Skip to content
Issue Brief

Republican-Proposed CalFresh Cuts Put Millions of Californians at Risk of Hunger

Federal proposals could shift billions in food assistance costs to California, jeopardizing support for children, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities.

April 2025 | By Nishi Nair and Monica Saucedo

Child having a meal together with her family.

key takeaway

Republican-proposed federal cuts to CalFresh would put millions of Californians at risk of hunger by shifting billions in food assistance costs to the state. These cost-shift proposals could force California to reduce already too-low CalFresh benefits or take assistance away from over a million participants, disproportionately harming children, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities.

Over 5 million Californians rely on food assistance programs to ensure they can consistently put a meal on the table for themselves and their families. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — CalFresh in California — is a key tool for fighting hunger in the state. However, the Trump administration and congressional Republicans are pushing for severe cuts to CalFresh and other essential food assistance programs in order to fund huge tax giveaways for the wealthy.

Federal cuts to CalFresh would be especially devastating for California families with low incomes because benefits are completely funded by the federal government, with states covering a portion of the administrative and outreach costs.

House Republicans have proposed requiring the Agriculture Committee, which oversees SNAP, to cut at least $230 billion in federal spending over the next ten years. For comparison, the California General Fund is estimated to be $229 billion for the 2025-26 fiscal year. To make cuts of this magnitude possible, programs like CalFresh are likely to undergo major restructuring. CalFresh could face cuts to benefits and participation as a result of major cost-shifts to states, harsher time limits, and reversals of other key investments. Notably, significantly altering SNAP’s funding structure by offloading costs to states would have the greatest consequences for participants who rely on CalFresh for daily nutrition.

Cost-Shift Proposals Would Greatly Reduce Funding for CalFresh and Impose Massive Costs on California

If the federal government did decide to restructure how SNAP — and therefore CalFresh — is funded, this could shift major costs onto California. A cost-shift proposal would require the state to pay for a portion of CalFresh benefits for the first time in the program’s history, breaking a foundational agreement that food benefits are a federal responsibility as CalFresh is a federal entitlement program.

If California was required to cover 10% of the estimated cost of benefits issued in 2026, the state would be responsible for paying $1.23 billion to maintain CalFresh benefits. If California is required to fund $1.23 billion for CalFresh through this year’s budget or any future budget, but the state is only able to partially cover this cost, over a million people could lose benefits or receive significantly less assistance to buy groceries.

If California could only cover 75% of the $1.23 billion mandated by a hypothetical cost-shift proposal, the federal government’s contribution to CalFresh would decrease accordingly. Under this scenario, total CalFresh benefits would decrease from $12.3 billion to just $9.2 billion. In order to absorb this cut:

  • California would have to reduce daily CalFresh benefits, which are already too low, by 25% from $6.34 to $4.76, thereby increasing the daily food gap from $5.10 to $6.68.
  • Or, the state would have to take away benefits from 1 in 4 CalFresh recipients, or over 1.3 million participants.

Finding over $1 billion in California’s already strained budget fast enough to prevent families and individuals from losing benefits would be extremely difficult. Even if there weren’t any federal budget cuts, California is projected to face large budget shortfalls beginning in 2026-27 because state revenues are expected to fall far short of covering the cost of current services. Moreover, shifting a share of the cost of CalFresh benefits to California would likely make it impossible for the state to cover benefit costs during recessions when the need for food assistance rises, but state revenues decline.

Regardless of the magnitude of the cost-sharing proposal, Californians who rely on CalFresh to afford basic food needs are at risk of facing reduced benefits or exclusion from the program entirely, which could lead to increased food insecurity and poverty at a time when so many Californians are already struggling with the high costs of living.

Additional Federal Threats to SNAP Would Compound Harm

In addition to a severely damaging cost shift, other proposals to weaken SNAP could take aid away from children, veterans, seniors, working families, people struggling to find work, and people with disabilities. These proposals include:

  • Rolling back expansions to the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), which sets the amounts for CalFresh benefits. The TFP had not been updated since the 1970s to reflect current science-based dietary recommendations or the economic realities of buying and preparing food prior to a 2021 expansion. The proposal to roll back this and future revisions would decrease already limited benefits and make it significantly harder for families to afford groceries.
  • Imposing time limits on exempted populations like veterans, people experiencing homelessness, youth who have aged out of foster care, and parents of school-aged children. SNAP has strict time limits on assistance for many able-bodied participants without dependents unless they meet certain work requirements, despite the extensive research that shows work requirements have no long-term impacts on employment and only result in people losing assistance. The overwhelming majority of CalFresh/SNAP recipients who can work already do. Therefore, imposing harsher time limits would cut benefits and increase hardship for people who face disproportionate challenges in the labor force, live in areas where there are insufficient jobs, and contribute significantly through their unpaid labor of caregiving.
  • Ending Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE), which would impose significant administrative burdens and take food away from children receiving school meals. BBCE is an important tool to connect families who have difficulty affording basic expenses to different programs they are eligible for. One of the most important uses is to allow all children who receive CalFresh to automatically receive free school meals without additional paperwork. The proposal would also make it more difficult for children to access free school meals during the school year and over the summer, undermining efforts around School Meals for All in California. Overall, ending BBCE would further complicate the administrative process for agencies and families and reduce students’ access to free meals at school, putting additional pressure on family budgets.

