Trump Touts a ‘Roaring Economy.’ Families Say Otherwise.

In his State of the Union address, President Trump opened by boasting about a roaring economy, falling inflation and a richer and stronger nation. But those claims ring hollow for many Americans who feel economic security slipping further out of reach, a reality made worse by the policies he and his Republican Congress have championed.

In Tucson, Ariz., Angelica Garcia begins most mornings waiting for her Lyft app to ping. She’s a driver raising three children in a two-bedroom apartment that costs $1,400 a month. Her summer electric bills hover around $300. At the grocery store, it costs her over $100 just to cover basic essentials. Angelica and her children rely on Medicaid and SNAP. Medicaid covered her daughter’s broken arm and her son’s tonsil surgery. “It’s been a blessing. A godsend,” she says.

But her representative in Congress, Juan Ciscomani (R), voted to cut Medicaid and SNAP and to impose new work requirements.

Meanwhile, in Iowa, a retired woman named Jill is enrolled in a Marketplace healthcare plan that once cost her $75 a month thanks to enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies. But when Republicans voted against extending those subsidies, her premium jumped to nearly $800 a month.

Her representative in Congress, Marianette Miller-Meeks (R), voted to let those subsidies expire.

In Eau Claire, Wis., Erin Klaus has spent 17 years building up and running her small business. Erin’s representative in Congress, Derrick Van Orden (R), voted to protect Trump’s tariffs—tariffs that made small businesses like hers pay upfront, even as multinational corporations are better positioned to shift supply chains or pass along costs.

The Heritage Foundation’s Plan to Keep Women Uneducated, Pregnant and Subservient

Since Trump’s re-ascendance to the White House, the reactionary conservative movement has become the most aggressive and unfettered it has been in my lifetime. And they are getting very, very clear on what they think an acceptable life looks like for women:

—Settle for any man who decides he wants you.
—Don’t go to college.
—Marry early.
—Have as many babies as possible.
—Quit your job (or don’t pursue one in the first place) to stay home full time and depend financially on your husband.
—Shoulder the blame if you wind up married to a jerk.
—Wind up impoverished if you divorce.
—Face social condemnation if you fail to follow the tradwife script.
—Contraception should be illegal or at least hard to get; same for IVF and other fertility treatments.

This isn’t hyperbole. It’s a plan they wrote down and published: Last month, the Heritage Foundation published “Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 250 Years.” Think of it as Project 2275, a detailed plan that is mostly about how America can spend the next two and a half centuries undoing the feminist progress we’ve made.

Trump-Era Federal Layoffs Hit Black Women Hardest

There is a shift happening in the labor force that favors men in general, and white men in particular. And Black women—who historically have found more job security and upward mobility in federal employment—are now seeing those federal jobs slip away in record numbers.

“What we are seeing happening is a federal government that is intent on creating a DEI boogeyman to radically change how workplaces operate in ways that disadvantage women, people of color and LGBTQ workers,” says Gaylynn Burroughs, vice president for education and workplace justice at the National Women’s Law Center.

Trump, Venezuela and the High-Stakes Fight Over the U.S. Dollar

You and I survived New Year’s Eve and tried to look ahead to a better 2026. Then came the invasion of Venezuela—along with a giant serving of lies.

Trump is not the president of Venezuela. The United States is not “running” the country. He never deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, and he never spoke to oil executives about fentanyl or democracy before invading. When reporters asked what the U.S. planned to do with seized Venezuelan oil, Trump answered with stunning casualness: “Well, we keep it, I guess.” And who exactly is “we”?

Behind the bluster lies something far more dangerous than incompetence: a high-stakes effort to seize oil, prop up the U.S. dollar and maintain global economic dominance as rival powers work aggressively to move beyond it.

Social Services Cuts Will Mean More Women Stop Working—and Maybe That’s the Point

The current federal administration is very pro-family—they tell us that all the time. One of JD Vance’s first public appearances as vice president was his speech at the antiabortion March for Life rally in January 2025, where he called for more births in the U.S. and framed his agenda as both “pro-life” and “pro-family.” Trump reaffirmed that position in March, where he reiterated that this was a pro-family administration.

