The One Big Beautiful Bill Act Would Gut Programs That Support Children

On May 22, House Republicans passed H.R. 1, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which included historic cuts to health care and food assistance as well as eligibility changes to the child tax credit (CTC) and Pell Grants that would affect children nationwide—all to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. With the Senate currently considering its own extreme additions to the House text, it is important to understand some of the key differences between the two chambers’ texts and how children will ultimately be left behind by the bill.

This column builds on previous Center for American Progress analysis to confirm the sweeping impact the bill would have on children. The bill’s cuts would increase the cost of basic needs for families during a time when they are already struggling with high prices and economic uncertainty, fueled in part by sweeping tariffs. Whether one looks at the House-passed version or the proposed Senate text, the congressional Republican proposal would have devastating consequences, adding up to one of the largest-ever cuts to programs that support children.

Cuts to food assistance would have devastating effects on families with children

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act would, for the first time, expand the population subject to SNAP’s burdensome paperwork requirement—which can kick recipients off of SNAP for not demonstrating they are working enough hours—to include families with children as young as 10 years old. While more than 9 in 10 adults receiving SNAP who care for school-aged children work, it can be difficult to find a job that provides the flexibility needed to accommodate a school schedule or take care of a sick child at home. As such, many parents would struggle to report working the minimum of 20 hours per week, putting their benefits at risk.

The Senate proposal even goes further than the House bill by not exempting families with one working parent and one stay-at-home parent. Both parents would need to demonstrate compliance to keep their benefits. Estimates suggest that 2.5 million children live in households that would be at risk of losing at least some benefits under the Senate bill’s proposed changes to paperwork requirements.

Meanwhile, proposed changes in the Senate bill would disqualify refugees and asylees fleeing violence and persecution from receiving SNAP, hurting thousands of families with children. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates this provision would make between 120,000 and 250,000 people ineligible, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes this would include roughly 50,000 children.

Additionally, the bill’s provisions requiring states to pay up to 15 percent of SNAP benefits and 75 percent of administrative expenses have serious ramifications for children. The CBO estimates that states would cut or eliminate benefits for 1.3 million people in an average month, including children, under the House-passed bill’s benefit cost-sharing policy that maxes out at 25 percent, due to the additional stress on state budgets. Considering most states would still have to pay a portion of benefits—up to 15 percent—under the Senate bill, the majority of those 1.3 million people would still likely see their benefits cut. Even states that manage to fully pay for the added costs may be forced to do so in ways that harm children, such as cutting education funding to balance their budget. States could even opt out of the SNAP program altogether if they find they are unable to pay for their required share of benefits.

The impact of SNAP cuts would extend far beyond the SNAP program itself, as every $1 in cuts made to SNAP for families with children costs society between $14 and $20. These costs come from reduced future earnings and worse health outcomes for children, along with costs associated with increased crime. The bill’s reductions in spending on food assistance would, therefore, ultimately be dwarfed by long-term costs.

Child nutrition and education programs would also suffer under the bill

Losing SNAP benefits would have cascading effects beyond a family’s ability to afford groceries. SNAP benefits are often used to determine eligibility for other programs aimed at low-income individuals, such as Head Start or free and reduced prices for school meals. In the 2023–2024 school year, 37 percent of all children and pregnant women enrolled in Head Start and Early Head Start programs used their SNAP recipient status as their primary eligibility, meaning these families would be at risk of losing access to these programs or would have to recertify using another method without SNAP.*

A study by the Urban Institute estimated that the House bill’s cuts to SNAP would put at least 16 million students at risk of losing access to their school or state’s free school meal program since SNAP participation contributes to higher levels of federal reimbursements received by schools and states to run these programs. Importantly, children who qualify for free or reduced lunch often receive auxiliary benefits such as fee waivers for standardized testing and college applications. Despite the changes incorporated in the Senate bill, access to these benefits would still be cut for many children. The congressional Republican plan would not only restrict children’s access to healthy school meals but also indirectly raise families’ application costs for higher education.

Cuts to Medicaid would devastate children’s health care access

Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) are fundamental to children’s access to health care, with nearly 38 million children enrolled. Medicaid provides vital services for children, and funding cuts would threaten children’s access to psychiatric services or school-based services, such as regular vision and hearing screenings and youth behavioral health services.