Proposed Changes to Food Assistance Programs Will Harm Californians

Federal threats to food assistance programs will cause harm to already struggling families. Black, Latinx, and multiracial households disproportionately rely on these services, meaning any cuts would further exacerbate inequalities already present within these communities.

California’s leaders should take bold action to protect communities from the proposed devastating federal cuts. This starts with urging their federal counterparts to reject harmful budget cuts to food assistance programs like CalFresh in order to justify huge tax breaks for high-income households and corporations. At the same time, the state should prepare to mitigate the impact of potential cuts by exploring equitable revenue solutions to safeguard essential services.

Programs like CalFresh help families purchase food, aid the state in fighting poverty, and help stabilize the economy during recessions by supporting local businesses. Protecting and strengthening food assistance is necessary to ensure that no children, seniors, veterans, or Californians with disabilities go hungry in our state.

Federal Policy
Health & Safety Net

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

key takeaway

Republican budget proposals would impose harsh and ineffective “work requirements” that restrict access to health care, food, and other necessities for millions of Americans. These “work requirements” are just paperwork barriers, not solutions. Federal policymakers should reject them.

All Californians, no matter their race, gender, or zip code, deserve to have affordable health care, housing, food, and other necessities that allow them to thrive in their communities. But Republican federal budget proposals would pave the way for deep and harmful cuts that would take health coverage, nutrition assistance, and other essentials away from millions of Californians struggling to make ends meet due to persistently high inflation and the state’s long-standing housing affordability crisis. These cuts would increase poverty and widen racial and ethnic inequities in exchange for funding huge tax giveaways for the wealthy.

One way Republican leaders may implement this deeply inequitable agenda is by making access to vital services contingent upon complying with rigid “work requirements” — rules that require regular documentation of work hours. Such proposals are ineffective, punitive, counterproductive, and a waste of federal funds. Research shows that these requirements don’t meaningfully or sustainably increase employment or earnings. Instead, they take health care, food, and other vital resources away from families and individuals in need — disproportionately Black people and other people of color — by adding unnecessary paperwork and work reporting hurdles to receive the support they need. “Work requirements” — more accurately, paperwork or work reporting requirements — increase hardship and make it even more challenging to maintain or find jobs. Policymakers should reject all proposals to impose work reporting requirements, recognizing them for what they are — harmful cuts that threaten the health and well-being of the communities they represent.

what are “work requirements?”

“Work requirements” — more accurately, paperwork or work reporting requirements — withhold essential services and support unless individuals can regularly document time spent working or engaged in certain activities, or else prove they are exempt from these requirements. These rigid reporting rules often trip people up on red tape, causing them to lose access to health care, food, and other essential human needs that they are otherwise eligible for and that all people deserve. To refer to these rules, this report interchangeably uses the term “work reporting requirements” and the more common term “work requirements” (in quotations to indicate that such requirements largely impose paperwork burdens).

“Work Requirements” Are Unnecessary, Ineffective, Punitive, Counterproductive, and a Waste of Money

Republican-led proposals to impose new or harsher work reporting requirements are simply harmful cuts by another name. Rather than fostering economic mobility as proponents claim, these requirements threaten to push families and individuals deeper into poverty by withholding health care, food assistance, and other vital support. This report makes clear that “work requirements” are:

  • Unnecessary. Most people who are likely to be targets of such requirements already do work for pay, while the remainder are engaged in valuable — but unpaid — caregiving work, attending school to improve their employment prospects, or are ill, disabled, retired, or between jobs.
  • Ineffective. They fail to meaningfully or sustainably increase employment or earnings. Instead, their main effect is to take vital assistance away from people in need. Consequently, they have little to no effect on economic mobility, and may even drive some families and individuals deeper into poverty.
  • Punitive. Forcing workers to regularly document work hours increases administrative bureaucracy and often trips people up on red tape, causing them to lose access to vital benefits. Complying with these onerous requirements can be especially difficult for workers paid low wages who lack control over fluctuating work hours or have employers who are unwilling to verify their employment.
  • Counterproductive. They fail to address the fundamental barriers that prevent so many people from meeting basic needs, including a racially discriminatory labor market rife with low-paying jobs and the lack of affordable child care that is necessary to work. Plus, taking away people’s health care or ability to afford food only makes it harder for them to maintain employment and make ends meet.
  • A waste of money. Implementing and enforcing “work requirements” is costly and wastes funds that would be far better spent on services and supports that actually improve the lives of all people.

