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 view of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on June 25, 2026. President Donald Trump jolted Republicans during a fiery appearance at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, scrapping a housing bill signing ceremony and clashing behind closed doors with a party rebel who challenged him over the Iran war. Trump had been expected to sign the bipartisan housing.
Only Trump doesn’t care about housing
It was August 15, 2024. Then candidate Donald Trump stepped out of his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club’s columned clubhouse to a gaggle of reporters. He was flanked by tables of groceries and signs showing the rising cost of food. Also on one of the tables was a dollhouse, meant to represent the equally alarming rise in housing prices.
It was a speech about the economy, the single most important issue of the 2024 election cycle, full of promises that went right to the heart of Americans’ anxieties. While former President Joe Biden and then Vice President Kamala Harris were contorting themselves to posture a good economy that just needed more time to recover from the pandemic, Trump was preying on voters’ very real fears of unaffordable gas, groceries, and homes. It was obviously a winning message.
In that speech, Trump promised, “We’re going to open up tracts of federal land for housing construction. We desperately need housing for people who can’t afford what’s going on now.”
As of mid-2023, there had been a housing shortage of nearly four million homes, according to the National Association of Realtors. Americans all over the country were either priced out of buying new homes due to low inventory, trapped in their existing homes by sky-high mortgage rates, or facing exorbitant rent hikes thanks to corporate investors buying up rental properties. Americans needed help, and Trump promised it.
Cut to March of 2026, when Trump reportedly told House Speaker Mike Johnson, “No one gives a sh*t about housing.”
That kind of thinking may explain why Trump this week suddenly announced he was canceling a signing ceremony for the bipartisan “21st Century ROAD to Housing Act,” a housing bill co-sponsored by Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Tim Scott that passed the House 358-32 and was approved in the Senate on Monday.
Trump instead demanded Congress pass the SAVE America Act, his controversial election grievance bill that doesn’t have enough Republican support to get passed in the Senate.
It’s just the latest in a line of policy self-owns where Trump has seemingly intentionally made life more difficult for Republicans hoping to keep their majority. Despite midterm elections occurring in the midst of a blistering economy and an unpopular war, they were surely hoping the housing bill would give them something — anything — to brag about when they returned home to their districts.
And very much to the contrary, Americans do give a sh*t about housing. According to a recent survey by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a whopping 79% say the cost of housing is extremely or very important to them. Eighty-three percent say Congress should take action on the issue — like it just did. Eighty-nine percent say the House and Senate need to work together to pass affordable housing legislation — like they just did. And 63% say they would be more likely to vote for a lawmaker if they helped pass legislation to build more affordable homes and lower housing costs — like they just did.
There aren’t many issues that unite Americans like housing does, and very few bipartisan policy wins Congress can point to, and yet, Trump is holding that bill hostage in order to get his pet project — which doesn’t even have the support of his own party — pushed through.
If you’re trying to make sense of something so nonsensical, as I’m sure many Republican lawmakers are, it’s certainly sad but not actually all that complicated. Trump said what he needed to get reelected and then promptly abandoned his promises in order to pursue his own self-interests, even if those interests are bad for Republicans and bad for voters.
That’s just the kind of guy he is.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.