Wednesday, May 20, 2026. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche appears before the Senate and can't answer honestly on Chump's slush fund or on Epstein (or for that matter on Maxwell) nor does he understand the prison system he's supposed to be overseeing.
Earlier this morning on MS NOW's MORNING JOE, Joe and Mika addressed Chump's $1.8 million slush fund.
Acting
Attorney General, right now families are paying four, five -- even six or
seven dollars for gas. Inflation is at its highest level in years
because of the president’s policies, but instead of helping Americans
get by, President Trump is literally using their tax dollars to set up a
slush fund to enrich his own friends. On Monday, your department
settled the president's lawsuit by setting up a fund with $1.8 billion,
and you and the president will pick the handful of people who decide how
that money gets doled out. So let's be clear: what we are talking about
is nothing short of the sitting President of the United States looting
from the Treasury for his own gain. Do you seriously think this
arrangement is appropriate? The president telling the federal government
to settle a case and let him pay billions to the people that he
chooses?
That's Senator
Patty Murray asking Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche that in
yesterday's Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
Science and Related Agencies hearing. Blanche disputed the
characterization. As Senator Murry noted, Senator Chris Van Hollen
raised the issue. So did Senator Chris Coons.
Senator
Chris Coons: Thank you. Let me return to the line of questioning from
the ranking member, Senator Van Hollen, that I strongly agree with. I’m
just looking at the settlement agreement in Trump v. IRS, and I just
want to make sure I heard you properly when you responded previously.
Your announcement said that the fund will send you quarterly reports.
Will you commit to making these reports fully public so Americans know
who’s getting taxpayer dollars out of the settlement fund? This says
they’ll be confidential. This is Section 4, Part E of the settlement
agreement.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: :
So – the reason why I want to be careful in my answer is because
there’s obviously laws that exist around privacy that may prevent some
of the information that the commission takes in from being fully public.
Beyond that, there will be full transparency, and I commit to you that
beyond the applicable laws that exist around privacy and privileges and
whatnot, but as far as being transparent and having those quarterly
reports released, yes.
Senator Chris Coons:
Thank you. You referenced a previous case, I think it was Keepseagle v.
Vilsack, under the previous administration. Did that case involve a
president suing his own government and then settling that case before it
could be reviewed or approved by a judge?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: So, no. Neither does the commission.
Senator
Chris Coons: No, it did not. And so when you suggested that they’re
nearly identical, they’re not identical. I think there’s a critical
difference here: President Trump is the first president to sue his own
government and then direct his chosen acting attorney general to reach
this kind of settlement. Will you commit that none of President Trump’s
family will receive a direct payout from this fund?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Yes,
but what you just said is not true. I mean – if I can correct that –
the president did not direct me to do anything. And secondly, when we
said that the structure of the commission is similar to Keepseagle,
that’s true. It wasn’t – the underlying case is not the same, the
structure of the commission is the same as the Keepseagle commission.
Senator
CHris Coons: Has it ever happened that a sitting president sued his own
government for $10 billion and then directed the settlement of the case
and the establishment of a payout fund?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Not
that I’m aware, but there are a lot of things that President Trump’s
the first of. No president had been indicted one, two, three, four,
five, six, seven, eight times either.
Senator
Chris Coons: Correct. No president’s been indicted. And will you commit
that none of this money will go to President Trump’s campaign donors?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I
am not committing to anything beyond the settlement agreement itself.
When you say campaign donors, they are not excluded from seeking
compensation if they were weaponized.
Senator
Chris Coons: Last question, during Police Week, I heard from a number of
law enforcement friends who found it appalling that there was the
possibility that folks like the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, who had
assaulted Capitol Police officers, could receive multimillion-dollar
payouts from this fund. Will you commit that no one who has been
convicted of assaulting a police officer will receive a payout from this
fund?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: So,
I share the concerns that apparently members of law enforcement gave to
you last week, although none of this was announced last week, so that’s
surprising.
Senator Chris Coons: They had heard rumors there would be a settlement fund.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Okay,
but anybody can apply. The commissioners will set rules, I’m sure.
That’s not for me to set, that’s for the commissioners, and whether an
individual – an Oath Keeper, as you just mentioned – applies for
compensation, anybody in this country can apply.