Research Shows that “Work Requirements” Simply Don’t Work

“Work requirements” are already part of several social safety net programs, but research into those policies has consistently shown that they do not increase employment opportunities in the long run or decrease “program dependence.” Instead, these policies lead to participants being pushed out of programs and are tied to increases in deep poverty. Specifically, research finds that “work requirements:”

Adding More Hurdles for Accessing Medicaid Would Harm People’s Health and the Economy

Medi-Cal is California’s Medicaid program that provides free or low-cost health care to over one-third of the state’s population. The program serves individuals with modest incomes, including children, seniors, people with disabilities, and pregnant individuals. Medi-Cal is a lifeline for millions, ensuring access to essential health services that support public health and economic stability.

Medi-Cal coverage is essential to building and sustaining a stable workforce in California, especially because many low-wage jobs do not offer employer-sponsored health insurance and do not pay enough for people to afford coverage through Covered California, the state’s health insurance marketplace established under the Affordable Care Act. Ensuring access to Medi-Cal not only promotes individual health but also strengthens the state’s economy by supporting worker productivity.

Despite the critical role Medi-Cal plays, Congressional Republicans and the Trump administration have pushed for Medicaid “work requirements,” a policy that would make it harder for people to stay covered by tying health insurance to employment. Medicaid work reporting requirements are essentially cuts that would cause significant health coverage losses. Such proposals would require Medicaid beneficiaries to prove they are working, looking for work, or participating in job training programs in order to maintain coverage. Imposing such requirements in Medicaid would be:

  • Unnecessary: Most Medicaid enrollees under age 65 are already working (for pay). In California, over 3 in 5 adults work full-time or part-time (for pay). Among those who are not employed for pay, many are providing unpaid care for family members — an essential form of labor that sustains families and communities, yet is often overlooked by work reporting requirements. Others are managing illness or disability, or are enrolled in school.
  • Ineffective: Research consistently shows work reporting requirements are an ineffective policy tool that fail to increase employment. Instead, they create bureaucratic hurdles that cause people to drop off Medicaid — particularly people with disabilities, caregivers, and those working in unstable or low-wage jobs. Many enrollees who meet the work criteria still risk losing coverage due to administrative barriers, such as difficulty completing complex paperwork, missing deadlines, or lacking the necessary documents to prove eligibility.
  • Punitive: If implemented, “work requirements” would put over 8 million people in California at risk of losing their health coverage. (See this resource for details on the impact by congressional district.) Health coverage losses on this scale would have devastating effects on people’s health and economic security as well as the broader economy.
  • Counterproductive: Without coverage, people would struggle to see doctors, get medications, and access preventive care, leading to more severe health problems and even medical debt. At the same time, hospitals and clinics, especially in low-income and rural areas, would face higher costs for unpaid care, putting financial strain on local health systems. Imposing “work requirements” would also make it harder for people to maintain employment, particularly people with chronic illnesses, such as diabetes and heart disease, who need regular access to health care to manage their conditions.
  • A Waste of Money: Implementing and enforcing work reporting requirements in Medicaid would be costly. The Government Accountability Office estimates that administrative costs can range from millions to hundreds of millions per state. These funds would be better spent on improving access to health care services in Medi-Cal rather than on unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles that take health coverage away.

“Work requirements” undermine the very purpose of Medicaid: it is health insurance, not a jobs program.

Imposing Harsher Time Limits in SNAP/CalFresh Would Cut Benefits for Many and Increase Hunger

CalFresh, California’s name for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), provides program participants with modest monthly noncash benefits to buy food and is the state’s most powerful tool to fight hunger. At the federal level, SNAP requires participants between the ages of 18 and 54 who do not qualify for limited exemptions to meet work reporting requirements in order to receive aid beyond a very limited window of time. In effect, this policy imposes a harsh time limit on access to SNAP that pushes participants off benefits after three months.

Despite the extensive body of research showing that “work requirements” take food away from those who need it and do not have lasting effects on employment, Republican leaders continue to push forward proposals to expand already rigid time limits enforced through work reporting requirements for SNAP recipients. Recent proposals for harsher time limits would specifically target older adults, people experiencing homelessness, foster youth who have aged out of the system, and veterans, increasing hardship among these communities who already face disproportionate challenges to meet work reporting requirements and struggle to make ends meet. “Work requirements” for SNAP are a failed experiment that have proven to be:

  • Unnecessary: The majority of SNAP recipients who can work already do. Over 3 in 4 adults who participated in CalFresh in a given month had recent paid employment. Those who cannot work are limited by significant barriers to employment, such as disability or macroeconomic conditions outside their control, like a lack of job opportunities. Additionally, many recipients who did not have paid employment reported having unpaid caretaking responsibilities that prevented them from working in a traditional setting, highlighting the limitations of work reporting requirement policies in recognizing essential unpaid labor.
  • Ineffective: Work reporting requirements do not increase work participation, they just increase hunger. Research has extensively shown that work reporting requirements create barriers that ultimately take away critical assistance from people in need. This is especially true for people experiencing homelessness and people with disabilities.
  • Punitive: Proposals to impose harsher time limits via “work requirements” and limit key exemptions are grounded on the false narrative that people should earn the right to eat. Many SNAP recipients have low-wage and unstable jobs that are characterized by irregular schedules. This type of precarious work means that sometimes people may not be able to meet specific work hour requirements if their hours are cut or they miss work due to illness. Work reporting requirements punish recipients for not having quality jobs with predictable hours and benefits, without addressing the root causes of these issues.
  • Counterproductive: Food assistance is a key support for people to work and contribute to their communities. Being well-fed and having access to adequate nutrition is essential to staying healthy, reducing the risk of chronic illness, and increasing academic achievement and labor productivity. SNAP benefits also provide significant economic benefits to local economies, with each dollar in benefits generating a $1.54 return and helping fund jobs, as well as helping to reduce poverty. Harsher time limits would diminish the effectiveness of one of the strongest antipoverty programs and have long-term economic consequences for everyone.

