On Tuesday, HOOPP announced on LinkedIn the appointment of Chantale Pelletier as Senior Managing Director & Head of Global Infrastructure.

With more than 25 years of experience in infrastructure investing and financial services, Chantale will lead our infrastructure investment program and play an important role in advancing our investment approach, helping to deliver long-term value for members.

There was no formal announcement on HOOPP's website, only on LinkedIn.

However, HOOPP did put a profile of Chantale on its website as she already started working there:

Chantale Pelletier joined HOOPP in January 2026 as Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Infrastructure. In this role, she leads the Fund’s global infrastructure investment program and plays a key role in advancing HOOPP’s Total Portfolio Approach, supporting integrated, long-term value creation across the portfolio.

Chantale brings more than 25 years of experience as a senior investment executive in infrastructure and private markets, with a career spanning global institutional investing and asset management platforms. She has been involved in building, scaling, and managing global infrastructure portfolios across renewables and energy transition, transport and mobility, digital infrastructure, utilities, and other essential services. Her experience includes portfolio construction, capital allocation, risk management, governance, and value creation.

Prior to joining HOOPP, Chantale held senior executive roles with global asset management firms, including Global Head of Infrastructure at Fidelity International and President and Chief Executive Officer of Schroders Capital Management (France), with responsibility for global infrastructure investment strategy and oversight.

She previously spent more than 20 years at Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ), where she held senior leadership roles and contributed to the development and growth of the organization’s global infrastructure investment platform.

Chantale brings extensive board and governance experience across infrastructure and industrial sectors, including board service at Keolis, Eurostar, Fluxys, Plenary Group, London Array, Budapest Airport, Pomerleau and Previan.

Chantale began her career at Deloitte as a Consultant in Financial Services. She holds a Bachelor of Business Administration in Finance from HEC. 

This is a big nomination for a very important and rapidly growing asset class at HOOPP so it deserves my full attention and yours as well.

Let me begin by congratulating Chantale for this appointment. She has a very impressive background and is now responsible for a very important asset class at HOOPP. 

She looks awfully familiar to me from my days at La Caisse years ago but I'm getting old and my mind plays tricks on me sometimes so I'm not sure if we crossed paths.

Chantale is replacing Stephen Smith who is retiring form the organization after 15 years there and helped build HOOPP Infrastructure from nothing via partnerships and co-investments.

Importantly, prior to the pandemic, HOOPP hardly invested in infrastructure and  was a huge laggard in the asset class compared to its Maple 8 peers.

It didn't detract from its performance which is stellar and leads the Maple 8 over a 20-year period but HOOPP was always known as a massive LDI/ liquid absolute return shop with a huge fixed income portfolio and decent real estate and private equity portfolio, not for its infrastructure portfolio which took hold under former CEO Jeff Wendling's watch.

And now that Annesley Wallace is the CEO, given her experience in running one of the best and biggest infrastructure portfolios in the world at OMERS, I'm not surprised she is keenly focused to take this portfolio to another level.

I'm certain it was Annesley who hired Chantale for this position even if she will be reporting to CIO Michael Wissell (all investment heads report to him, unless Chantale reports to Annesley).

Why? Because Michael previously worked at OTPP and if he was the person hiring, I pretty much know who he would have chosen, a former colleague of his that we both respect.

But Annesley is the boss and she knows infrastructure extremely well and knows where she wants to take it. I'm certain she chose Chantale because she trusts her and feels confident this is the right person with the right experience and qualifications to deliver on the mandate.

From HOOPP's 2024 annual report:

Infrastructure investing encompasses the facilities, services and installations considered essential to the functioning and economic productivity of a society. HOOPP Infrastructure (HI) aims to deliver attractive, sustainable returns through high-value and long-duration investments in sectors such as communications and data, power generation and transmission, energy, transportation and utilities. HI is executing on this mandate through a combination of direct deals, a small number of private infrastructure funds and related co-investments.

In 2024, HI delivered an annual hedged return of 12.3%. Net asset value grew $1.8 billion, reaching $7.6 billion or approximately 6% of the Fund by year end. 

HI’s largest and longest-held assets in the transportation, utilities and communications and data sectors were key contributors to the $776 million return. HI’s fund investments performed consistently, and in line with expectations, with each fund’s respective development stage, delivering solid returns from a highly diversified portfolio of assets.