Senator Patty Murray, noted in the video above, questioned Blanche about the slush fund.
Senator Patty Murray: Acting Attorney General, right now families
are paying four, five -- even six or seven dollars for gas. Inflation is at
its highest level in years because of the president's policies, but
instead of helping Americans get by, President Trump is literally using
their tax dollars to set up a slush fund to enrich his own friends. On Monday, your department settled the president's lawsuit by setting
up a fund with $1.8 billion, and you and the president will pick the
handful of people who decide how that money gets doled out. So let's be
clear: what we are talking about is nothing short of the sitting
President of the United States looting from the Treasury for his own
gain. Do you seriously think this arrangement is appropriate? The president
telling the federal government to settle a case and let him pay
billions to the people that he chooses?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: What you just described wouldn't be
appropriate, and that's absolutely not what happened, and that’s not
what's happening now. So, you just set up a series of facts most of
which that were not true to say as if --
Senator Patty Murray: No. They were true.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: No, it's not. I mean I --
Senator Patty Murray: The president has set up a slush
fund -- however you want to say it got set up --- and he will literally get to
choose through his handpicked appointees who gets paid that fund. That
is absurd.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: So, the president did not set up this fund, it's not a slush fund. It's been done many times; we have lots of funds --
Senator Patty Murray: I heard your response earlier to Senator Van
Hollen; this is not comparable to the case that you cited -- a judge was
not involved. This is the president versus himself, setting up a fund
and --
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: A judge was not involved in the
distribution of the Keepseagle case at all. It just wasn't. There was a
single commissioner that was set up -- not five -- and so when I --
Senator Patty Murray: The judge signed off on that case.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Yes, it was a much later point in the litigation.
Senator Patty Murray: That’s my point -- that is all of our point.
And I just have to tell you: this is corruption that has never been more
blatant or more widespread. But what is happening is that you write the
check, Trump and his cronies cash it. American taxpayers -- who are
already being whacked with high prices -- are going to foot the bill. That
is what we are seeing today and that is what many of us are really,
really angry about.
Senator Jack Reed had many questions about the slush fund as well.
Senator Jack Reed: Mr. Blanche how many tax payers' returns were leaked by the IRS contractor in the 2020 breach?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Uh, how many tax payers? Excuse me?
Senator Jack Reed: How many tax payers' returns were leaked by the IRS contractor in the 2020 breach?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I don't know the exact amount, but a lot.
Senator Jack Reed: 5,427. One of them was Donald Trump. Correct?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Uh, one of them was Donald Trump. Correct.
Senator Jack Reed: One of them was Donald Trump and his family were others, correct.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Right.
Senator Jack Reed: And Donald Trump was president at the time.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Correct.
Senator Jack Reed: So it was his IRS department that allowed this breach of privacy, correct?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: It was a criminal who worked in the IRS, yes.
Senator Jack Reed: Well he was hired under Trump's admin. This is one of the Trump --
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: There was a criminal breach that led to this, yes.
Senator Jack Reed: Very good. How many of these 400,000 have received monetary reimbursement for the breach?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I don't think any have including the president.
Senator
Jack Reed: No, they haven't. But you've authorized the president. Do
you agree the president should have reimbursment, correct?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: No, we've settled the case. No, there's no reimbursement to President Trump.
Senator Jack Reed: Well that's interesting.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: But --
Senator Jack Reed: So you're going to assure us President Trump and his family will get no proceeds from this.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Correct.
Senator Jack Reed: He will not. He will not get. His family will not get.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Correct.
Senator Jack Reed: And who will direct the disposition of these? Who gets the money? From the victims' fund?
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: Well, there'll be a commission of five
individuals that will be set up and they will take in requests and
claims and decide whether to do anything for emotional problems.
Senator Jack Reed: Who will name the commissioners?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I will or the Attorney General -- whoever the Attorney General is.
Senator Jack Reed: Okay.
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: Sorry, just to correct, and one of them
will be done in consultation with leadership of this body.
Senator
Jack Reed: Consultation. Well that's good but, when he first announced
this suit on January 30th, he said, "I think what we'll do is something
for charity, where I'll the money to charity. I'm talking about the
American Cancer Society. I would say established and respected
charities." Will you fulfill the president's wish that it goes to
respected charities?