Rejecting the expansion of already stringent SNAP time limits is necessary to ensure low-income families will continue to be able to access the healthy food they need.

Policymakers Should Reject Proposals to Impose “Work Requirements” that Just Add Bureaucratic Burdens

As Republicans in Congress push to make it more difficult for Californians to access health care, nutrition assistance, and other anti-poverty programs, it’s important to call these what they are: harmful bureaucratic burdens. Rather than fostering economic mobility, these layers of paperwork threaten to take away health care, food, and other essentials that all people need to thrive. These Republican proposals fail to improve affordability and, combined with the proposed tax cuts for the wealthy, will only deepen inequality across the country. Policymakers should reject these proposals, recognizing them for what they are — harmful cuts that jeopardize the health and well-being of the communities they represent.

Federal Policy
Health & Safety Net

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

key takeaway

Cutting Medi-Cal funding would deepen racial and gender health disparities, putting the well-being of women of color at risk. Women of color already face systemic barriers to health care due to racism and sexism, leading to poorer health outcomes and shorter life expectancies. Policymakers should strengthen Medi-Cal to ensure equitable access to health care.

Medi-Cal, Californian’s Medicaid program, is a lifeline that provides free or low-cost health coverage for over one-third of California’s population. Access to health care leads to better health outcomes and a more effective health care system and benefits communities.

Right now, Congressional Republicans are actively pushing federal budget and policy proposals that threaten the program by cutting its funding in favor of tax breaks for the wealthy. Such cuts would be harmful for millions of Californians, but for women of color, including multi-race, Latinx, Black, and Asian and Pacific Islander women, who are already facing significant health disparities due to historic and ongoing racism and sexism, these cuts would be devastating.

Women of color are vital in creating a vibrant and economically strong California. They are the backbone of prosperous communities and the strong workforce that propelled California into becoming the fifth largest economy in the world. When women of color thrive, their communities thrive.

Without access to health coverage, women of color would face impossible choices between paying rent, putting food on the table, and getting the care they need to stay healthy. For many, Medi-Cal is the only way to access vital health services, from primary care to mental health supports. Cutting funding for Medi-Cal means taking critical care away from people who already face long-standing barriers to care, such as:

  • Lack of health coverage,
  • Limited access to transportation to get to appointments,
  • Limited health care resources,
  • Lack of culturally competent and linguistically appropriate care, or
  • Other forms of discrimination.

These barriers to care are rooted in structural racism and sexism, which have driven policy decisions that systematically deny women of color equitable access to quality care and resources. Cutting funding for Medicaid would worsen these racial inequities and put the health and well-being of women of color at risk.

Key Terms

1. Women of Color Face High Barriers to Mental and Overall Health

Centuries of racism, sexism, and economic exclusion have created disparities in health outcomes. Almost 30% of Native American women in California are in fair or poor health, and over 20% have experienced serious psychological distress in the past year. Multi-race, Latinx, Black, and Asian and Pacific Islander women all also report experiencing worse health outcomes than average in California. These racial and ethnic disparities can be attributed to a history of racism and sexism in health care. Unfortunately, these disparities will only worsen if cuts are made to Medicaid programs that provide health care for individuals in the state.

2. Native American and Black Women Have Shortest Life Expectancies

Life expectancy is a useful measure of population health, and can indicate underlying racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in health care and economic and social inequities. In California, the average life expectancy for a woman is just under 84 years. However, Native American and Black women have significantly shorter life expectancies, at 79 and 77 years respectively. This is a profound injustice. The disparities seen in women of color in California signal that Native American and Black women especially are facing barriers to accessing health care as well as racism and discrimination that can contribute to lower quality of care. Medi-Cal saves lives and proposed cuts would take critical care away from those who need it most, further worsening disparities that are already present for women of color in California.

3. There Are Significant Racial Gaps in Access to Health Insurance

While access to health coverage in California has improved for all racial/ethnic groups over the last decade, women of color continue to face barriers to health insurance coverage. Latinx, Native American, and Pacific Islander women all face the highest barriers to accessing health insurance in the state. Almost 15% of Latinx women in California did not have health insurance between 2018 and 2022. These disparities in health coverage highlight the profound and enduring impact of racism and sexism, which blocks women of color from equal access to health care.

