Harry J. Holzer is the John LaFarge SJ Professor of Public Policy at Georgetown University and is a nonresident senior fellow at Brookings. He served as Chief Economist at the US Department of Labor in the Clinton Administration. He received his BA and Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University.
Under the American Rescue Plan Act in 2021, Congress voted to temporarily expand the federal Child Tax Credit. This expansion made the credit refundable, meaning that Americans in the lowest-income brackets, who previously could not access the credit, were now able to receive the entire benefit. Additionally, the expansion increased the amount of the credit, expanded the age range of children eligible, and made the payments monthly as opposed to a one-time payment during tax-filing season.
Since the end of the temporary expansion, there have been several failed attempts in Congress to permanently expand the credit. Most recently, the Working Families Tax Relief Act, which would make the 2021 expansion permanent, was introduced in the Senate in June 2023. Should the federal government create a permanent expansion of the Child Tax Credit similar to the very generous expansion of the credit in 2021? What do we know about the effects of that expansion, and what might be the likely effects?
The 2021 Child Tax Credit Expansion: What the Evidence Shows
In the past 18 months, a number of rigorous studies have examined the impacts of the 2021 Child Tax Credit expansion on both child and family well-being and parental employment.
Each of these studies finds major declines in material hardship and/or food insecurity for poor children and families as a result of the Child Tax Credit expansion. Evidence from monthly data strongly suggests that the expansion reduced child poverty quite dramatically in 2021, while its expiration increased child poverty from roughly 12 to 17 percent between 2021 and early 2022, using the Supplemental Poverty Measure.
The studies listed above also find no evidence of declining employment among parents in response to the expansion, as had been strongly predicted by a group of scholars at the University of Chicago. On the other hand, virtually all analysts acknowledge that the evidence on employment from this one-year expansion tells us very little about what the effects would be of a permanent change, especially if parents had more time to learn about the Credit and adjust their employment behavior in response. Also, since the labor force in 2021 was still recovering from the pandemic recession of 2020, any effects of the Credit might be swamped by broader improvements that were occurring.
What Would be the Effects of a Permanent Child Tax Credit Expansion?
A permanent expansion of the Child Tax Credit, along the lines of the 2021 expansion, would no doubt continue to alleviate material hardship and food insecurity among lower-income families with children. This, in turn, would likely lead to permanent improvements in educational attainment and earnings among such children, since a body of research shows that major improvements in nutrition associated with the expansion of food stamps in the 1960s and beyond led to long-term improvements in adult outcomes for poorer children.
Overall, parental employment may very modestly decline if the Child Tax Credit were made permanent. Some studies suggest declines of under 1 percentage point for the overall U.S. labor force.
Of course, the increases in income generated from the Credit would be substantially larger for lower-income families and/or those with more children. In such cases, the improvements in income would be substantially greater, especially for families with no earnings for whom a fully refundable credit would now be available. This, in turn, could generate somewhat larger employment losses for these subsets of families. In other words, there might be a tradeoff between greater income security for poor families and children and the employment rates of parents in these families.
On the other hand, it is also possible that the higher incomes associated with the more generous Child Tax Credit could raise work effort among low-income families, which could now afford more child care and transportation, perhaps offsetting any potential losses of work effort among these parents. Evidence from the Canada Child Benefit also shows little loss of employment among parents there.
The Costs of a Permanent Child Tax Credit
Unfortunately, the fiscal costs of a permanent Child Tax Credit expansion would be substantial. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation project that the budgetary costs of such an expansion would be approximately $1.6 trillion over the next decade. In an era where federal budget deficits are already a major policy concern, especially as Baby Boomers retire, adding such expenditures to the budget would not be trivial. And, if either taxes must rise or other government spending fall to finance these expansions, their potential effects on economic outcomes would have to be considered as well. Overall, the combination of larger budget deficits and even modestly lower employment has reduced the political appetite for a permanent Child Tax Credit expansion in the near future.
Because of these concerns, more modest proposals for expansion have been developed. For instance, one proposal from Edelberg and Kearney suggests an expansion which would be only partially refundable for families with no or low earnings; they would receive only half of the credit in this plan. Credits would also phase out at lower income levels, but more slowly as income rises. This strategy might ultimately generate smaller potential effects on labor supply and would cost less.
Policy Recommendations
The improvements in child and family well-being associated with the temporary Child Tax Credit expansion in 2021, and the reductions in child poverty, were substantial, while no employment losses among parents were observed. At the same time, making such an expansion permanent–as proposed in the Working Families Tax Relief Act–might very modestly reduce overall U.S. employment, and more so in poor families. Additionally, the proposal would be quite expensive at around $1.6 trillion.
The partially refundable plan discussed above is quite appealing in many respects; however, given the clear evidence on the positive impacts of the refundable Child Tax Credit, and uncertainty surrounding impacts on employment, a fully refundable credit should be thoroughly considered by Congress–along with the earlier phasing out of benefits as income rises in the Edelberg-Kearney plan.
The research clearly indicates that by making the Child Tax Credit accessible to Americans with the lowest incomes, Congress can protect children from food insecurity and material hardships that would otherwise occur.
This writing was originally published through the Scholars Strategy Network and the key findings and facts are original to SSN.




















A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.