The infrastructure asset class continues to evolve and be influenced by major changes in capital flows and increases in the capital needs of infrastructure businesses. Over time, these changes should lead to more favourable investment conditions in the asset class.

Now, $7.6 billion out of $123 billion at the end of 2024 represents 6% of the total fund which is decent but still way below its peers that typically have 15% or more in infrastructure.

For example, OMERS Infrastructure now headed up by Michael Hill manages close to $40 billion in assets out of a total $140 billion for the fund (see 2024 figures here).  That represents just under 30% of total assets and is a huge contributor to OMERS' long-term success.

I clearly remember a conversation I had a years ago with former CEO Jim Keohane where he praised OMERS' infrastructure portfolio saying it was one of the best in the world but he also told me that valuations in the asset class were sky high and he didn't want to rush in there, choosing his spots selectively.

Jeff Wendling who succeeded Jim had a more concrete plan for infrastructure and worked closely with Michael Wissell and Stephen Smith to scale up that asset class. 

But now it has to go from 6% of total assets to 15% over time so I'm interested in chatting with Annesley when I get the opportunity to see how they will grow that asset class. 

Again, Annesley Wallace had a lot to do with the success of OMERS' infrastructure portfolio, it's an asset class she knows extremely well and one of the reasons HOOPP's board of directors appointed her CEO, so it's normal that she wants to be implicated in that portfolio along with Michael Wissell and now Chantale Pelletier who will be directly responsible for it.

[Note: I was told Annesley didn't move into Jeff Wendling's old office, preferring a smaller one where she initially worked on the same floor with the investment team. She wants to be close to the investment group.] 

I suspect partnerships and co-investments will continue in the near term but as the asset class grows, expect more direct deals there.

It takes time, infrastructure is an asset class that can't be scald up over night, and you need the right strategy.

Alright, let me wrap it up, hope my comments weren't too controversial, I call it like I see it and cut to the chase (if I'm wrong or overstepping/ over-conjecturing, Scott White will put me in my place). 

Lastly, HOOPP recently issued a press release stating it has surpassed the 500,000-membership mark, an important milestone that reflects HOOPP’s growth and ongoing evolution with Ontario’s healthcare sector:

“For over 65 years, HOOPP has been helping our members retire with confidence,” said Annesley Wallace, HOOPP’s President and CEO. “Surpassing 500,000 members reflects the trust the healthcare community has placed in us, and it underscores the value the Plan delivers. We remain committed to our pension promise and building a stronger financial future for Ontario healthcare workers.”

The half million membership includes more than 300,000 active members – one of the highest active-to-retired ratios among Canada’s major pension plans. These numbers reinforce the strength and long-term stability of HOOPP and its ability to deliver secure, reliable pensions for decades to come. It also marks important progress toward the goals in HOOPP’s Strategic Plan, including having more than 600,000 members and 1,000 employers by 2030.

HOOPP surpassed 500,000 members in late December when the Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids) officially joined the Plan, meaning every hospital in Ontario is now a participating employer. HOOPP ended 2025 with more than 850 participating employers and remains the pension plan of choice for the province’s health care sector.

The addition of SickKids welcomed more than 6,500 new members. Registered Nurse Erica O’Keefe represents the 500,000th member. “I became a nurse because I wanted to make a real difference for people when they need it most,” she said. “The people who work at SickKids are what makes the hospital exceptional. HOOPP gives my colleagues and me peace of mind about our future, so we can focus on taking care of our patients today.”

HOOPP members benefit from portability within Ontario’s healthcare sector – meaning they can move between HOOPP participating employers with the confidence of knowing their pension will remain secure and continue to grow. As more members join the Plan, HOOPP becomes even better positioned to deliver long-term value while maintaining strong funding levels. At the same time, increased enrollment supports the broader healthcare system by providing workforce stability, while enhancing employers’ ability to attract and retain top talent.

“We know that a strong pension offering is crucial to a healthy, happy and productive workforce,” said Ivana Zanardo, HOOPP’s Head of Plan Services. “By knowing their retirement security is in safe hands with HOOPP, healthcare professionals can focus their energy on delivering exceptional care to patients and communities across Ontario.” 

