President Donald Trump has claimed a mandate following his electoral victory, using it to justify “bold and profound change.” However, there is one substantial group of Americans who didn’t cast a single vote for the president—or any Republicans for that matter. They didn’t vote for any Democrats either. Yet, they will feel the impact of these changes for decades to come: Children.
Children comprise one-fifth of the United States population, their success will determine the success of our country in the future, yet they are often forgotten stakeholders in the political process. Children have no control over the circumstances they are born into, nor do they have much opportunity to change them. Lacking representation and the funds to lobby elected officials, children must rely on adults to ensure they are protected, supported, and given what they need to thrive. But more and more, policy decisions are harming children as their needs are overlooked by politicians who fail to consider the collateral damage of unrelated agendas. The consequences will be profound and enduring. Fortunately, there’s a simple and politically strategic remedy: prioritize children.
Recent decision-making has not been child-centric. The rapid-fire rollout of significant policy changes has left no time for measured and careful assessments of their impact on children. In the first weeks of this new administration, the focus has been on downsizing the federal government and slashing spending. The changes have been swift and volatile—one day, a policy is announced and the next, it’s rescinded. This instability has real-life consequences, especially for children. For example, when federal funding was frozen, organizations providing essential services and resources to vulnerable children, including foster children, homeless children, and disabled children, were forced to shift from delivering assistance to crisis planning. Despite the administration revoking the freeze, some programs are still unable to resume normal operations due to ongoing uncertainty.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
What is certain is that funding for underserved children is on the chopping block. Congress is considering a federal budget that requires drastic cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These programs provide healthcare and food security to millions of low-income children, a critical safety net for those who have no means to provide for themselves. These programs are effective. Research shows that where Medicaid is expanded, children are less likely to experience maltreatment or end up on welfare. Access to SNAP as a child is associated with improved health outcomes and lower healthcare costs in adulthood. Any effort to tighten the government’s purse strings at the expense of children is short-sighted, counterproductive, and does nothing to break the cycle of poverty. Denying children healthcare and food security makes them more likely to remain dependent on government support in the long term, costing taxpayers far more.
But at a fundamental level—do we not care about children’s health and stability? Regardless of what one thinks about their parents, it is never a child’s fault that they are poor. Don’t we want to help them meet their basic needs so they stand a chance at becoming independent and productive adults, traits both lauded and often demanded by a country that puts a premium on self-determinism? We can be compassionate and pragmatic.
A child-centric policy agenda would encourage and incentivize non-profit organizations to prioritize meeting the needs of vulnerable children. Yet, in an effort to “align taxpayer dollars with American values,” the president issued an executive order this past weekend, canceling student loan forgiveness to individuals who work with immigrant children and transgender youth, among others. The order characterized this work as anti-American and illegal, but penalizing individuals working to protect and support innocent children does little to promote American values. It is, again, counterproductive and, furthermore, deeply unjust. Immigrant children are in our country through no fault of their own. Even the Supreme Court has recognized that punishing children for the misconduct of their parents “does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice.” Similarly, threatening the financial well-being of those who care and advocate for marginalized youth, like those facing dire and potentially fatal consequences of gender dysphoria, is a punitive and overbroad strategy that ultimately stymies our ability to help children safely navigate their challenges.
We can—and should—continue to debate how to most efficiently and effectively spend taxpayer funds. But on some issues, we should all agree. Let’s not battle over whether children deserve sufficient food. Let’s not battle over whether children deserve health care. Let’s not create chaos and punish those working to care for innocent and vulnerable children. There’s not a single child that deserves to bear the burden of that. Children deserve policymakers who recognize that an investment in them is an investment in the future. This shouldn’t be partisan because kids aren’t partisan. They can’t even vote. If anything, Democrats and Republicans should be competing over who can do more for kids in an attempt to win over future voters. An electoral mandate will never include the voices of children but it shouldn’t matter. Centering children is a moral imperative, fiscally practical, and should transcend partisan politics.
Robert C. Fellmeth is the founder and executive director of the Children’s Advocacy Institute, and is the Price Professor of Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego School of Law.
Jessica K. Heldman is the Fellmeth-Peterson Associate Professor in Child Rights at the University of San Diego School of Law and Staff Attorney at the Children’s Advocacy Institute.
Julie Roland is a 2024 graduate of the University of San Diego School of Law and Pro Bono Law Clerk at the Children’s Advocacy Institute.
