New Census Bureau data: Poverty and child poverty increased under Biden

Polygraph | Newsletter n°315 | 22 Sep 2025

IN THIS NEWSLETTER: Key findings from the Census Bureau’s new poverty report and how economic hardship could worsen.

*Thank you, Keith D., Carol V., and Frank R., for becoming Polygraph’s latest VIPs! If you appreciate Polygraph, consider joining Keith, Carol, Frank, and the other paid subscribers thanked at the bottom of each newsletter.

Findings

The Census Bureau’s new annual report on poverty found that 44 million Americans lived in poverty last year, including 10 million children. As a percentage of the population, overall poverty stayed the same from 2023 to 2024 (12.9%), while child poverty fell slightly (from 13.7% to 13.4%).¹

As a matter of historical record, the new data establishes that both poverty and child poverty increased under the Biden administration (2021–24). By how much depends on what year you compare 2024’s levels with. The final year before Biden took office was 2020, while 2019 reflects the pre-pandemic standard Biden promised to improve upon: “It is not enough to restore where we were prior to the pandemic. We need to build a stronger economy that does not leave anyone behind — we need to build back better,” the White House stated in early 2021.

If you choose 2019 as your point of comparison, the increase in poverty under Biden is bad. If you choose 2020, it’s catastrophic.²

• Change, 2019–24:

  • Poverty: 9.3% increase (+5.4 million people)

  • Child poverty: 6.3% increase (+491,000 children)

• Change, 2020–24:

  • Poverty: 40.2% increase (+13.7 million people)

  • Child poverty: 38.1% increase (+2.5 million children)

I’ve included a chart for each data range below. Why the second one looks so much worse: There was a historic drop in poverty during the final year of Trump’s first term. This was because in 2020, the US government spent money on public health and social welfare like it typically only does for wars: massive new investments enacted quickly, without the endless debates on how to pay for them (no US war since Vietnam has been paid for by a corresponding tax increase; they’ve all been funded through the deficit). This included $1.7 trillion through the CARES Act (enacted March 2020) and $868 billion through the Consolidated Appropriations Act (enacted December 2020).³

^Alt text for screen readers: Poverty and child poverty grew from 2019 to 2024. Despite both reaching record lows in 2021. This line chart shows poverty starting at 11.8% in 2019, falling in 2020 and 2021, rising in 2022 and 2023, and ending at 12.9% in 2024. Child poverty starts at 12.6% in 2019 and ends at 13.4% in 2024 and follows the same basic trajectory as overall poverty. Data: Census Bureau. Poverty measure: SPM.

^Alt text for screen readers: Poverty and child poverty increased under Biden. Despite both reaching record lows in 2021. This chart shows poverty starting at 9.2% in 2020, falling in 2021, rising in 2022 and 2023, and ending at 12.9% in 2024. Child poverty starts at 9.7% in 2020 and ends at 13.4% in 2024 and follows the same basic trajectory as overall poverty. Data: Census Bureau. Poverty measure: SPM.

Implications

The poverty data clarifies where we’re at politically and why economic insecurity more broadly could get even worse. The Democratic Party knows how to greatly reduce economic hardship but doesn’t appear interested in doing it again. Look at 2021 in the chart(s) above. Both poverty and child poverty hit record lows, thanks to Biden’s American Rescue Plan further expanding social welfare after the CARES Act and Consolidated Appropriations Act. The horrifying surge in poverty — and economic insecurity more broadly — afterward is attributable to pandemic aid programs expiring or being eliminated during a cost-of-living crisis. In 2024, Kamala Harris chose not to campaign on resurrecting a version of the pandemic welfare state, despite it having led to a historic reduction in economic hardship in 2021, and the cost of living having been voters’ top concern since 2022.