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: I'm aware that he put that in there,
said that, but that's not ultimately what the settlement calls for.
Senator Jack Reed: Well the settlement was negotiated between his lawyers and the Dept of Justice, correct?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Correct.
Senator Jack Reed: So his lawyers did not urge that they adopt the president's vision of giving it to a respected charity?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I am confident his lawyers urged the president's desires.
Senator
Jack Reed: The order that you signed yesterday states that the
government pay the settlement if the Secretary of the Treasury has
certified the payment. Is that correct?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Correct.
Senator Jack Reed: Is it a coincidence that the general counsel of the Dept of Treasury resigned yesterday?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I don't know if it's a coincidence
Senator Jack Reed: Have you looked or checked?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Have I checked?
Senator Jack Reed: Yeah
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I've not.
Senator
Jack Reed: as to why he's resigned? It just seems to be very
coincidental that a high-ranking member of The Dept of Treasury, Senate
confirmed, would resign the day that the Treasury Dept was required to
-- required essentially to certify these payments.
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: Well I believe the IRS signed the
settlement agreement as well. But I - I - I don't, I can't speak to why
he resigned, Senator.
Senator
Jack Reed: Well this all seems to be an obvious abuse of power by the
Dept of Justice, by the president. He negotiated essentially with
himself. Your his appointee. The IRS are his appointees. He's the
plaintiff. And the American people, I don't think are surprised that
suddenly all this money is going to his friends or people that are in
his orbit.
And let's clear up something here regarding the notion that this slush fund is a replacement for Chump's $10 billion claim over the IRS exposure. As Senator Jack Reed pointed out in the hearing, over 5,000 other people also had their tax returns leaked. They had not sued and certainly not sued for $10 billion dollars. More to the point, Chump can't sue this year. He's not doing something -- giving up his ten billion claim -- to be nice. He can't sue. It's too late for him to sue.
[Dan] Abrams
said that Trump had a legitimate gripe about the IRS leaking his tax
return information — but it’s a moot point now because the statute of
limitations has run out.
“That’s the thing so
few people are talking about — there’s a two-year statute of limitations
on this claim,” Abrams said. He added, “What’s most galling to me about
this is, this is creating what I’m gonna call a ‘constitutional crisis
in spirit.’
Abrams said he’s careful to not
declare a “constitutional crisis” over and over, because the term only
counts when the executive branch defies the courts.
But, he said, “This was clearly an effort to get it out of the courts.”
“The
judge was clearly going to dismiss this lawsuit. And so, rather than to
allow that to happen, they ‘settled it’ right?” Abrams said. “They are
gaslighting us and I’m lit! I admit it. It worked. I’m gaslit! I mean,
they know — there’s gotta be someone back there who’s laughing as
they’re creating this [weaponization] language. Like, ‘Oh, this is
really gonna piss them off!'”
Whether he was right or wrong, the statute of limitations had run out. He had two years to file a claim. It's over.
Chump's best friend of so many decades is dead now but Jeffrey Epstein, sex trafficker, continues to remain in the news. And he also popped up during the hearing.
Senator Patty Murray: So let me
move to another topic. This Dept of Justice is sending the message that
if you're wealthy. if you're powerful, if you are well-connected, you
won't be held accountable even if you abuse children. You know, it's
after Congress passed The Epstein Files Transparency Act and DOJ finally
began to release the files, your department exposed survivors' names,
their sensitive personal information and even nude photos while
redacting names of alleged perpetrators of those crimes. The message
that sends is this Dept of Justice worked harder to protect the privacy
of potential child abusers than the survivors. Your predecessor refused
to apologize to those victims but I want to give you the same
opportunity to apologize for the way the department handled the release
of these documents. Will you apologize to the survivors?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: When the president passed The Epstein Transparency Act, that was the only time --
Senator Patty Murray: Pardon me?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: When
the president signed The Epstein Transparency Act, that was when we
were legally allowed to release the files prior to the passage of the
act, which you all passed. I agree --
Senator Patty Murray: That is still not the question I'm asking.
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: It was the question. You asked five or
six questions. I'm answering them in order. That was one of the
questions you asked.
