights cold storage facility fire on Wednesday, June 17, 2026. (KTLA) -
Crews work a warehouse fire in the Boyle Heights section of Los Angeles on Wednesday, June 17, 2026. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)
Resources available to Los Angeles following the declaration include:
- 5.5 million N95 respirator masks available for distribution to impacted communities.
- Commercial-grade air purifiers available for deployment to evacuation centers, community facilities, and other public spaces.
- Bottled water and other emergency supplies available through the state’s logistics network.
- Enhanced air quality monitoring and technical support resources.
Cal OES Fire and Rescue Branch leaders with specialized technical expertise are also available to consult L.A. fire officials on how to deal with the warehouse fire, if necessary. The state provided similar expertise to officials during the chemical tank failure in Garden Grove.
Air quality remains unhealthy in parts of Los Angeles due to the large amount of smoke produced by the fire.
“The warehouse fire has produced significant smoke and particulate matter that may affect air quality in surrounding neighborhoods,” the governor’s office stated. “To support public health monitoring efforts, the California Air Resources Board is coordinating with local and regional partners to ensure access to air quality information and technical expertise. State agencies continue to monitor conditions and stand ready to deploy additional monitoring resources if requested.”
The exterior of the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice building is pictured on May 4, 2021, in Washington, D.C.
Patrick Semansky/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Patrick Semansky/AP
The Justice Department released a memo this week that quietly calls into question decades of civil rights protections for Americans with disabilities and stirred fear and anger among advocates and families.
The memo, an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel, argues that states do not have to provide in-home or community-based care to people with disabilities who need support. These services allow many disabled Americans to continue to live, learn and work at home or in their own communities, among family and friends.
“It is now the position of the United States government that people with disabilities don’t have a right to be part of their communities,” says Alison Barkoff, a health law and policy professor at George Washington University who led disability law and policy efforts during both the Obama and Biden administrations. “I can’t overstate how significant this change in position is.“
Without the federal government requiring that states provide these services – to help disabled people integrate into their communities – advocates and legal experts warn that cash-strapped states could cut them and return to what was once common practice: de facto segregation of Americans with disabilities in nursing homes and large institutions.
Pushback from the disability community was swift.
“As America prepares to celebrate 250 years of independence, [this memo] threatens to drag our nation back to a dark and shameful era of ignorance and cruelty,” said the American Association of People with Disabilities. “This interpretation will open the doors for states to revert to warehousing people with disabilities out of sight and out of mind in institutions.”
“This opinion is a direct threat to decades of progress toward community living for people with disabilities,” said Shira Wakschlag of The Arc of the United States, a nonprofit disability advocacy group. “People with disabilities shouldn’t be forced into institutions because a state refuses to provide services in the community.”
The Justice Department did not respond to an NPR request that it explain its position as well as why it is changing course after decades of legal and bipartisan support for community services.
What the law says
This new memo calls into question what legal experts say has been settled law for decades.
Both Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act have long been interpreted to require that states provide services to Americans with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate. In short: Institutionalization should be a last resort.
In 1999, a case testing these protections made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Olmstead v. L.C., two women with mental disabilities sued Georgia, arguing that the state had failed its obligation to provide services that would allow them to return to their communities and that it had continued to institutionalize the women instead, thus violating their civil rights.
The court agreed that states have a legal responsibility to provide support that integrates disabled Americans into their communities, and for nearly three decades, courts across the country have embraced that interpretation.
By 2023, 8.4 million Americans were receiving home- and community-based services through Medicaid.
The new memo, written by Lanora Pettit, principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, argues that, while federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, it does not impose an “integration mandate” on states to provide these community services.
What’s more, the memo argues, the Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision “held only that a state cannot institutionalize such patients without justification.”
But, the memo adds: “What counts as adequate justification remains an open question.”
At one point, Pettit acknowledges the novelty of this reading: “We recognize that this view of Olmstead‘s import is out of step with the common understanding of that decision within the federal courts.”
Why it matters
“The United States government since 1977 has taken the position that [federal law] includes an integration mandate that requires services to be provided in the most integrated setting appropriate,” says professor Barkoff, who worked in the Obama Justice Department leading its Olmstead enforcement efforts.
For decades, Barkoff adds, both Republican and Democratic administrations, including the first Trump administration, proactively enforced federal disability law and repeatedly brought actions against states that relied too heavily on care in large, segregated settings that the law says should be a last resort.