The Senate version of the reconciliation bill forces parents of children above age 14 to burdensome work reporting requirements as a condition for Medicaid coverage. Previous state experiences with similar policies showed these onerous rules are ineffective in boosting labor force participation yet are highly effective in stripping otherwise eligible people of their health care coverage. The House bill ultimately included text that exempted parents from work requirements. A previous CAP analysis emphasized the connection between work requirements and children losing health care coverage, finding that collateral children’s coverage losses could number in the hundreds of thousands.

The CBO estimated that the House bill’s work requirements would cause 5.2 million adults to lose their Medicaid coverage. Now, the CBPP estimates that by forcing parents with children over the age of 14 to comply with work requirements, the Senate bill could lead to anywhere from 100,000 to 400,000 additional Medicaid enrollees losing their coverage.

In particular, cuts to Medicaid would have significant negative effects on children living in rural communities. Not only would these cuts increase financial strain on rural hospitals and providers, but they would also directly affect children’s access to health care. Medicaid and CHIP serve as lifelines for children in rural communities, as they are more likely to be enrolled in Medicaid than children living in urban communities. A 2025 study by the Georgetown Center for Children and Families found that the vast majority of states (38 out of 48) have similar or larger shares of children covered by Medicaid in rural areas than in metro areas. Additionally, in six states—New Mexico, Louisiana, Arizona, Florida, South Carolina, and Arkansas—at least 50 percent of children living in rural communities are covered by Medicaid.

Furthermore, cuts to Medicaid would threaten children’s hospital and pediatric specialty care funding. On average, half of the patients at children’s hospitals are covered by Medicaid. In fact, according to a 2016 survey, pediatric providers saw the largest average Medicaid patient share of any specialty, at 34.7 percent—more than twice the overall average for all provider specialties.

The CTC expansion would leave out those who need help the most

The Senate proposal also includes a modest increase in the child tax credit for moderate- and higher-income families while leaving out millions of poorer children. Already, roughly 1 in 4 children—about 17 million in total—are ineligible for the full CTC because their family does not earn enough to qualify for the full amount of $2,000 per child.

Yet instead of working to close this gap by allowing the phase-in to begin at the first dollar of income earned or making the entire credit refundable, Senate Republicans’ legislation would increase the number of poor children ineligible for the full credit by raising the maximum credit size to $2,200 per child without phasing it in faster for low-income families. As a result, households would need to earn more to claim the maximum credit. Under the House-passed version, which increased the CTC to a maximum of $2,500, a two-parent household with two children would need to earn at least $48,000 to be eligible for the full CTC, or $12,000 more than under current law.

Separately, the Senate proposal would disqualify families that do not include a caregiver with a Social Security number (SSN) from receiving the CTC, even if all children in the home have one. This would exclude from the credit 2.6 million U.S. citizen children with an SSN and entire families that are in the country lawfully.

Changes to the Pell Grant would increase the cost of higher education for families

Under the House Republican plan, changes to Pell Grant eligibility would increase the cost of higher education for low- and moderate-income families and threaten tuition support for nearly 4.4 million students—about two-thirds of all Pell Grant recipients. The proposed eligibility changes would require students to be enrolled for at least 30 credits per academic year to receive their full award and would eliminate funding for students enrolled less than “half time.”

This would be especially harmful to students from low-income families. Many postsecondary students already work or care for children in addition to completing their schoolwork, and they may be unable to enroll in the additional coursework needed and instead seek out student loans to make up for their lost grant funding. The federal Pell Grant program is a keystone that alleviates the costs of higher education for low-income students; changes to eligibility would weaken the program’s effectiveness in supporting low-income students’ access to higher education.

Conclusion

Both the House and Senate Republicans’ proposals would cut health care and food assistance, leave out low-income families from tax relief, and increase the costs of higher education. In doing so, they demolish programs aimed at supporting low-income children and families across the nation.

The authors would like to thank Emily Gee, Lily Roberts, Colin Seeberger, Madeline Shepherd, Sara Partridge, Andrea Ducas, Natasha Murphy, Allie Schneider, Amina Khalique, Sophie Cohen, Mimla Wardak, Audrey Juarez, and Steve Bonitatibus for their valuable review and feedback.

* Authors’ note: This calculation was based on Office of Head Start “Program Information Report, Enrollment Statistics” data.