House reconciliation legislation, also known as the One, Big, Beautiful Bill, includes changes aimed at helping to boost family’s finances.

Those proposals — including $1,000 investment “Trump Accounts” for newborns and an enhanced maximum $2,500 child tax credit — would help support eligible parents.

Proposed tax cuts in the bill may also provide up to $13,300 more in take-home pay for the average family with two children, House Republicans estimate.

“What we’re trying to do is help hardworking Americans who are trying to provide for their families and make ends meet,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said during a June 8 interview with ABC News’ “This Week.”

Yet the proposed changes, which emphasize work requirements, may reduce aid for children in low-income families when it comes to certain tax credits, health coverage and food assistance.

Households in the lowest decile of the income distribution would lose about $1,600 per year, or about 3.9% of their income, from 2026 through 2034, according to a June 12 letter from the Congressional Budget Office. That loss is mainly due to “reductions in in-kind transfers,” it notes — particularly Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, formerly known as food stamps.

The change would increase the number of low-income children who are locked out of the child tax credit because their parents’ income is too low, according to Adam Ruben, director of advocacy organization Economic Security Project Action. The tax credit is not refundable, meaning filers can’t claim it if they don’t have a tax obligation.

Today, there are 17 million children who either receive no credit or a partial credit because their family’s income is too low, Ruben said. Under the House Republicans’ plan, that would increase by 3 million children. Consequently, 20 million children would be left out of the full child tax credit because their families earn too little, he said.

“It is raising the credit for wealthier families while excluding those vulnerable families from the credit,” Ruben said. “And that’s not a pro-family policy.”

A single parent with two children would have to earn at least $40,000 per year to access the full child tax credit under the Republicans’ plan, he said. For families earning the minimum wage, it may be difficult to meet that threshold, according to Ruben.

In contrast, an enhanced child tax credit put in place under President Joe Biden made it fully refundable, which means very low-income families were eligible for the maximum benefit, according to Elaine Maag, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

In 2021, the maximum child tax credit was $3,600 for children under six and $3,000 for children ages 6 to 17. That enhanced credit cut child poverty in half, Maag said. However, immediately following the expiration, child poverty increased, she said.

The current House proposal would also make about 4.5 million children who are citizens ineligible for the child tax credit because they have at least one undocumented parent who files taxes with an individual tax identification number, Ruben said. Those children are currently eligible for the child tax credit based on 2017 tax legislation but would be excluded based on the new proposal, he said.

House Republicans also want to change the earned income tax credit, or EITC, which targets low- to middle-income individuals and families, to require precertification to qualify.

When a similar requirement was tried about 20 years ago, it resulted in some eligible families not getting the benefit, Maag said. The new prospective administrative barrier may have the same result, she said.

More from Personal Finance:
Experts weigh pros and cons of $1,000 Trump baby bonus
How Trump spending bill may curb low-income tax credit
Why millions would lose health insurance under House spending bill

Under the House proposal, work requirements would apply to households with children for the first time, Bergh said. Parents with children over the age of 6 would be subject to those rules, which limit people to receiving food assistance for just three months in a three-year period unless they work a minimum 20 hours per week.

Additionally, the House plan calls for states to fund 5% to 25% of SNAP food benefits — a departure from the 100% federal funding for those benefits for the first time in the program’s history, Bergh said.

States, which already pay to help administer SNAP, may face tough choices in the face of those higher costs. That may include cutting food assistance or other state benefits or even doing away with SNAP altogether, Bergh said.

While the bill does not directly propose cuts to school meal programs, it does put children’s eligibility for them at risk, according to Bergh. Children who are eligible for SNAP typically automatically qualify for free or reduced school meals. If a family loses SNAP benefits, their children may also miss out on those benefits, Bergh said.

The House Republican bill seeks to slash approximately $1 trillion in spending from Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and Affordable Care Act marketplaces.

Medicaid work requirements may make low-income individuals vulnerable to losing health coverage if they are part of the expansion group and are unable to document they meet the requirements or qualify for an exemption, according to CBPP. Parents and pregnant women, who are on the list of exemptions, could be susceptible to losing coverage without proper documentation, according to the non-partisan research and policy institute.

Eligible children may face barriers to access Medicaid and CHIP coverage if the legislation blocks a rule that simplifies enrollment in those programs, according to CBPP.

In addition, an estimated 4.2 million individuals may be uninsured in 2034 if enhanced premium tax credits that help individuals and families afford health insurance are not extended, according to CBO estimates. Meanwhile, those who are covered by marketplace plans would have to pay higher premiums, according to CBPP. Without the premium tax credits, a family of four with $65,000 in income would pay $2,400 more per year for marketplace coverage.

While there hasn’t been much hiring for so-called “white collar” jobs, the contraction is not because of artificial intelligence, economists say. At least, not yet.

Professional and business services, the industry that represents white-collar roles and middle and upper-class, educated workers, hasn’t experienced much hiring activity over the past two years.

In May, job growth in professional and business services declined to -0.4%, slightly down from -0.2% in April, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In other words, the sector has been losing job opportunities, according to Cory Stahle, an economist at job search site Indeed.