Senator
Patty Murray: The question I want you to answer is: Will you apologize
to the victims whose names, sensitive personal information and even
nude photos were not redacted by your department? Will you apologize to
them?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Of course. That was -- We never want to release a single victim's name --
Senator Patty Murray: That is what we are hearing.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Can I answer the question, please? Is it --
Senator Patty Murray: I'm asking if you'll apologize?
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: So, I -- and I just said yes, but I
wanted to -- I would like an explanation to be given to that. What-what
this act did is it required us to review over 6 million pieces of paper
in a very short period of time. And so 0.0001% we made mistakes and we
owned up to them. And the second that a victim or their lawyer told us
that we made a mistake, we pulled that document down and we put lawyers
24-7 in being responsive to victims and their lawyers to make sure that
we fixed every single problem. And so, yes, --
Senator Patty Murray: I hear your anger.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I'm not angry. No, I'm not angry. I'm just making sure it's understood.
Senator
Patty Murray: I hear your anger and I will tell you who is really angry
is the people who had their nude photos released --
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I'm just making sure it's understood that we matter.
Senator Patty Murray: I just want to hear you say, ''I apologize to those victims.''
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: So, as I just said, of course any time
that we release a victim's name that shouldn't be released, we have
failed as a Dept of Justice and so we have to do everything we can to
not fail --
Senator Patty Murray: Well, I still haven't heard the words, "I apologize to those victims."
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: Well I'm trying to give you an
explanation of what happened but I don't think you're really interested
in that because you keep on cutting me off.
Senator
Patty Murray: Well I am but I have a few more questions here and I
want to know -- and I know that Senator Van Hollen raised this -- but I
want to ask will you personally commit to meeting with the survivors? I
have heard from them personally that DoJ refused to meet them and I'm
asking about you, I'm asking about the Justice Dept reaching out to them
to be heard. Not waiting for them to navigate a legal system that has
obviously repeatedly failed them so far.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Can I answer?
Senator Patty Murray: Yeah, will you reach out to them?
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: So, as we have said repeatedly, of
course any lawyer -- Now if the victim has a lawyer, I am not allowed to
reach out to the victim directly. You know that. But any lawyer can
reach out to the Dept of Justice. They have and I've met with many
victims and their lawyers -- as has the FBI, as has the SDNY. We will
always meet with victim's counsel and if any victim or their lawyer can
come forward to the FBGI at any time --
Senator
Patty Murray: You will always meet with victim's counsel? Well these
women -- and I've met with them and I know Senator Van Hollen has and so
many others -- they are personally so feeling abused, again and again
and again, by what happened to them originally and now what's happening
to them. I am saying to you as a human being, don't make them navigate a
system that's impossible to navigate, that has already abused them.
Reach out and ask to meet with them. That's all I'm asking.
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: Wait. You're asking me to call? You
want me to personally call the victims? Is that what you are asking me
to do?
Senator Patty Murray: I can help you reach them.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Oh, that would be great. Yes, because we have said from day one that --
Senator Patty Murray: And you would meet with them if I reached out to them?
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: Of course, there have been members who
have done that and we immediately reach out to the victims or their
lawyers when their lawyers say they ant to do it.
Last week, the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee held a hearing in Florida on Epstein and the witnesses were some of the survivors. We noted Joe Sommerlad (INDEPENDENT) report which included:
She
also attacked the Department of Justice for leaving her name, and those
of other survivors, unredacted in the Epstein files released in
December and January, saying her’s appeared more than 500 times while
those of the pedophile’s alleged accomplices were blacked out, which she
claimed had been a “choice,” not a “mistake.”
Over 500 times one survivor's name was not redacted. Over 500 times. And Blanche doesn't want to say he's sorry.
Does Blanche understand his job? In the exchange with Senator Jack Reed below, it did not appear that Blanche understands what he's supervising.
Senator Jack Reed: You had an opportunity to go down and
talk to Ghislaine Maxwell and then a few days later she was transferred
from a high security prison to a very comfortable -- a very comfortable
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: That's
just not true. She was not in a high security prison. She was
transferred from a low security prison to a low security prison I mean,
you're looking at me like that's -- that's verifiable.
Senator
Jack Reed: Well I don't think at the other prison she had her own
room, she had access to a private shower, she could have pet therapy and
--
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I don't know if any of that is true. I'm not disagreeing with you --
Senator Jack Reed: It is true and you should know it, Mr. Blanche
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche:I should know that?