But at the start of this year, on Jan. 6, 2026, alleging concerns about fraud in state-run social services programs (even though the only concerns that have been raised—not proven—are in Minnesota), the Trump-Vance administration’s U.S. Department of Health and Human Services suspended three programs that provide support to children—not only in Minnesota, but also in California, Colorado, New York and Illinois. Those states, all led by Democrats, will lose access to billions in funding through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, the Child Care and Development Fund, and the Social Services Block Grant program. To be clear, these funds are the backbone of services-provision for families living in poverty in most communities, Republicans and Democrats alike.

This announcement comes days after the administration moved to eliminate a rule that had capped childcare copayments for low‑income families at 7 percent of their income.

It also comes after last year’s efforts to eliminate support for Head Start, quality and affordable education and other services for young children living in poverty.

All this from the pro-family party.

What the Backlash Against Women’s Leadership Tells Us About Young Men

At this year’s Reykjavík Global Forum in November, where 500 global leaders from public and private sectors convened in Iceland, the mood around gender equality was both urgent and reflective. Progress that once felt inevitable now looks fragile. The Reykjavík Index for Leadership reveals concerning declines in how women are perceived for leadership roles across major economies, while conversations about young men and boys have become more heated, polarized and emotionally charged.

While at the forum, I spoke with Richard Reeves, an author and researcher focused on boys and men, and Michelle Harrison, the founding force behind the Reykjavík Index for Leadership, about what’s really going on—and what comes next. Their insights help clarify the current backlash, the urgency of centering young people, and why gender equality must remain a shared project—one that includes all of us.

Congress Went on Recess. Americans Got Higher Healthcare Bills.

Congressional discussions on extending the Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits, which are set to expire Dec. 31, remain deadlocked as Congress begins its winter recess. Now, millions will see their premiums increase as a result: Payments will more than double on average—some even quadrupling—for enrollees who were eligible for the tax credits.

Without the extension, more and more ACA marketplace enrollees will drop their increasingly costly health insurance plans. This comes at a time when the ACA is more popular than ever—recent polls show that across the political spectrum, three quarters of voters support extending the tax credits.

Could the administration’s latest attack on transgender young people be the administration’s way of deflecting attention from the disaster unfolding in real time for millions of families in need of healthcare?  

Playing Games With Hunger

Gail Todd lives with her husband and three daughters in the southeastern section of Washington, D.C., and works at a Walmart in suburban Maryland. Her husband is a shift manager at a fast-food restaurant. Food stamps—the common name for the vouchers or debit cards supplied by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP—helped Todd when she struggled financially after her first daughter was born. She had to turn to them again four years ago because her job, combined with her husband’s wages, doesn’t pay enough to feed her family.

Before Walmart, Todd, pregnant now with her fourth child, worked for $8.35 an hour at McDonald’s. Walmart’s $10 hourly wage was better. In the beginning she worked roughly 40 hours a week, but since May her weekly hours have been reduced to between 16 and 28, earning her no more than $900 a month. The loss in income coincided with a cut to the family’s monthly food-stamps benefit from $339 down to $239—the lowest she’s ever received—because a temporary boost to the program in the stimulus bill was allowed to expire Nov. 1, 2013.

“The food stamps, they help, but it’s not enough because I can’t feed my family,” she says.

[From the Spring 2014 issue of Ms.]

A Hunger for Justice: Why SNAP Cuts Are a Feminist Public Health Issue

When policy proposals like The One Big Beautiful Bill Act and the Trump administration’s recent attempt to partially suspend food-stamp payments threaten the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), we must acknowledge that these decisions are not about fiscal responsibility. They are an ideological manifestation of historical racism and sexism that inevitably punishes Black and brown families and undermines the stability of our entire society.

In fact, SNAP recipients are 45 percent less likely to experience food insecurity, demonstrating that SNAP is one of the most effective anti-poverty programs we have in the U.S.