Meanwhile, industries like health care, construction and manufacturing have seen more job creation. In May, nearly half of the job growth came from health care, which added 62,000 jobs, the bureau found.

More from Personal Finance:
Here’s what’s happening with unemployed Americans — in five charts
The pros and cons of a $1,000 baby bonus in ‘Trump Accounts’
Social Security cost-of-living adjustment may be 2.5% in 2026

However, economists have said that the decline in white-collar job openings is more driven by structural issues in the economy rather than artificial intelligence technology taking people’s jobs. 

“We know for a fact that it’s not AI,” said Alí Bustamante, an economist and director at the Roosevelt Institute, a liberal think tank.

Indeed’s Stahle agreed: “This is more of an economic story and less of an AI disruption story, at least so far.”

A 2024 report by Indeed researchers found that of the more than 2,800 unique work skills identified, none are “very likely” to be replaced by generative artificial intelligence. GenAI creates content like text or images based on existing data.

Across five scenarios — “very unlikely,” “unlikely,” “possible,” “likely” and “very likely” — about 68.7% of skills were either “very unlikely” or “unlikely” to be replaced by GenAI technology, the site found. 

“We might get to a point where they do, but right now, that’s not necessarily looking like it’s a big factor,” Stahle said. 

Stahle said that openings for consulting jobs focused on implementing generative AI have been rising. Over the past year, management consulting roles with AI language accounted for 12.4% of GenAI postings, showing signs of growing demand, per a February report by Indeed.

A separate report by the World Economic Forum in January forecasts that by 2030, the new technology will create 170 million new jobs, or 14% of the current total employment.

However, that growth could be offset by the decline in existing roles. The report cites that about 92 million jobs, or 8% of the current total employment, could be displaced by AI technology.

For knowledge-based workers whose skills may overlap with AI, consider investing in developing skills on how to use AI technology to stay ahead, Stahle said.

Ahead of next week’s Federal Reserve meeting, tensions are escalating between the White House and the central bank, with consumers seemingly caught in the crossfire.

On Thursday, President Donald Trump called Fed Chair Jerome Powell a “numbskull” for not lowering interest rates already.

Trump has previously said the central bank should cut interest rates by a full percentage point. “Go for a full point, Rocket Fuel!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Friday.

Vice President JD Vance echoed the president’s message in a social media post Wednesday on X, after a key inflation reading came in slightly better than expected.

“The president has been saying this for a while, but it’s even more clear: the refusal by the Fed to cut rates is monetary malpractice,” Vance wrote.

The president has argued that maintaining a fed funds rate that is too high makes it harder for businesses and consumers to borrow and puts the U.S. at an economic disadvantage to countries with lower rates. The Fed’s benchmark sets what banks charge each other for overnight lending, but also has a trickle-down effect on almost all of the borrowing and savings rates Americans see every day.

Still, so far, Trump’s comments have had no impact and experts say the Fed is likely to hold its benchmark steady again when it meets next week — even as the political pressure to slash rates ramps up significantly.

More from Personal Finance:
Here’s the inflation breakdown for May 2025
What’s happening with unemployed Americans — in five charts
The economic cost of Trump, Harvard battle over student visas

Since December, the federal funds rate has been in a target range of between 4.25%-4.5% and futures market pricing is implying virtually no chance of an interest rate cut at next week’s meeting, according to the CME Group’s FedWatch gauge.

In prepared remarks last month, Powell said that the federal funds rate is likely to stay higher as the economy changes and policy is in flux. He has also said repeatedly that politics will not play a role in the Fed’s policy decisions.

But Trump, who nominated Powell to head of the nation’s central bank in 2018, has publicly berated the Fed’s decision-making. 

As it stands, market pricing indicates the Fed is unlikely to consider further interest rate cuts until at least September. Once the fed funds rate comes down, consumers could see their borrowing costs start to fall as well, which some may consider a welcome change.

“The idea of lower interest rates is often romanticized from the borrowers’ perspective,” said Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate.

“The reason for lower rates is what really matters,” McBride said. “We want the fed to be cutting rates because inflationary pressures are receding.”

For now, “inflation is still higher than desired,” he added.

The risk is that reducing rates too soon could halt or reverse progress on tamping down inflation, according to Mark Higgins, senior vice president at Index Fund Advisors and author of “Investing in U.S. Financial History: Understanding the Past to Forecast the Future.”

“Now you have a situation where Trump is willing to pressure the Fed to lower rates while they have less flexibility to do that,” he said. “They have to keep rates higher for longer to extinguish inflation.”

Despite the softer-than-expected inflation data, central bank officials have said that they will wait until there’s more clarity about Trump’s tariff agenda before they consider lowering rates again.

The White House has said that tariffs will not cause runaway inflation, with the expectation that foreign producers would absorb much of the costs themselves. However, many economists believe that the full effect from tariffs could show up later in the summer as surplus inventories draw down.

For consumers waiting for borrowing costs to ease, they may be better off of the Fed sticks to its current monetary policy, according to Higgins.

“There’s this temptation to move fast and that is counterproductive,” Higgins said. “If the Fed prematurely lowers rates, it’s going to allow inflation to reignite and then they will have to raise rates again.”

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.