Senator Jack Reed: You should know.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche:Whether an inmate has access to her own shower?
Senator
Jack Reed: This is a person of extra special interest to the President
of the United States. He's known her. Why did he send you down to talk
to her?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: He didn't send me. I went.
Senator Jack Reed: What do you mean?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: You think President Trump called and asked me to interview a witness in federal prison?
Senator
Jack Reed: Yes, I do, frankly. Because you know why? Because the deal
was in. He needed somebody he could rely upon to talk to her and find
out what she say if she was asked about Jeffrey Epstein. And you were
the perfect choice. And you went down there. And suddenly, Shazam!,
she's out of what is a confining situation into a much more relaxed
federal prison.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Every
word that I asked her is recorded and available to you to review. If
there's criticisms of the question that I asked her, go ahead and make
them. But the president did not have anything to do with my choice to
go interview Ms. Maxwell. If I wouldn't have went and a career would
have went, you would have said, 'Why didn't you go yourself?' Like you
expect me to know whether she has access to her own shower. So I did
go.
Senator
Jack Reed: Everyone in the United States who reads the newspapers know
that, I guess, you don't, you know, read things like that. You know,
this whole hearing, I think is exposing something, which I think is, to
me, very frightening. You're a very gifted lawyer. But from my
perspective, you have very little faith to the Constitution and the
people of America. And you're the President's consigliore.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Your perspective is completely wrong, Senator.
Senator Jack Reed: Well I think the facts will prove me right. Thank you.
Todd Blanche lies. He declared, "She was not in a high security prison. She was transferred from a low security prison to a low security prison "
No, Ghislaine was not in a high security prison. She was in a low
security prison. That part he got right. But the prison she was
transferred to in Bryan, Texas is not a low security prison, it is a
minimum security prison -- that's the lowest classification level and it
is less restrictive than a low security prison. If you're confused on
this, you can refer to this Federal Bureau of Prisons webpage. You'll find under Minimum:
Minimum
security institutions, also known as Federal Prison Camps (FPCs), have
dormitory housing, a relatively low staff-to-inmate ratio, and limited
or no perimeter fencing. These institutions are work- and
program-oriented.
A number of BOP institutions
have a small, minimum security camp adjacent to the main facility. These
camps, often referred to as Satellite Prison Camps (SCPs), provide
inmate labor to the main institution and to off-site work programs.
Bryan FPC, where Maxwell currently resides, is the second minimum security prison listed.
Under Low you'll find this:
Low
security Federal Correctional Institutions (FCIs) have double-fenced
perimeters, mostly dormitory or cubicle housing, and strong work and
program components. The staff-to-inmate ratio in these institutions is
higher than in minimum security facilities.
FCI
Elkton and FCI Jesup each have a small Federal Satellite Low Security
(FSL) facility adjacent to the main institution. FCI La Tuna has a low
security facility affiliated with, but not adjacent to, the main
institution.
Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Elizabeth
Warren (D-Mass.) joined the Center for American Progress’ IDEAS
Conference to deliver a speech on the need for universal child care.
“As a nation, we support our economy by investing in roads and
bridges and public education — all so that our businesses and our
workers can prosper. It’s time to do the same for child care — make this
investment so that mamas and daddies can work,” said Senator Warren.
She highlighted how the cost of child care is crushing families,
pointing to data that shows child care costs have risen twice as fast as
inflation, and how in 47 out of 50 states, families are paying more for
child care for two kids than rent for their whole family.
She also criticized Democrats for not being serious enough about
getting universal child care done during a Democratic trifecta, saying Build Back Better was “an exercise in how weak and ineffective we could make the child care program and still call it child care.”
“We lost child care [in Build Back Better] because not
enough Democrats who were already in office were willing to fight for
it. I believe down to my bones that Democrats who think there is no
reward for fighting to deliver universal child care are dead wrong,” said Senator Warren.
Senator Warren called on every Democratic candidate in 2026 and 2028
to make universal child care a core part of their platform, saying “[i]t
would be political malpractice for Democrats not to be talking about
child care every chance we get, going into the midterms and beyond.”
The senator pressed Democrats to fight for universal child care and
have legislation ready to pass on Day One of the next Democratic
trifecta that “makes it possible for parents to access that care the
very same year.” Senator Warren has teamed up with Senator Patty Murray
(D-Wash.) and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to draft
legislation that would deliver universal child care.
