The top Democratic appropriator in the US Senate responded with alarm and outrage on Tuesday to news that the Trump administration is preparing a rule change that would siphon federal dollars away from a chronically underfunded program that helps working-class parents afford childcare.
The diverted funds would be used to finance a new federal subsidy for “married couples with one stay-at-home parent in certain income brackets,” The New York Timesreported late last week. The proposed change, a top priority of Vice President JD Vance, is “outrageous and backwards,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement on Tuesday. Murray argued it would be illegal and immoral for the administration to shift taxpayer money away from the Child Care and Development Fund, which serves around 1 million families nationwide in a typical month.
“It’s not the 1950s in America—our government shouldn’t punish people for being single parents or choosing not to marry,” said Murray. “Nobody cares what JD Vance thinks constitutes a ‘real’ family—single parents and parents who aren’t married pay taxes, too. Raiding an underfunded program solely to score culture war points is not pro-family—it’s a wasteful grift that I will fight every step of the way.”
The Times reported that “the policy change would effectively create a government incentive for parents to stay home with their children, an idea embraced as part of a broader conservative effort to advance policies that promote more mothers staying at home.” Unmarried couples with one stay-at-home parent would not qualify for the newly proposed subsidy.
“The move could end up redirecting money away from working parents and their childcare providers, causing some to raise their rates or even close, critics said, potentially worsening what many experts say is a childcare crisis in the country,” the newspaper added. “About 80% of the 870,000 families who currently get the childcare subsidies have single working parents, most of them mothers, according to Health Department data.”
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), House Democrats’ top appropriator, said in a statement that “supporting stay-at-home parents should never come at the expense of working families.”
“At a time when families are already struggling to find and afford childcare, this proposal would force more parents to compete for the same inadequate pot of money, threaten childcare providers, and disproportionately hurt single working parents, most of whom are mothers,” said DeLauro, “If Republicans want to support families, they should join Democrats in passing the expanded Child Tax Credit and increasing access to affordable childcare—not rob Peter to pay Paul while imposing their preferred definition of what a family should look like.”
Childcare costs—which run many families tens of thousands of dollars per year—are a major concern of US voters. One recent survey found that more than 80% see childcare costs as part of the nation’s broader affordability crisis, and 76% view them as “a crisis or major problem” for families with young children.
But the Trump administration has so far done nothing to lower childcare costs—and has taken steps that could raise them and deny low-income families badly needed relief.
Earlier this year, roughly a month after launching his costly and destructive war on Iran, President Donald Trumpsuggested that the federal government should not provide any funding for childcare.
“We’re fighting wars,” the president said. “We can’t take care of daycare. You gotta let a state take care of daycare, and they should pay for it too.”
Amy Matsui, vice president for childcare and income security at the National Women’s Law Center, said it is “outrageous that the administration would propose siphoning money away from families who are struggling to afford childcare to send cash to married couples with a stay-at-home parent, when hundreds of thousands of families are on childcare waiting lists around the country.”
“If this administration really wanted to support families,” Matsui added, “it would invest more—not less—dollars in childcare, create a national paid family and medical leave program, expand access to a fully refundable Child Tax Credit, and restore health care and nutrition assistance.”