Quite a milestone, HOOPP members are very lucky, I tell all my physician friends working in Ontario to look into whether getting a HOOPP pension makes sense for them, it certainly does for younger doctors looking to retire in dignity and security.

Below, a conversation with Annesley Wallace, President & CEO of HOOPP, on the critical role HOOPP plays in securing the financial futures of its members. As HOOPP’s new leader, Annesley is charting an ambitious strategic plan to maximize the value of the Plan, strengthen the resilience of its investment portfolio, and adapt with the healthcare community to remain its pension plan of choice (Canadian Club Toronto, September 2025).

Barbara Shecter of the National Post reports why Caisse CEO Charles Emond thinks Canada is close to getting the infrastructure formula right:

Spurred by the looming trade renegotiation with the United States, institutional investors and the Canadian government are finally on the same page and ready to push ahead with multi-billion-dollar projects in priority areas such as infrastructure, critical minerals and housing, says Charles Emond, chief executive of one of the country’s biggest pension funds.

“The government (is) actually getting more synchronized with what private investors are looking for,” said Emond, who leads the $496-billion Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. “You can sense a momentum.  That is a big difference from before.” 

Ottawa is pushing to “catalyze” hundreds of billions of dollars in private investment to shore up government spending on projects that can boost the economy and reduce dependence on the U.S., and Emond said the renegotiation of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) in 2026 is galvanizing both sides to find ways to get such deals done.

The Quebec pension is already participating in a nation-building infrastructure project to expand capacity at Montreal’s port — one of five fast-tracked by Mark Carney’s government in September. And that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the size and scale of what could be on the agenda in the next year or two.

“We’ve got a pretty big pipeline of several projects in the tens of billions (of dollars), whereby we hope to be able to actually keep pushing the dialogue and get something going,” said Emond, whose fund’s infrastructure arm is also part of a consortium co-developing a high-speed rail line between Toronto and Quebec City alongside the federal government.

“We’ve talked to the federal government about a lot of these projects that are in (or run through) Quebec, and there’s interesting things (ahead), whether it’s in critical minerals, housing and transportation.”

As 2025 brought a wave of U.S. tariffs and other economic threats that reverberated in countries around the world, some Canadian pension executives were sufficiently spooked by the rising global risks to begin speaking openly about wanting to participate in domestic projects.

Emond said the roadmap since provided by Carney — which includes five priority areas including energy transportation and export, critical minerals development and port expansion, alongside a centralized Major Projects Office — puts a solid framework in place. That could eventually see deals of the size and scale of a £38 billion nuclear project in the United Kingdom, driven by a need for energy security there, that the Caisse is backing with a $3.2-billion investment, he said.

The palpable shift comes after a decade of Ottawa’s largely failed attempts to entice private funds to back pet projects and, more recently, pensions pushing back against any government pressure to devote a greater share of their investment dollars and expertise to Canada.

The federal government has been pushing Canada‘s globe-trotting pensions to invest more in Canada since at least 2016, with pressure amped up again in the waning years of Justin Trudeau’s nine-year stint as prime minister. For the most part, however, there was a mismatch between what the government wanted to promote and build and what pensions were willing to fund.

Some of the projects put on offer weren’t large or scalable enough to justify the management time, while others lacked the appropriate risk and return formulas to fulfill fund mandates and meet obligations to pensioners.

But there are significant signs things are different this time. Instead of dreading a threat of quotas, pension funds are now bringing their ideas to the government.

“They are having an open dialogue with investors like us as to what is needed to attract capital,” said Emond, whose fund is unique in Canada with a dual mandate that pairs the objective of investment returns with the pursuit of projects to boost Quebec’s economy.

There is also a new willingness in Ottawa to discuss adopting models that have been successful abroad, he said, such as Australia’s “asset recycling” program from the late 2010s. 

Under the program, the Australian government raised more than $23 billion AUD to fund new infrastructure projects by selling or leasing assets that were already producing returns to pension funds. Some of the proceeds were earmarked for new projects that might not yield a return for years. Notably, the Caisse de dépôt and another Canadian pension fund, the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS), participated in the Australian program, buying stakes in assets from electricity transmission to ports.

