WASHINGTON (AP) — The impact of the massive spending bill that President Donald Trump signed into law on Independence Day is expected to filter down to infants and toddlers — a segment of the population that is particularly vulnerable to cuts to the federal social safety net.

Many middle-class and wealthy families will see benefits from the new legislation, but programs that help low-income families keep babies healthy have been cut back. While state money funds public schools and preschool in some cases, programs supporting the youngest children are largely backed by the federal government.

The law extends tax cuts that Trump passed during his first term in office and pours billions more into border security as the president seeks to broaden his crackdown on immigration. To pay for these initiatives, the law cuts Medicaid and food stamps — programs relied upon by poor households with children — by more than $1 trillion.

The legislation Republicans called Trump’s “big beautiful bill” is set to deliver some gains for families with children. It increases tax credits, including one that now allows parents to deduct up to $2,200 per child from their tax bills. And it introduces investment accounts for newborns dubbed “Trump Accounts,” each seeded with $1,000 from the government.

Still, advocates say they do not make up for what children are likely to lose under the new law. And they fear what comes next, as the next Trump budget proposes more cuts to programs that help parents and babies.

Medicaid cuts could add to strains on families

Over 10 million Americans rely on Medicaid for health care. About 40% of births are covered by Medicaid. Newborns, too, qualify for it when their mothers have it.

The new law doesn’t take little kids or their parents off Medicaid. It institutes Medicaid work requirements for childless adults and adults with children over the age of 13. But pediatricians warn the cuts will be felt broadly, even by those who do not use Medicaid.

The Medicaid cuts are expected to put a financial strain on health care providers, forcing them to cut their least profitable services. That’s often pediatrics, where young patients are more likely to use Medicaid, said Lisa Costello, a West Virginia pediatrician who chairs the federal policy committee for the American Association of Pediatrics.

The ripple effects could exacerbate an existing shortage of pediatricians and hospital beds for children.

“Any cuts to that program are going to trickle down and impact children, whether that’s pediatric practices who depend on Medicaid to be able to stay open or children’s hospitals,” Costello said.

States also use Medicaid to pay for programs that go beyond conventional medical care, including therapies for young children with disabilities. Under the new law, states will foot a greater portion of the bill for Medicaid, meaning optional programs are at risk of getting cut.

Advocates worry that if an adult loses Medicaid coverage, it could ratchet up household stress and make it more difficult for parents to make ends meet, both of which can negatively impact youngsters. And parents who lose their health insurance are less likely to take their children to the doctor.

“When parents lose their health insurance, they often think that their children also are no longer eligible, even if that’s not the case,” said Cynthia Osborne, a professor of early education and the executive director of the Prenatal-to-3 Policy Impact Center at Vanderbilt University.

The law increases tax credits for parents who qualify

The law increases the child tax credit to $2,200 per child, up from $2,000. But parents who don’t earn enough to pay income tax will still not see the benefit, and many will only see a partial benefit.

The measure also contains two provisions intended to help families pay for child care, which in many places costs more than a mortgage. First, it boosts the tax credit parents receive for spending money on child care. The bill also expands a program that gives companies tax credits for providing child care for their employees.

Both measures have faced criticism for generally benefiting larger companies and wealthier households.

“It’s a corporate business tax break,” said Bruce Lesley, president of the advocacy group First Focus on Children. “It makes their child care dependent upon working for an employer who has the credit.”

‘Trump Accounts’ will be opened with $1,000 for newborns

The law launches a program that creates investment accounts for newborn children. The “Trump Accounts” are to be seeded with $1,000 from the government, and children will be able to use the money when they become adults to start a new business, put the money toward a house or go to school.

Unlike other baby bond programs, which generally target disadvantaged groups, the federal program will be available to families of all incomes.

The program’s backers have pitched the accounts as a way to give young people a boost as they reach adulthood and teach them about the benefits of investing. Critics have argued that families in poverty have more immediate needs and that their children should receive a larger endowment if the goal is to help level the playing field.

A food assistance program faces cuts

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) faces the largest cut in its history under the law. It will, for the first time, require parents to work to qualify for the benefit if their children are 14 or older. But even households with younger children could feel the impact.

The law kicks some immigrants — including those with legal status — off food assistance. It makes it more difficult for individuals to qualify by changing how it considers their utility bills.

SNAP has historically been funded by the federal government, but under the new law, states will have to shoulder some of the financial burden. Cash-strapped governments could decide to implement new requirements that would make it more difficult for people to qualify, said Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Some states may decide to exit the program altogether.

“When young children lose access to that healthy nutrition, it impacts them for the rest of their lives,” Bergh said. “This bill fundamentally walks away from a long-standing nationwide commitment to making sure that low-income children in every state can receive the food assistance that they need.”

___

The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Moriah Balingit, The Associated Press

Elon Musk’s plan to create a new political party puts him in the company of a long line of business and political titans looking to upend the two-party system that has dominated U.S. politics since almost the beginning.

From the Anti-Masonic Party in the early 1800s to last year’s ill-fated No Labels, nascent political parties have been a near-constant feature of U.S. politics. Some are impactful, others ephemeral, but few endure for long.