Health care is critical for individuals and families to thrive, pursue education, and contribute to their communities. Systemic barriers in the health care system have contributed to these racial and ethnic disparities, and cuts to Medicaid would only increase the number of people without this critical care.

4. Multi-Racial Women Are Delaying Receiving Critical Care at High Rates

No one should ever have to skip or delay health care, but a large portion of women, and especially women of color, are delaying medical care or getting prescriptions. Nearly 1 in 3 multi-racial women delayed receiving medical care between 2018 and 2022, a significantly higher amount than the statewide average (26%).

Forgoing preventive care or treatment for health conditions is harmful to health and well-being. Avoiding or delaying care also threatens the ability of women to thrive in the state. The reasons women are delaying care are many, such as lack of time due to caregiving responsibilities, but point to systemic obstacles as well as racism and sexism in the health care industry. Cutting funding for Medicaid would increase the cost of health care for millions of Californians and cause even more women to delay receiving critical care.

5. Adequate Prenatal Care Is an Area of Concern for Women of Color

Prenatal care refers to the health care a woman receives during pregnancy to help ensure a healthy pregnancy for both the mother and fetus. Yet, women of color and specifically, Black, Latinx, multi-racial, Native American, and Pacific Islander women all report receiving less adequate prenatal care than the statewide average. The starkest disparity is for Pacific Islander women where nearly 3 in 5 women report receiving adequate prenatal care, or in other words, nearly 2 in 5 women do not receive adequate prenatal care. Barriers to receiving adequate prenatal care impact the health of the birthing parent, the child, and the family. Action should be taken to increase access to adequate prenatal care, not cuts that would take care away.

Policymakers should protect Medi-Cal. Women of color in California are already bearing the brunt of years of racism and sexism that have led to stark disparities in health outcomes. Cutting Medi-Cal would take critical care away from millions of women of color who rely on Medi-Cal to stay healthy. Rather than deepening these inequities, state and federal policymakers should strengthen Medi-Cal to better meet the needs of women of color. The well-being of women of color, their communities, and the future of California depends on it.

Federal Policy
Health & Safety Net

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Congressional Republicans and the Trump administration are pushing for proposals to cut Medicaid funding in favor of extended tax breaks for the wealthy. These cuts threaten critical health care for millions of people across the state, including children, pregnant individuals, seniors, and people with disabilities. Without access to health coverage, Californians would face impossible choices that put their health and economic security at risk while also driving up long-term costs for the state.

This Fact Sheet outlines several of the strategies Congressional Republicans have suggested they could use to cut Medicaid funding and shows how Californians would be impacted. No matter the method, a cut is a cut. Reduced federal funding would lead to a significant budget shortfall, leaving state leaders with critical decisions about how to protect Medi-Cal and the Californians who depend on it.

State policymakers should strive to prevent or mitigate the impact of harmful federal funding reductions. Cuts to Medi-Cal — like reducing benefits, limiting provider payments, or restricting eligibility — should be a last resort rather than a first response. Instead, state leaders should prioritize identifying new, sustainable sources of revenue to safeguard health care access for millions. They can start by closing tax loopholes that benefit corporations and the wealthy.

Want to Better Understand
the State Budget?

The Budget Center’s essential resources for understanding and navigating the California state budget — all in one place.

Explore tools, videos, and expert insights designed to strengthen your advocacy and guide informed decision-making.

Visit the Budget Academy

Federal Policy
Health & Safety Net

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

key takeaway

Expanding the Child Tax Credit would help millions of children thrive by reducing poverty, addressing racial inequities, and ensuring families with the lowest incomes receive the full support they need.

All children deserve to grow up with the resources needed to be healthy and thrive. Yet millions of families across California struggle to afford food and other necessities because many jobs fail to pay enough to make ends meet, particularly in the face of persistently high inflation and rising housing costs.

Growing up in poverty can have dire consequences for children’s futures, but research shows that policymakers can mitigate or prevent this harm by giving families with low incomes more resources, like the Child Tax Credit. This is why federal policymakers must ensure that children who are currently excluded from the full federal Child Tax Credit because their families’ income is too low or because of their immigration status are provided this vital credit. With several provisions of the Child Tax Credit slated to expire at the end of 2025, Congress has an opportunity to improve the credit to promote a thriving childhood and a strong future for all children.

Policies Like the Child Tax Credit Can Improve Children’s Outcomes

Research shows that increasing financial resources for families with low incomes, including through refundable tax credits, has the potential to improve children’s health, educational attainment, and earnings prospects as adults.1A refundable income tax credit is a type of credit that benefits families and individuals with very low incomes. The credit provides the same value regardless of how much tax filers owe in personal income taxes. For example, a family who qualifies for a $500 refundable credit and owes $200 in taxes will get the full $500 credit, with $200 covering their taxes and $300 as a cash refund. If the family owes no tax, they will get the full $500 as a cash refund. Additional evidence from the recent one-year expansion of the federal Child Tax Credit shows the powerful immediate effects of targeting sizeable financial resources to families with low incomes. In 2021, for the first time in the Child Tax Credit’s history, nearly all families with low incomes became eligible for $3,600 per child ages 0 to 5 and $3,000 per child ages 6 to 17. This significantly boosted families’ incomes, bringing the national child poverty rate to an historic low and cutting California’s child poverty rate by more than 40%.