“So there’s a way to sell us stabilized assets that will provide capital (while the) government gets new capital and can re-inject it in the other project that they wish to launch in spite of the fact that they may be more difficult to invest in for pension funds,” Emond said. “The reality is, there’s often a way to align interests and meet the objectives of both governments and investors in combining all that, as opposed to taking them separately.”

That doesn’t mean there’s a one-size-fits-all formula to meet the government’s objectives of combining public and private funding to back big projects that boost Canada’s economy and reduce reliance on the United States, he said. But even a modest asset recycling program in Canada with no more than five per cent of all government assets opened up to private investors could generate between $25 billion and $50 billion to be redeployed into riskier assets, according to economists at the Bank of Nova Scotia.

“A more ambitious push could exceed $100 billion,” Rebekah Young, a Scotiabank vice-president and economist, said in a June report. “And that’s before factoring in reinvestment ripple effects.”

By her estimate, about half of Canada’s government-owned infrastructure  — the roads, rail, bridges, ports, airports, utilities, and pipelines totaling $470 billion on public balance sheets — would be a fit for the pensions.

Canadian pension fund holdings of domestic infrastructure are far lower than those of their counterparts in the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States, as well as Australia, because there has been limited monetization of such assets by all levels of government in the country, she noted.

“A disciplined asset recycling agenda across all levels of government (in Canada) could redeploy capital from mature assets into the riskier and potentially transformational new investments — without an over-reliance on new borrowing,” the economist wrote, adding that this would bolster both fiscal resilience and long-term economic growth.

Many government-owned assets are in provincial and municipal hands, but Young’s analysis includes the federal government’s holdings in Canada’s largest airports. Ottawa leases 23 airports, including Toronto Pearson International Airport, to not-for-profit airport authorities that have operated them since the early 1990s. But November’s budget indicated that the government will now consider options for privatizing airports. The idea was studied but then shelved nearly a decade ago by the previous Liberal government. Transport Canada also owns and operates a number of smaller airports in British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland. 

Airports are among the global infrastructure investments made by Canadian pension funds over the past couple of decades, including the Caisse de dépôt, which was part of the consortium that bought London’s busy Heathrow Airport in 2006.

“This is a sector where we have deep experience,” a spokesperson for the Caisse said when asked about potential interest in airports in Quebec or elsewhere across the country. “But it is up to the federal government to identify its options.”

The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan and the Public Sector Pension Investment Board (PSP) have also been keen investors in airports, even establishing dedicated divisions to manage the investments.

Deb Orida, chief executive of the PSP Investments, said earlier this year that her fund is looking for more ways to invest at home and would welcome an opportunity to parlay international infrastructure expertise into ownership of Canadian assets, including airports and data centres.

“We continue to be on the lookout for good opportunities to leverage our ‘home ice advantage’ and explore new investment opportunities,” a spokesperson for the fund, which has $68.7 billion invested in Canada, said via email. “We are excited to continue to leverage our global expertise here, in Canada.”

Ella Plotkin, leader of the global infrastructure and projects group at Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, said she, like Emond, is feeling the momentum to get large public-private projects off the ground in the coming year. Her phone has been ringing more since Carney’s election in April. With a corresponding buzz at conferences and even her 14-year-old son suddenly finding infrastructure “cool,” she said she is feeling optimistic.

“If now is not the moment, I don’t know when it will be,” she said. “I absolutely see this as a moment in time for Canada to grab on to the need that’s there (and) the funding that is looking for good projects.”

Emond stopped short of predicting liftoff in the next 12 months. But he said the CUSMA trade negotiations in 2026 will undoubtedly keep the pressure on the government and pensions to play ball after a decade of misalignment.

“If there’s no renegotiation, or if it’s bumpy along the way, even a delay can certainly bring the economy under its full potential,” he said. “We need to keep thinking about these big projects to fill in the gap.”

Let me begin by wishing everyone a happy & healthy new year.

Good article to kick off things in 2026 as Charles Emond and others provide excellent insights here. 

I agree with general sentiment of the article, Carney's government is dead serious about getting mega projects going and this is the time to seize on opportunities to create winning conditions for everyone to accelerate investments in infrastructure.

Keep in mind Mark Carney was a senior exec at Brookfield before coming into politics, knows all the players well, didn't waste time to appoint Timothy Hodgson, his trusted confidant, to be Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, appointed Marc-Andre Blanchard  to be his Chief of Staff, appointed Michael Sabia as Head of the Public Service, and just recently appointed Mark Wiseman to be the next Ambassador of Canada to the United States.