The courts and Congress decided institutionalization should be a last resort because people’s personal liberty is at stake, says Jennifer Mathis of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law: “Who you can see, when you can go out, when you eat, what you eat. Who your roommate is, who you talk to, what your environment is. And for so many people who are institutionalized, their life is literally a hallway. I have been on those hallways with people. It is deadening.“
This memo signifies a dramatic change in the U.S. government’s official position.
“We are incredibly concerned that the message coming from the federal government in this memo is, ‘It’s fine to go back to the days that people were placed in institutions,’ even though they can be served in the community, even though they want to be and even though it’s more cost-effective,” Barkoff says.
The timing matters too. The memo arrives as a new case, Texas v. Kennedy, is making its way through the courts. The case, brought by Texas and several other states, is essentially a fresh challenge to the integration mandate on states.
With this memo, the federal government is aligning itself with the plaintiffs in the case. Though Mathis cautions: “It’s important to understand that [this memo] is not the law, that the Justice Department can’t change the law. Congress makes laws, not agencies.“
For now, it’s not clear what the immediate impact of the memo will be, though it seems the Justice Department will stop its enforcement efforts around Olmstead.
Why now?
The Justice Department memo appears to be the latest salvo in a broader effort that began on July 24, 2025, when President Trump issued an executive order intended to make it easier for state and local governments to police homelessness.
“Endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks have made our cities unsafe,” the order argues, going on to claim that “the overwhelming majority of these individuals are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both.”
The administration’s solution: Involuntary institutionalization. “Shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment through the appropriate use of civil commitment will restore public order,” the order reads.
In a 2023 campaign video, President Trump himself pledged: “For those who are severely mentally ill and deeply disturbed, we will bring them back to mental institutions, where they belong.”
A conservative Texas think tank, the Cicero Institute, has been a driving force behind recent efforts to forcefully combat homelessness, including through institutionalization.
One serious obstacle to large-scale institutionalization of the unhoused is federal disability law that has long required home- or community-based services instead, when appropriate. A footnote in the Justice Department’s new memo appears to suggest these laws have contributed to the rise in chronic homelessness.
To the contrary, Barkoff says, the Olmstead decision “has been one of the most effective tools in providing services and stable housing to people who are homeless.”
NPR has previously reported that the Trump administration’s push for institutionalization faces another big obstacle: An acute shortage of beds at these specialized facilities.
The memo arrives as Republicans have also passed deep cuts to Medicaid, which is the primary source of funding for community-based services many disabled Americans rely on.
Multiple legal experts tell NPR that, in response to last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, states must now make deep cuts to a whole range of services previously funded by Medicaid. The Trump administration’s memo, they add, essentially gives states permission to cut these localized supports and, instead, rely on institutionalization – even though research shows the latter is considerably more expensive for states to provide.
This comes as disability advocates were already pushing back against the Trump administration’s announcement on Tuesday that it would move federal administration of special education programs out of the Department of Education and into the Department of Health and Human Services – a change that, as with the new Justice Department memo, raised fears of a rollback of the enforcement of longstanding civil rights protections.
new video loaded: The Sacred Catholic Site Where Trump Wants a Border Wall
The Trump administration is trying to seize the land around Mount Cristo Rey, a sacred site of Catholic pilgrimages, in order to build a border wall on it. The Times reporter Reis Thebault takes us up the mountain to see the 30-foot statue of Jesus at the top, and the border wall below.
By Reis Thebault, Christina Shaman, Jon Miller, June Kim and Melanie Bencosme
June 20, 2026
-
Lifestyle25 seconds ago
Day 1,578 of WW3: The UN Security Council will meet on Monday to address Russia's latest strikes on cultural and religious sites, including the attack on Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra. ANGH, of course. This is your Saturday Ukraine discussion
-
Politics6 minutes agoCan a new commission remedy California’s public defender crisis?
-
Sports16 minutes ago
2026 World Cup guide: Full TV schedule, game previews, results and standings
-
World28 minutes agoPoland and Ukraine’s ‘honours war’ intensifies
-
News51 minutes agoNewsom declares State of Emergency for Boyle Heights warehouse fire
-
Los Angeles, Ca2 hours agoKids, teens can enjoy free lunch at over 90 parks across Los Angeles
-
Detroit, MI3 hours agoMetro Detroit church hosts community event to support youth: “We’re here for you”
-
San Francisco, CA3 hours agoSan Francisco celebrates Black freedom at weekend Juneteenth parade: ‘We’re all people’