That approach gave us Donald Trump, whose own approach to worsening economic insecurity apparently involves slashing welfare further, deploying military personnel on US soil, and aggressively cracking down on free speech. The Trump administration's militarized embodiment of cancel culture might be exactly what some people desire politically. But far more people — most people, it appears — simply want a brand of politics centered on reducing the shittiness of everyday life. Neither party is offering one.

*

I’d be remiss if I did not give a quick, tongue-in-cheek shout-out to the politicians and pundits who insisted economic conditions under Biden were great, dismissed widespread reports of economic misery by implying that people were too dense to understand their own financial situation, and enraged large swaths of the voting-eligible population with that politically toxic narrative. (Meanwhile, I was told I was helping Trump win by challenging that narrative — go figure.)

^Source.

^Source.

SPECIAL THANKS TO: Abe B., Alan F., Amin, Andrew R., AT., B. Kelly, BartB., BeepBoop, Ben, Ben C.,* Bill S., Bob N., Brett S., Byron D., Carol V., Chris, Chris G., Cole H., D. Kepler, Daniel M., Dave, David J., David S.,* David V.,* David M., Elizabeth R., Errol S., Foundart, Francis M., Frank R., Gary W., Gladwyn S., Graham P., Griffin R., Hunter S., Irene B., Isaac, Isaac L., Jacob, James G., James H., James N., Jamie LR., Jcowens, Jeff, Jennifer, Jennifer J., Jessica S., Jerry S., Joe R., John, John, John A., John K., John M., Jonathan S., Joseph B., Joshua R., Julia G., Julian L., Katrina H., Keith B., Kheng L., Lea S., Leah A., Leila CL., Lenore B., Linda B., Linda H., Lindsay, Lindsay S.,* Lora L., Mapraputa, Marie R., Mark L., Mark G., Marvin B., Mary Z., Marty, Matthew H.,* Megan., Melanie B., Michael S., Mitchell P., Nick B., Noah K., Norbert H., Omar A., Omar D.,* Peter M., Phil, Philip L., Ron C., Rosemary K., Sari G., Scarlet, Scott H., Silversurfer, Soh, Springseep, Stan C., TBE, Teddie G., Theresa A., Themadking, Tim C., Timbuk T., Tony L., Tony T., Tyler M., Victor S., Wayne H., William P.

* = founding member

-Stephen (Follow me on Instagram, Twitter, and Bluesky)

1. These figures refer to the Supplemental Poverty Measure, or SPM. The Census Bureau also expresses poverty figures using the Official Poverty Measure (OPM), which has a more credible-sounding name but also has shortcomings that led to the development of the more advanced poverty measure. OPM only considers pre-tax income, so it’s not great at capturing changes in taxes and social welfare which can significantly affect a household's resources. It also uses a national poverty threshold, so it doesn’t account for cost-of-living variations between different places. SPM was developed to account for the things that OPM leaves out, so it factors in income and payroll taxes, tax credits and noncash benefits, and necessary expenses. It also uses geographically-adjusted poverty thresholds. The bottom line is that SPM is better for gauging standards of living. Factoring in all that stuff means you can isolate individual elements to see, for example, how social programs alleviate poverty differently, and what type of expenses are most burdensome. The Census Bureau does this in its big annual poverty report, the most recent version of which I’m talking about right now. Last year, for example, SNAP — a food assistance program cut by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — kept 3.6 million people out of poverty. Meanwhile, medical expenses pushed 7.5 million people into poverty in 2024. See page 51 of this year’s report to see more of what I’m talking about. It’s really cool.

2. To control for changes in population, the percentage change shown here is calculated using the poverty rate itself (for example, comparing the 2019 rate to the 2024 rate), not the raw number of people in poverty. And just to be clear, a percentage increase is different from an increase in percentage points.

3. For those who think it’s unfair to grade Biden against 2020 for that reason, please refer only to the first chart below (and if you promise not to complain about the second, I promise not to mention that Biden took credit for the drop in unemployment and economic growth relative to 2020 throughout his presidency.)