“We're in this fight to deliver for the American people — not to
talk, but to deliver. To lower the costs that are keeping people up at
night. And to give people some hope by showing what it looks like when
government is actually on their side,” said Senator Warren.
“Whether you have kids or not — whether you even like kids or not —
universal child care is the best investment we can make in bolstering
the middle class… As Democrats go around the country asking people to
vote for us, every single one of us should be talking about child care,”
Senator Warren concluded.
Transcript: CAP IDEAS Conference May 19, 2026
As Prepared for Delivery
Senator Elizabeth Warren: Thank you to Neera and
CAP’s outstanding team for pulling together today’s conference. And
thank you, Jared, for the very generous introduction.
A lot of folks here today are going to tell you that costs are way
up, and Donald Trump is to blame. That’s true — and it’s a big reason
why Trump’s approval rating just hit an all-time low. But Americans are
angry — and have been angry for a long time — because costs have been
going up for decades under both parties.
If we want to win the midterms and have a fighting chance in 2028, we
need to convince Americans that we’re serious about taking on big
fights and lowering costs. That means no more general hand-waving. It
means specific proposals that would make meaningful differences in
people’s lives — specific proposals that we’re willing to be held
accountable for delivering on.
Let’s start with child care.
Child care costs have risen twice as fast as inflation. In 47 out of
50 states, families are paying more for child care for two kids than
rent for their whole family. And under Donald Trump, the crisis has
gotten worse.
As a young working mom, I was about an inch away from quitting my job
before my Aunt Bee moved in to help with child care. That was forty
years ago — and it’s only gotten worse since.
Today, half of all families live in child care deserts, meaning there
are two or three children who need care for every one child care slot.
If you’re lucky, you might get a spot for your infant in six months. But
you might get stuck on a two-year waitlist for the privilege of paying
$20,000 plus a year.
How did we get here? It’s Econ 101 — supply and demand. Prices are
high because lots of families need care, and there are nowhere near
enough child care providers.
And why are there not enough child care workers? Again, it’s Econ
101: There aren’t enough workers because those workers are typically
paid at lower rates than Uber drivers.
So why not pay them more? Typically, when you need more workers, you
pay more. But families are already getting flattened by sky-high costs
for care and they simply can’t afford to pay more.
In other words, the private market has not — and will not — solve the
child care market problem. The only way to develop adequate child care
is for the government to fill the gap by investing in families and
workers.
It would be a smart investment with huge payoffs. Workers would be
paid commensurate with their training and responsibilities. Babies would
get a strong start in life. And families would get relief on a huge
cost.
As a nation, we support our economy by investing in roads and bridges
and public education — all so that our businesses and our workers can
prosper. It’s time to do the same for child care — make this investment
so that mamas and daddies can work — and then we’ll all see the payoff.
Child care should not be a privilege that is reserved just for the
rich. Child care is public infrastructure that makes our communities and
our businesses flourish.
When I ran for president in 2020, I talked about child care at every
stop — but while every Democratic candidate supported expanding child
care, it wasn’t the issue they talked about on the stump.
When Joe Biden was elected, we were in the throes of the COVID
pandemic, which ripped back the curtain on how fragile our
cobbled-together child care system really is. And for the first time in a
long time, we had a Democratic trifecta. To me, this was a golden
chance — our moment to finally deliver universal child care.
I wasn’t alone in fighting for child care. Patty Murray and I burned
up the phone lines strategizing with each other. The advocates
circulated data and stories and brought families to the Hill to testify
about the difference that a good child care program would make. And,
just like during the 2020 campaign, almost every Democrat would tell you
— if they were asked — that sure, they supported including child care.
But not enough were willing to fight for it — they were just checking
the box.
The law the Democrats were putting together, Build Back Better, was
never about how to build a robust, effective child care system. Instead,
it was an exercise in how weak and ineffective we could make the child
care program and still call it child care. How little we could invest to
keep the price tag under an artificial cap. How much we could
discourage states from implementing the program so the cost on paper
wouldn’t scare Joe Manchin and the tax policies on the other side of the
ledger wouldn’t make Kyrsten Sinema give a little curtsey and vote no.