The expanded Child Tax Credit was also associated with substantial reductions in racial income inequities, particularly among families with very low incomes, and with declines in food insufficiency and food insecurity, suggesting that increasing access to the credit among families with low incomes would improve child and family well-being. Researchers believe these improvements could produce broader benefits to society, given the current high costs associated with childhood poverty.

How Does the federal child tax credit work?

The federal Child Tax Credit currently provides families with $2,000 per dependent child under age 17, but families with low incomes — who are most in need of additional income to meet basic needs — are excluded from the full credit.2Additionally, the $2,000-per-child Child Tax Credit begins to “phase out” (gradually decline) for single parents with incomes over $200,000 and married couples with incomes over $400,000. For example, a single parent with one child must have an income of about $25,000 or more to qualify for the full Child Tax Credit, while a single parent with two children must earn about $28,000 or more. Families with income below these thresholds qualify for less than the full credit, and those with the lowest incomes – $2,500 or less – are completely excluded from the Child Tax Credit.

In addition, certain children are excluded from the Child Tax Credit based on their immigration status.3Specifically, children who have Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) have been excluded from the Child Tax Credit since 2018. ITINs are issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to individuals who do not have Social Security Numbers to use for tax filing purposes. Several changes to the Child Tax Credit that took effect in 2018 are scheduled to expire after 2025, providing Congress with the opportunity to end the exclusion of children from the credit based on their families’ low income or immigration status.4If the Child Tax Credit reverts to its pre-2018 form, the maximum credit will decline from $2,000 per child to $1,000 per child and children age 17 will no longer be eligible, among other changes. For more information, see Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, The Tax Policy Briefing Book: What Is the Child Tax Credit? (updated February 2025).

Millions of Children Across California Are Blocked from Accessing the Credit Because Their Families’ Incomes Are Too Low

Despite the significant reduction in poverty brought about by the expanded Child Tax Credit in 2021, federal policymakers failed to extend the expanded credit beyond one year. Consequently, about 2 million children under the age of 17 across California are excluded from receiving the full Child Tax Credit because their families’ incomes are too low.

Families that don’t earn enough to qualify for the full credit include parents working part-time in order to go to school to pursue their career goals. For example, a single mother working halftime as a childcare worker and going to school to get her teaching credential makes just $20,600 per year — well below what is needed to make ends meet and support her two children in California. Yet she would qualify for only two-thirds of the full tax credit based on her low income — just $2,715 instead of $4,000. The $1,285 she is denied could have helped her buy about two months of groceries. A single parent working part-time to support three children would qualify for an even smaller share of the full Child Tax Credit. For example, if they earned $24,260 in annual wages as a part-time nursing assistant, they would receive just over half of the full tax credit — $3,510 instead of $6,000.

Children Are Excluded from the Full Child Tax Credit in Every California Congressional District

Statewide roughly one-quarter of children under age 17 are excluded from the full Child Tax Credit. However, in 20 of the state’s 52 congressional districts even more than a quarter of children are left out. The two districts where the most children are excluded are CA-37 (Kamlager) and CA-22 (Valadao), where over 40% of children are left out of the full credit because their families earn too little.

The districts where most children are excluded from the full Child Tax Credit based on their low family income are located largely in southern California, mainly in the Los Angeles region, with a few in the Central Valley. However, as highlighted in the map, districts across California leave out children who stand to benefit the most from receiving the maximum payment.

Built-In Barriers: How the Child Tax Credit Disproportionately Excludes Children of Color

Of all the major racial and ethnic groups, Black, Latinx, and American Indian/Alaska Native children are disproportionately blocked from the full Child Tax Credit because their families earn too little, reflecting past and present discrimination as well as long-standing inequities in opportunity. Nearly 4 out of 10 Black children (38%) and roughly one-third of Latinx children and American Indian/Alaska Native children are excluded from the full Child Tax Credit due to their families’ low earnings, compared to around 13% to 15% of Asian, white, and multiracial and other children of color. This disproportionate exclusion of many children of color reinforces long-standing barriers that have continuously blocked families and children of color from escaping poverty and being able to afford basic necessities.

Many Children Are Denied the Child Tax Credit Based on Their Immigration Status

Hundreds of thousands of dependent children nationwide have been outright excluded from the Child Tax Credit since 2018 because of their immigration status even though their families pay taxes. Policies that discriminate against people based on immigration status are deeply harmful to families and communities. The vast majority of undocumented individuals live in mixed status families and many children who are excluded from the Child Tax Credit based on their status likely live in California given the large share of immigrants in the state. This exclusion has put families and children at greater risk of hunger, poverty, and other severe hardships. Federal Republican budget proposals under consideration include further restricting access to the Child Tax Credit by taking it away from US citizen children based on their parents’ immigration status.