It's no accident the former head and former senior exec of La Caisse and former head of CPP Investments are part of the entourage, Carney chooses his close entourage carefully and he has an ambitious agenda to fulfill.

His government is diametrically opposed to the Trudeau government in every way, shape and form.

But here is where my flattery ends and some criticism begins.

The honeymoon is over, we have heard a lot of talk on mega projects and attracting the private sector to invest in Canada's infrastructure but very little in terms of meaningful action. 

I'm not blaming Carney for this or his entourage, there is a sclerotic bureaucracy in Ottawa and relations with the civil service aren't great after the announced worker buyouts (how exactly they are funding this remains a mystery).

I'd love to think we have all the time in the world but as Mr. Trump taught us this week, we don't, we better get going or risk being left behind as the Trump administration moves fast to implement an aggressive America first policy.

Should we use the Australian model to fund new infrastructure projects by selling or leasing assets that were already producing returns to pension funds?

Sure, why not, and while we are at it, let's also look into what Australia is doing right in healthcare (number one system in the world with right private/ public mix) and pension coverage (way ahead of us there too).

I don't care what model we use, I want to read in the papers tomorrow the federal government is privatizing Pearson International and that monstrosity of an airport we have in Montreal (Trudeau Airport, the laughingstock of North American airports). 

So, while I welcome the "dialogue," enough talk already, "Just do it" like the Nike commercials used to say and "show us the beef" already.

We are losing precious time, time we don't have because Trump moves like a hurricane, he invaded Venezuela and got rid of Maduro and now he's even threatening to take over Greenland for strategic reasons. 

Whatever you think of his tactics, the man moves fast and resolutely.

Sometimes I wish our Canadian politicians did the same, time to move past polite dialogue and get to it already.

Below, Prime Minister Mark Carney said Tuesday the removal of Venezuela's 'illegitimate, corrupt, repressive' leader is welcome news that creates the possibility for democratic transition, before noting that he thinks Canada's 'low-risk' oil sector will remain competitive.

And CBC Radio's Front Burner discussed Canada's Venezuelean oil problem earlier today. Good discussion, have a listen.

In recent months, uber-rich families and companies have pledged millions of dollars to support a new savings program for children, known as Trump Accounts. In early December, for example, Dell Founder and CEO Michael Dell made a historic pledge of $6.25 billion to strengthen the new infrastructure for Trump Accounts. This gift aims to provide about 25 million children under age 11, from economically disadvantaged zip codes, with about $250 as an incentive to join the new savings vehicle. Soon after this, hedge fund manager Ray Dalio pledged $75 million to certain children in Connecticut in another effort to encourage additional participation.

The Trump-Vance administration has announced each of these charitable contributions with considerable fanfare, staging press and campaign-style events and promising that U.S. companies and other philanthropist will soon follow. What is often missing from the White House celebrations is an explanation of how exactly these gifts and the new Trump Accounts will alleviate child poverty and inequity.

The truth is that the U.S. falls behind peer countries from the developed world in its fight against child poverty. These deprivations are particularly harmful to children of color due the deterministic role that structural racism plays in the American economy. A pretax and voluntary savings vehicle with little government support, and at the mercy of charitable inclinations, will do little for the millions of low-income families who can’t afford to save. In fact, these accounts are poised to compound structural inequities that have persistently delivered disparate outcomes for disadvantaged families. This is because the Trump Accounts fail to adequately account for the scope of child poverty and inequity. They also crudely overlook the root causes of these issues by framing them as the result of insufficient savings.

Child poverty is a defining feature of the U.S. economy

More than 9 million children struggle with poverty in the United States. This amounts to more than 1 in 10 children who live in households with insufficient resources to provide an adequate and dignifying standard of living in the world’s richest country. This is not a new economic reality. Since 2009, child poverty has declined by less than 4 percentage points in the U.S., leaving the country with the second-highest child poverty rate in the rich world—behind only Urugay, a Latin American country with a significantly lower living standard.

