What will Trump presidency mean for families, kids? Here’s what Texas, national experts say
Incoming President Donald Trump will begin his second term in the White House in January alongside a Republican-controlled Congress. For families and children, it remains to be seen how the new administration will make an impact on child care, health care and taxes, but recent proposals and former roadmaps are providing some clues.
Early childhood and policy experts based in Texas and Washington D.C. say there’s a mixed bag of expectations of what’s to come. Strategies highlighted by the former Trump administration on child care, recent comments shared by Vice President-elect JD Vance regarding family values and the child tax credit, and pending budget and policy proposals related to programs that benefit children and families give a glimpse of early insights.
Here’s what we know.
Child care
The child care crisis has become a national topic of conversation that’s continuing to capture the attention of families who are struggling to find affordable, quality care, in addition to politicians who are fielding those concerns from their constituents. When questioned in September on whether he would prioritize legislation to make child care affordable during a Q&A session, Trump provided an unclear answer while noting that “you have to have it in this country.” His running mate Vance suggested at a separate event about two weeks later that relatives should step in to help families mitigate the costs of child care. He’s previously said he’s in favor of child care policy that’s “good for all families” rather than one single model.
Kim Kofron, senior director of education at the Texas-based advocacy nonprofit Children at Risk, said relying on family members for care is “a very narrow view of what families can do,” as many families don’t have the flexibility or privilege to ask relatives for help. She does agree with Vance’s comments that a one-size-fits-all model is insufficient.
“We should make sure we’re thinking about the system holistically because it’s not a one-size-fits-all. Not everyone needs care Monday through Friday, 7 (a.m.) to 7 (p.m.); some of us need care in the evenings and weekends. So how are we making sure that we’re building the system that’s setting it up across the board?” Kofron said.
Kofron noted that more money was invested into the Child Care and Development Block Grant, the largest source of federal funding for child care that provides subsidies for low-income families to help pay for care, during Trump’s former term, but it remains to be seen how the federal budget is going to be balanced, she said. Trump touts a historic child care funding increase — $2.37 billion — that was included in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus spending bill for the block grants, but according to PolitiFact, the increase was passed by Congress and signed into law by Trump after he had originally proposed a $95 million cut to the program.
“I think we don’t rest on our laurels and just assume that he’s going to do great things because he did great things with adding more money into child care,” Kofron said. “I think we keep that due diligence and make sure that we protect what we have and potentially fight for additional funds because we know we’re not serving the number of children that we need to serve… that could use the assistance to pay for child care.”
The former Trump administration issued in 2019 a “White House Principles for Child Care Reform” roadmap that promoted economic growth by way of increasing access to affordable, high-quality child care for working families. This included calls for policies that would increase the supply of child care providers, incentivize businesses to offer child care benefits to their employees and address the sector’s workforce shortage.
Sarah Rittling, executive director of the First Five Years Fund, said she’s hopeful that this foundation set during Trump’s previous term will be carried over in tandem with Congress’ budget and tax decisions. Among the organization’s focuses is advocating for investments into child care programs and updates to the federal tax code that would benefit families, including increasing the maximum credit of the child and dependent care tax credit — not to be confused with the child tax credit — which specifically offsets the cost of child care.
Expanding the employer-provided child care credit, known as 45F, could also facilitate engagement from the private sector through a tax credit that would cover some of the costs for businesses to provide child care to their employees.
“The expiration of the 2017 tax bill (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act) provides a huge opportunity to try to make some inroads on some of the needs that exist,” she said. “There’s lots of interesting bipartisan conversations I think that we’re also interested in hopefully seeing move forward, that would naturally generate potentially some support and funding.”
Child care has become a “top-tier” issue that was addressed throughout the general election for both presidential and congressional candidates, which could potentially set the stage for movement on legislation and policymaking, Rittling said.
“It’s important to look at, between 2019-2020 and today, where we are. I think they’re not drastically different places in terms of the need, but they’re kind of drastically different places in terms of both the political attention that the issue has received, as well as the public attention that’s been given to the issue over the course of the past several years,” Rittling said.
Medicaid
Edwin Park, a research professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy’s Center for Children and Families, said various proposed cuts to Medicaid could have devastating effects. It’s the largest public health insurance program in the country and serves more than 70 million people, including low-income families.
Park cites the fiscal year 2025 Republican Study Committee Budget and House Budget Resolution, in addition to Project 2025, as sources of these proposed cuts, which do not specify the capacity in which the program would be minimized but rather how it would be: through block grants and per capita caps. The federal government currently pays a fixed percentage of states’ Medicaid costs through federal-state partnerships — currently 60% for Texas — but the proposed changes would cover a fixed amount of funding that doesn’t take the states’ costs into account, he said.
“Right now, the federal government picks up a fixed share of Texas’ cost of 60%, no matter what those costs are. So costs go up, federal government picks up 60% of those additional costs. If the costs go down, there’s savings. The federal government shares in those savings at a 60% rate. So it’s open-ended,” he said. “Under a cap, instead the federal government will give a fixed amount of money, either on an aggregate basis or on a per beneficiary basis to a state.”