All families that pay taxes should be eligible for tax benefits like the Child Tax Credit. Undocumented residents nationwide paid $96.7 billion in taxes in 2022, including $19.5 billion in federal income taxes. These contributions help support public services even as undocumented residents are excluded from benefiting from many of those same services. In California, undocumented residents paid $8.5 billion in state and local taxes in 2022.

Ending Exclusions Would Promote a Strong Future for All Children

With provisions of the Child Tax Credit slated to expire soon, Congress has an opportunity this year to strengthen the credit by ending the exclusion of children based on their families’ low income or immigration status. Making the credit more inclusive would lift additional families out of poverty, reduce racial and ethnic inequities, and promote a strong future for all children — both in California and the nation.

Federal Policy
Health & Safety Net
  • 1
    A refundable income tax credit is a type of credit that benefits families and individuals with very low incomes. The credit provides the same value regardless of how much tax filers owe in personal income taxes. For example, a family who qualifies for a $500 refundable credit and owes $200 in taxes will get the full $500 credit, with $200 covering their taxes and $300 as a cash refund. If the family owes no tax, they will get the full $500 as a cash refund.
  • 2
    Additionally, the $2,000-per-child Child Tax Credit begins to “phase out” (gradually decline) for single parents with incomes over $200,000 and married couples with incomes over $400,000.
  • 3
    Specifically, children who have Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) have been excluded from the Child Tax Credit since 2018. ITINs are issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to individuals who do not have Social Security Numbers to use for tax filing purposes.
  • 4
    If the Child Tax Credit reverts to its pre-2018 form, the maximum credit will decline from $2,000 per child to $1,000 per child and children age 17 will no longer be eligible, among other changes. For more information, see Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, The Tax Policy Briefing Book: What Is the Child Tax Credit? (updated February 2025).

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Medi-Cal saves lives. It’s a lifeline that provides free or low-cost health coverage for over one-third of California’s population. Yet Congressional Republicans and the Trump administration are actively pushing proposals to cut Medicaid funding in favor of tax breaks for the wealthy. Such cuts would mean taking critical care away from millions of people across the state, including children, pregnant individuals, seniors, and people with disabilities. Without access to health coverage, Californians would face impossible choices that put their health and economic security at risk while also driving up long-term costs for the state.

jump to

What is Medi-Cal?

Medi-Cal is California’s Medicaid program that provides free or low-cost health care to over one-third of the state’s population. The program serves individuals with modest incomes, including children, seniors, people with disabilities, and pregnant individuals. Medi-Cal is a lifeline for millions, ensuring access to essential health services that support public health and economic stability.

Who Is Eligible for Medi-Cal?

Most people qualify for Medi-Cal based on their income, a category known as Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) Medi-Cal. Eligible groups include:

  • Adults with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL). 
  • Pregnant individuals up to 213% FPL.

Children in families with incomes up to 266% FPL are also eligible through the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which is fully integrated into Medi-Cal. In certain counties, like San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara, coverage extends up to 317% FPL, reflecting the high cost of living in those counties.

Some individuals qualify under non-MAGI Medi-Cal, which is based on factors other than income. This includes:

  • People who are blind, disabled, or age 65 and older. 
  • People receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI). 
  • Residents in long-term care facilities. 
  • Former foster youth until age 26.

What Services Does Medi-Cal Cover?

Full-scope Medi-Cal covers a wide range of services, including doctor’s appointments, emergency services, physical and occupational therapy, dentist appointments, laboratory services, prescription drugs, vision care, preventive and wellness services, and behavioral health services. Medi-Cal also offers transportation to and from appointments for services that are covered by Medi-Cal.

why preventative care matters

Preventive care is good for people’s health and for California’s budget. Routine check-ups, screenings, and other preventive services help catch health issues before they become serious and more expensive to treat, research shows. Preventive care can reduce hospital visits, complex treatments, and long-term care. For example, managing high blood pressure with medication and regular doctor visits is less costly than treating a stroke or heart failure. Investing in prevention keeps people healthier while reducing avoidable health care spending.

In addition to these core services, Medi-Cal also covers services for specific populations, such as in-home supportive services (IHSS) for individuals with disabilities and expanded postpartum coverage for new parents.

How Is Medi-Cal Funded?

Medi-Cal is primarily funded by the federal and state government. The federal government contributes a share of the costs through a formula called the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP). In California, the standard FMAP is 50%, though certain populations and programs receive an enhanced FMAP, such as the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In addition to federal and state funds, Medi-Cal is supported by local government contributions, provider taxes, and fees from health plans.

How Does Medi-Cal Deliver Care?