Child poverty in the U.S. is especially harmful to children of color. More than 1 in 5 Black and Hispanic children struggled below the poverty line (see Figure A). Similarly, more than 1 in 6 (16.6%) American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) children have remained under the poverty line since 2022. Overall, children of color are more than twice as likely as their white peers to experience material shortcomings. This prolonged exposure to poverty is likely to translate into even broader disadvantages throughout these children’s lives, with relatively poorer outcomes than their more affluent peers in health, education, earnings, and even retirement.

Figure A

Making a significant dent on child poverty in the U.S. will require more than a voluntary savings vehicle backed by a one-time federal government contribution of $1,000 for each of the 3 million children born annually through 2028. This promise under the new Trump Accounts severely understates the problem of child poverty in the U.S. and it carelessly misidentifies the drivers of early deprivation and inequity.

Child poverty is a policy choice driven by a withering welfare state and structural inequities in the labor market

In 2021, the U.S. proved that it deliberately tolerates high poverty rates for children. The expanded welfare state that followed the pandemic led to a historic decline in child poverty. Economic relief measures and expanded access for low-income families to tax credits (like the Child Tax Credit) and basic needs programs (like SNAP) helped reduce the prevalence of child poverty by nearly half between 2020 and 2021. However, all these gains quickly vanished when this enhanced social safety net expired. Today, child poverty is higher than it was in 2019, and it is likely to worsen with major cuts to programs like SNAP and Medicaid the Trump-Vance administration signed into law last summer. These programs lifted 1.4 million and 6.1 million children out of poverty in 2024, respectively.

Alleviating child poverty in the U.S. will also require confronting the low-wage employment regime sustained by a federal minimum wage that officially became a poverty wage in 2025. Low-wage work leaves more than 10 million workers in poverty. The growing divergence between the productivity of the U.S. economy and the earnings of the typical worker leaves millions of workers vulnerable to poverty and economic insecurity. About 67 million workers earn less than $25 per hour, a threshold considerably lower than the hourly earnings of a typical worker had their pay kept pace with productivity.

The defining role of structural racism in the U.S. labor market means that workers of color are more likely than their white peers to be part of the low-wage workforce. These workers of color are also more exposed than their peers to unemployment and lack dependable and consistent income. Compared with less than 1 in 3 (31.5%) of their white peers, more than 2 in 5 Black (43.3%) and Hispanic (46.3%) adults report having difficulties paying their bills due to monthly fluctuations in income. This economic insecurity means that less than half of Black and Hispanic adults have enough savings to cover expenses for three months in case of a job loss or other emergency (see Figure B). A savings vehicle without continued government support for disadvantaged families will only deepen existing inequities for families who can’t even afford to maintain their living standard in the event of an unexpected economic shock. 

Figure B Trump Accounts distract us from real solutions that lean on the functional power of wealth, a strong labor market and welfare state

Trump’s new savings vehicle for children falls short of the more ambitious Baby Bonds proposed by economists like Darrick Hamilton and William Darity. Since 2021, versions of Baby Bonds legislation have been introduced federally and in several states. Unlike Trump Accounts, national Baby Bonds commit the federal government to a publicly funded account beyond an initial endowment with additional contributions until the child reaches the age of 18. These continued contributions by the federal government would follow a progressive structure, with children from resource constrained households receiving relatively larger endowments that they can later access at the age of 18 to purchase a home or start a business.  

The continued commitment to a federally funded and progressively seeded account means that Baby Bonds are intentionally designed to narrow racial disparities in wealth. Since families of color only have a fraction of the net worth that their white peers enjoy, the larger public contributions to children from resource constrained households would disproportionately benefit children of color. This explains why impact assessments show that Baby Bonds can effectively narrow the racial wealth disparities that reflect a long history of economic exploitation and exclusion.

Without these characteristics, Trump’s voluntary savings accounts are poised to widen wealth disparities for generations. The more resource constrained families will be unable to keep up with the contributions of their more affluent peers—broadening inequities in wealth even further. This is particularly true under the Trump-Vance economy, characterized by sluggish job growth and rising unemployment. Trump’s economy is also one in which food insecure families that rely on nutritional assistance programs like SNAP—and those that rely on Medicaid and CHIP for health coverage—face ever more stringent conditions intentionally designed to limit access to support and to raise questions about the deservingness of social assistance. At this rate, the Trump-Vance administration is looking to make the U.S. the leader of child poverty in the rich world.