During a Q&A session at the Economic Club of New York, Donald Trump faced criticism for dodging a question on his childcare plan, including from the woman who posed the question, Reshma Saujani, an Indian American trustee of the club. Saujani, founder of Moms First and Girls Who Code, expressed her frustration on social media platform X, calling Trump’s response “incomprehensible at best, and at worst, outrageously offensive to the millions of families drowning in costs.”
Saujani had raised the critical issue of childcare costs, explaining how they burden the U.S. economy by over $142 billion annually, outpacing inflation. She asked Trump what specific legislation he would propose to make childcare more affordable. Saujani pointed out that while Trump had previously spoken about rising costs for essentials like food, gas, and rent, the real financial strain for families, especially women, came from childcare expenses, which hindered their participation in the workforce.
In a follow-up video posted on TikTok, Saujani expressed her shock at Trump’s apparent dismissal of childcare costs as a major issue. She said it seemed as though Trump was downplaying the problem, suggesting that tariffs collected from foreign countries could more than cover the cost, but he failed to offer any concrete plan on how the government would handle these funds to support families.
Speaking to media outlets, including CNN, Saujani criticised Trump’s response, stating that he “basically said that childcare was not that expensive or that tariffs would solve it.” She added that his answer showed just how disconnected he was from the realities faced by parents, particularly mothers, who consistently voice concerns about the soaring costs of childcare on the campaign trail.
Interestingly, just a day before, Trump’s running mate, Ohio Senator J.D. Vance, was also asked about childcare costs at a campaign event in Arizona. His response, delivered to Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, suggested that families might consider turning to grandparents, aunts, or uncles for help, rather than addressing the need for a broader policy solution.