That was the frustrating, aggravating process, right up until — poof —
child care got thrown out entirely.
We lost child care because not enough Democrats who were already in
office were willing to fight for it. I believe down to my bones that
Democrats who think there is no reward for fighting to deliver universal
child care are dead wrong.
Today, states and cities across the country are leading the charge.
Democrats like Governor Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey, Governor Abigail
Spanberger in Virginia, and Mayor Zohran Mamdani in New York campaigned
aggressively on increasing access to child care — and they won.
I give them huge respect, but to deliver big for every American family, states and cities can’t do it alone.
But here’s the good news: they don’t need to. Universal child care isn’t just good policy, it’s good politics.
Right now, Republicans are fumbling over the child care issue at the
most basic level. Vice President JD Vance’s solution? Just have
grandparents move in next door! Last month, Donald Trump said out loud —
on camera — that we can’t, “take care of” child care because we have to
dump a billion dollars a day into a war halfway around the world with
Iran. So much for “America first.”
It would be political malpractice for Democrats not to be talking
about child care every chance we get, going into the midterms and
beyond. When I look at the upcoming Democratic presidential primary,
every 2028 candidate who understands what’s happening in this country,
who wants to win, AND who will deliver for families, will make universal
child care a core piece of their agenda.
So, how do we get it done? First: Cover everyone. We can’t be afraid
of big, structural change. And that means affordable, high-quality child
care for every single American family.
Social Security is the most popular government program ever because
it benefits everyone. The same should be true of child care — every
parent, every employer, every worker needs to see exactly how our
program helps them. We must cover all families, and keep prices
manageable for all families. For the typical family, who might be paying
$25,00 a year for child care right now — this proposal would save them
$15,000 — every year! And a single mother making $60,000 a year? She’d
pay nothing at all. That’s a big deal.
Second: Speed. We need to deliver quickly to solve the affordability
crisis flattening families right now. I’m talking months, not years.
Remember what happened the last time Democrats were in power.
Talented, dedicated folks put together a whole lot of really good
policies — but speed just wasn’t baked in, so it took too long for those
investments to help families. Some benefits like Medicare Drug
negotiations were passed into law, but they were deliberately set up for
the price cuts not to kick in until years later.
When the election rolled around, people asked themselves: “what have
Democrats done for me?” Too many of them felt the answer was “not
enough” or, even worse, “nothing at all.”
Our new child care proposal needs to get resources to the states and
localities right away. That means setting up strike teams to help states
and cities create more child care slots now. That means helping the
neighbor who babysits get licensed. That means re-thinking regulations
that are keeping out new providers. Yes, we need to keep our kids safe.
And yes, we need all types of providers who can meet those standards so
we have abundant, affordable, high-quality child care for every family.
The time to get ready is now. When we get the next Democratic
trifecta, we need legislation that’s ready to pass on Day One. And our
legislation should make it possible for parents to access that care the
very same year. Some people might say that’s unrealistic. I say you
don’t get what you don’t fight for.
I’m putting my money where my mouth is. I’ve teamed up with the top
Democratic Appropriator Patty Murray, the top House Democrat for
education Bobby Scott, and the outstanding Congresswoman from New York
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The four of us are doing the hard policy work
right now. We’re working to draft a bill that will be the Day One
solution once we take back power. And we need every Democrat, whether
they are in office now or running for office, on board. Can I get an
amen?
It's a tough time. Costs — including the cost of child care — are
crushing American families, and Donald Trump is too busy starting wars
and lining his own pockets to care.
We're in this fight to deliver for the American people — not to talk,
but to deliver. To lower the costs that are keeping people up at night.
And to give people some hope by showing what it looks like when
government is actually on their side.
The impact of universal, affordable child care for all families would be seismic.
It would mean that a single mother could go back to school to become a
nurse. It would mean a young family could actually save enough to buy a
house. It would mean a couple could start that small business they’d
been dreaming of.
It would be life-changing for millions of families across the country.
Whether you have kids or not — whether you even like kids or not —
universal child care is the best investment we can make in bolstering
the middle class. And that should matter to everyone.
As Democrats go around the country asking people to vote for us,
every single one of us should be talking about child care. We can take
back Congress, then we can take back the White House, and then, we can
deliver universal child care.