For states to help finance their share of Medicaid costs, they place taxes on various health care providers such as hospitals and nursing homes. These provider taxes are also at risk of being eliminated or restricted through the various proposals, Park said. States would then have to find other revenue sources or would have to reduce or cut their Medicaid programs.
“If restrictions on provider taxes are done in tandem with these federal cost shifts, such as through block grants or per capita caps, then you’re really squeezing both ends of the balloon in terms of financing for Medicaid,” Park said. “Texas is a state heavily reliant on on these kind of financing mechanisms.”
If these cuts were to be implemented, the ripple effects would be widespread, Park explained.
“(Medicaid) covers 4 in 10 kids, 4 in 10 births. Covers more than 60% of nursing home residents. It covers kids in foster care… It’s the primary funding source for kids with special health care needs,” Park noted as examples. “It is an integral part of the U.S. health care system. It’s a vital source of coverage for vulnerable populations, low-income populations, and it’s the backbone of the health system… These cuts are not small things.”
Texans Care for Children, an Austin-based policy nonprofit, echoed the concerns outlined by Park.
“In Texas, Medicaid essentially covers just kids, pregnant women, people with disabilities, and seniors, so those are the Texans who would be directly harmed if Congress cuts Medicaid. Cutting Medicaid means targeting vital health care services, whether it’s prenatal care for pregnant women or physical therapy for kids with disabilities, so we’re hopeful that Congress will leave Medicaid off the chopping block,” Adriana Kohler, policy director for Texans Care for Children, said in a statement.
Project 2025 is among the sources of these proposals to cut Medicaid funding. Although Trump has denied having connections to the 900-page document that outlines strategy for the next Republican president to overhaul the executive branch, many of its authors were members of his administration. The document also proposes eliminating the Head Start program, which provides child care and early childhood services to low-income families.
The family unit
Vance has said he wants to increase the Child Tax Credit from $2,000 to $5,000 per child, which qualifying families can utilize to offset household expenses. His proposed expansion to a $5,000 credit would benefit low- and middle-income families, but at a high price point for the federal government. His proposal came weeks after the Senate failed to pass a bill that would have provided a minimal expansion of the tax credit due to Republican opposition. Vance, an Ohio Senator, didn’t vote on the bill and called it a “show vote” that still would have failed even if he was present for it.
Vance has been vocal about his support of the traditional nuclear family and has taken aim at “childless cat ladies” in reference to prominent Democrats. Conservative family values have been a cornerstone of his campaign.
Andrew Brown, vice president of policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, said one of the reasons he was encouraged to see Vance tapped as vice president was because of the comments he’s made about the importance of family during his campaign and throughout his public life. He expects the administration’s focus on empowering two-parent families will yield positive results for the country.
“One of the major issues I think that we have in our country is the breakdown of the nuclear family. We know from research conducted over decades, the research is very, very clear that children who grow up in strong, stable, two-parent families are much more likely to succeed across any number of metrics, whether that be economics, education, mental health, physical health, behavioral issues,” Brown said.
In terms of the child tax credit, the foundation supported its renewal in 2023 for families but has not evaluated the impacts of increasing the credit, Brown said. In general, addressing economic obstacles for families and providing them with relief gives them a stronger foundation to stand on when encountering costs such as child care.
“It sends a signal that from a public policy standpoint, we value family formation, we value people getting married, and moms and dads raising kids in a stable, two-parent environment. We want to promote those things as public goods, things that not just enhance the well-being of the individuals who enter into those families, but that benefit society as a whole,” Brown said.
In contrast, a founder and CEO of a paid parental leave insurance company foresees negative impacts to families through the incoming Trump presidency, such as fathers solely focusing on being the breadwinner of a family and becoming less involved in caregiving roles such as changing diapers. This could result in additional pressures and responsibilities on mothers.
“Thirty years ago, some dads may not have changed any diapers or really been involved in that kind of care, whereas today we’re seeing more of that occur. I think you might see a stall among some portion of the population,” said Dirk Doebler. “It’s not so much that the nuclear family itself would be the setback. It’s sort of, what’s the dynamic and who’s doing what within the family.”
Doebler also noted a lack of conversation on expanding paid parental leave at the national level. The former Trump administration approved parental leave for up to 12 weeks for federal employees in 2019. In general, Doebler is skeptical of what policy changes would be pushed through by Republicans, as he’s typically seen more engagement from Democrats on certain family-related issues.
“We don’t anticipate (this administration) really pushing this. It doesn’t seem to be something they’re interested in. I think there’s a lot of conversation around just cutting budget and expenses, obviously. So I think adding new programs, especially something that’s as expensive as paid family leave… it’s very unlikely to go anywhere with this administration,” Doebler said. “I think you’re probably going to see them cut other little programs here or there that are meant to support families.”