Medi-Cal delivers care through two main models: managed care and fee-for-service (FFS). The vast majority of Medi-Cal members (88%) receive their care through managed care plans (MCPs). Under this model, the state contracts with health plans to coordinate and deliver services. These plans receive a fixed monthly payment from the state per enrollee regardless of how many services an individual uses. The remaining 12% of Medi-Cal enrollees receive care through the FFS model. Under FFS, enrollees can see any provider who accepts Medi-Cal, and providers are reimbursed per service delivered rather than receiving a set monthly amount.

California has expanded managed care over time to improve health outcomes, enhance care coordination, and control costs. Through initiatives like CalAIM (California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal), the state is shifting more services into managed care to provide integrated, person-centered care. These efforts aim to integrate physical health, behavioral health, and social services to support individuals experiencing homelessness, those with chronic medical conditions, and people involved in the justice system.

How Do Medi-Cal Reimbursement Rates Impact Access to Care?

Medi-Cal reimburses health care providers for services that they deliver to Medi-Cal patients, with rates varying based on the type of service, provider, and setting. Reimbursement rates are set by the state and approved by the federal government. However, these reimbursement rates are typically lower than those of Medicare and private insurance, which has discouraged provider participation.

Increasing provider participation in Medi-Cal is critical to improving access to a wide range of health care services, especially in historically underserved areas where there is often a shortage of providers. By increasing the number of providers in the Medi-Cal network, patients can receive more timely care, which can help improve health and well-being for all Californians. Revenue from Proposition 56, a tobacco tax increase which voters passed in 2016, provides additional funding to support provider payments. However, revenue from this tax has been on the decline.

What Is the Potential Impact of Medicaid Cuts?

Congressional Republicans have proposed cuts to Medicaid to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. Medicaid is a lifeline for nearly 1 in 4 people nationwide, including children, seniors, people with disabilities, and adults with low incomes. For California, where Medi-Cal covers 1 in 3 people, these cuts would be devastating. Any reduction in federal funding would lead to a significant budget shortfall and could force the state to make difficult choices such as reducing Medi-Cal benefits, limiting provider payments, or restricting eligibility.

If federal funding losses approach or exceed $10 billion per year, California would not be able to replace federal funds with existing state resources alone. As a result, low-income Californians, communities of color, seniors, people with disabilities, and children would face the greatest harm, further deepening health disparities and reducing access to essential care. Reducing Medicaid funding in any form would likely leave more people uninsured and weaken California’s health care system overall.

How Would Medi-Cal Members Be Impacted by Work Requirements?

Work requirements are essentially cuts that cause significant health coverage losses. Such proposals would require Medicaid beneficiaries to regularly prove they are working, looking for work, or participating in job training programs in order to maintain coverage. However, these requirements are burdensome and unnecessary, as the vast majority of Medicaid enrollees under age 65 are already working or are not able to work due to caregiving responsibilities, illness or disability, or school.

Research shows work requirements are an ineffective policy tool that fail to increase employment. Instead, they create bureaucratic hurdles that cause people to drop off Medicaid — particularly people with disabilities, caregivers, and those working in unstable or low-wage jobs.

If implemented, work requirements would put over 8 million people in California at risk of losing their health coverage. (See this resource for details on the impact by congressional district.) Health coverage losses on this scale would not only harm people’s health and well-being but also weaken state and local economies.

Work requirements undermine the very purpose of Medicaid: it is health insurance, not a jobs program.

Federal Policy
Health & Safety Net

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — known as CalFresh in California — is the state’s most powerful tool to fight hunger. CalFresh provides modest monthly assistance to over 5 million Californians with low incomes to purchase food.  While CalFresh participation varies across the state, in nearly three-quarters of congressional districts, over 1 in 10 constituents rely on this program to put food on their tables.

Research shows that SNAP is one of the strongest anti-poverty programs in the United States and provides significant economic returns. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that every dollar in SNAP benefits increases economic activity by $1.54 or more. Additionally, according to recent data from the Public Policy Institute of California, CalFresh kept over a million Californians across the state out of poverty in early 2023. With the support of expanded food assistance as part of post-pandemic relief, CalFresh reduced the poverty rate by 3.0 percentage points statewide, with reductions of over 5.0 percentage points in nine districts.

Republican proposals to cut food assistance funding to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy would take food away from Californians living in poverty. Harmful policies that would reduce benefits and implement harsh work requirements would make it harder for millions of people with low incomes to put food on the table. At a time when half of lower-income Californians have reported having to cut back on food to save money, these policies would severely undermine one of California’s most important tools to mitigate poverty.

Want to Better Understand
the State Budget?

The Budget Center’s essential resources for understanding and navigating the California state budget — all in one place.

Explore tools, videos, and expert insights designed to strengthen your advocacy and guide informed decision-making.

Visit the Budget Academy

Federal Policy
Health & Safety Net

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

New Data Reveals How the House Budget Framework Could Harm Californians in Every Congressional District

By

SACRAMENTO, CA — A new fact sheet from the California Budget & Policy Center underscores the potential consequences of the House budget framework, revealing how they would negatively impact residents in every congressional district across California. The proposed cuts threaten to undermine access to essential services such as health care, housing, nutrition assistance, and income … Continued