Though the Republican and Democratic parties have had a lock on political power since the Civil War, they have remade themselves over and over, often when faced with the prospect of losing voters to third parties.

The name Musk chose, the America Party, is bland compared to some of history’s more memorable movements — the Know-Nothing Party, the Bull Moose Party, the Dixiecrats.

Musk’s plans remain murky, but some of his public comments suggest he’s eying a limited goal, focusing on a handful of House races to gain influence without trying to win a majority.

“One way to execute on this would be to laser-focus on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts,” Musk wrote on X. “Given the razor-thin legislative margins, that would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws, ensuring that they serve the true will of the people.

Here’s a look at how third parties have made their mark through American history, even without winning the White House or congressional majorities.

Anti-Masonic Party

The first third party, the Anti-Masons emerged in 1828 in opposition to the Freemasons, a secret society. The disappearance of William Morgan, a former Mason who had threatened to expose secrets, fueled widespread paranoia about the shadowy group, which many believed was covertly controlling the government.

The Anti-Masons evolved into a broadly anti-elite party. They were the first party to hold a convention to nominate a presidential candidate and to adopt a party platform, pioneering enduring staples of American democracy.

They held seats in the House for a decade, peaking at 25 after the 1832 election. That year, Anti-Mason presidential nominee William Wirt won Vermont, becoming the first third-party candidate to get electoral college votes, though his seven electoral votes did not affect Andrew Jackson’s decisive victory over Henry Clay.

The Anti-Masons were largely absorbed into the Whig Party.

Free Soil Party

“Barnburner Democrats” and “conscience Whigs,” anti-slavery factions, joined with remnants of the short-lived abolitionist Liberty Party to form the Free Soil Party after the Mexican American War. Free Soilers won a handful of House seats between 1848 and 1854.

Former President Martin Van Buren, who had served one term as a Democrat a decade earlier, was the Free Soil presidential nominee in 1848 but didn’t win any electoral votes.

As the U.S. expanded westward, the Free Soil Party advocated banning slavery in the new territories but not abolishing it in the places it already existed. The party described its principles with the slogan “free soil, free speech, free labor and free men.” Free Soilers pitched opposition to slavery on economic rather than moral grounds, arguing that expanding slavery would take jobs from Northern whites.

The party dissolved after the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 thrust slavery further into the political fray, upending the political coalitions. Despite its short life, however, the Free Soil Party laid the groundwork for the Republican Party.

‘Know-Nothings’

The outgrowth of a secretive nativist movement, the anti-Catholic American Party opposed immigration, especially of Catholics. If asked about the party, members would say they “know nothing,” leading to the nickname.

Know-Nothing nominee Millard Fillmore, a former Whig Party president, won Maryland and its eight electoral votes in the 1856 election.

Though they won only a handful of House seats, the Know-Nothings showed there was a deep interest in anti-immigration policies and the political salience of ethnic and religious divisions.

Populists

Agricultural distress late in the 19th century catalyzed the rise of the Populists, who advocated aggressive economic and political reforms.

Known formally as the People’s Party, Populists wanted to nationalize railroads, enact a graduated income tax and directly elect senators. They supported the free coinage of silver in opposition to the gold standard’s fixed monetary supply.

In the 1896 presidential election, the Populists cross-nominated Democratic nominee William Jennings Bryan, remembered for his “Cross of Gold” speech calling for free silver. The movement was largely absorbed into the Democratic Party after that.

The party was a force in only two presidential elections, but many of its reforms — including a graduated income tax and the direct election of senators — were adopted during the later progressive era.

Progressive Party (Bull Moose Party)

The Bull Moose Party formed to back Teddy Roosevelt’s 1912 campaign to return to the White House, which he ceded after losing the Republican nomination to William Howard Taft in 1908.

Roosevelt came in second in the electoral college, finishing ahead of Taft, by then the incumbent. Roosevelt’s 88 electoral votes were the most ever won by a third-party presidential candidate. By splitting the Republican vote with Taft, he allowed Democrat Woodrow Wilson to win.

The Bull Moose platform included women’s suffrage, an eight-hour workday and a crackdown on big business. Roosevelt’s strong showing showed the popularity of such reforms, and many were later embraced by both major parties.

Dixiecrats

Southern Democrats opposed to civil rights legislation formed the segregationist States’ Rights Democratic Party. Better known as the Dixiecrats, the party lasted for just one presidential election, nominating South Carolina Gov. Strom Thurmond, who won four Southern states in 1948.

The success of the Dixiecrats broke decades of Democratic dominance in the South and made clear that civil rights was a potent wedge issue, an insight that Richard Nixon would later exploit in his “southern strategy” to win over white voters in the South.

Reform Party

Billionaire Ross Perot put fiscal conservatism at the center of his largely self-funded presidential campaigns in 1992 and 1996.

Perot won 19% of the popular vote in 1992, enough to help tilt the election to Bill Clinton. Perot’s campaigns put a spotlight on the federal budget deficit and the growing national debt, a major force in 1990s policymaking.

Jonathan J. Cooper, The Associated Press