How Vance and Walz differed on childcare in last night’s debate

Childcare has become a significant issue in the lead-up to the election—on both sides of the aisle. Vice President Kamala Harris and running mate Tim Walz have already proposed expanding the child tax credit, increasing childcare subsidies for families, and doubling down on grant programs for childcare providers, carrying on the Biden administration’s commitment to those issue. While the Trump campaign has not laid out explicit policies, vice presidential candidate JD Vance has repeatedly touched on the issue on the campaign trail, often focusing on the steep costs of childcare. During the vice presidential debate on Tuesday, the candidates were asked about their plans to address the childcare shortage and lack of federal paid leave. Walz talked about the leave policy he signed into law in Minnesota—which will provide 20 weeks of paid time off when it takes effect in 2026—and pledged his support for a federal policy, though he said the amount of leave was “negotiable.” (Harris has previously said that she would “fight for a future” with paid leave and affordable childcare.) He also reiterated his support for expanding the child tax credit, which Harris and Walz have proposed increasing from $2,000 per child to $6,000 for newborns and at least $3,000 for all children. While Vance said he was “committed to pursuing pro-family policies,” he stopped short of providing clear policy solutions. When asked if he supported a national paid leave program, Vance said he believed there was a bipartisan solution but then pivoted to talking about the challenges his wife faced after having children, and how working women like her faced “cultural pressure” while navigating that period. “A lot of young women would like to go back to work immediately,” he said. “Some would like to spend a little time home with the kids. Some would like to spend longer at home with the kids. We should have a family care model that makes choice possible.” Vance did, however, later note that levying taxes on companies that relied on cheap labor overseas could bring in additional money to support paid family leave and “childcare options that are viable and workable for a lot of American families.” When it came to childcare, Vance’s responses were more or less consistent with previous comments he has made about how family members could help offset those costs. He argued the federal funding program that subsidizes childcare for low-income families only supported “one kind of childcare model” and did not provide assistance for alternate arrangements. “Let’s say you’d like your church, maybe, to help you out with childcare,” he said. “Maybe you live in a rural area or an urban area, and you’d like to get together with families in your neighborhood to provide childcare in the way that makes the most sense. You don’t get access to any of these federal monies. We want to promote choice in how we deliver family care.” Vance also cited “family care” as a solution for mitigating childcare shortages. Walz, on the other hand, again referenced the work he has done as governor in Minnesota to provide more robust, affordable childcare options. (Earlier this year, Walz announced a $6 million round of childcare grants to help fund programs across Minnesota.) He also noted that addressing the childcare shortage required a multi-pronged approach that would make care more affordable while also ensuring workers were paid fairly. “As far as childcare on this, you have to take it at both the supply and the demand side,” he said. “You can’t expect the most important people in our lives to take care of our children or our parents, to get paid the least amount of money. And we have to make it easier for folks to be able to get into that business and then to make sure that folks are able to pay for that.”