Reports indicate that Trump plans to propose the elimination of Head Start (a Project 2025 goal). Jan Resseger explains who Congress should stand in his way. Reposted with permission.
It has been clear from the beginning of the Trump administration that the smooth operation of Head Start has not been a priority. Staff cuts in the Department of Health and Human Services and sporadic federal funding in February left Head Start programs across several states short of money on payday. But the problems keep on escalating. It now appears that the Trump administration will try to eliminate Head Start, if Congress permits such an action, by entirely cutting the program out of next year’s federal budget.
On April 17th, the Associated Press announced: “The Trump administration is asking Congress to eliminate funding for Head Start, a move that would cut early education for more than half a million of the nation’s neediest children and child care for their families. The proposal is tucked in a 64-page internal draft budget document…. It is still in a highly preliminary phase as the White House prepares to send Congress its budget request for the 2026 fiscal year… The Head Start program had already been hit this year by layoffs and funding lags, along with a glitch this winter that briefly locked preschool providers out of their federal accounts… A lag in funding to Head Start since January has caused some Head Start preschool classrooms to close. The federal government has distributed $1.6 billion for Head Start from Jan. 1 through Tuesday, compared with $2.55 billion during the same period last year….”
The Department of Health and Human Services consolidates regional Head Start offices.
At the beginning of April, the federal government consolidated regional Head Start offices and fired staff. Michigan Advance‘s Andrew Roth reported: “The National Head Start Association said the Chicago office overseeing programs in six states, including Michigan, was abruptly shuttered earlier this week as part of Health Secretary Robert Kennedy’s cuts…. Chicago’s office also oversees programs in Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin… Regional offices in Boston, New York, San Francisco and Seattle faced the same fate as the Chicago office….”
With the closure of regional offices, The Detroit Free Press‘s Beki San Martin describes the impact on teachers and program operations, when interruptions in funding mean that teachers can’t be paid on time: “The regional offices provide organizations that receive Head Start funding—who themselves provide services to low-income children… with support like dispensing and approving funds, providing technical training, answering program questions and overseeing compliance with the federal program’s standards… Head Start grantees have different fiscal year timelines, but all receive 50% of their annual funds in the first half of their fiscal year, and the next 50% in the second half. In the vast majority of cases, they are not allowed to save funds they don’t use—they must use or lose them, so they don’t have rainy day funds on which to rely.”
Roth adds that Head Start in Michigan serves over 70,000 children under the age of five. In March, the Cleveland Plain Dealer‘s Laura Hancock reported: “Across the Big Ten states, 310,000 children were in Head Start in the 2023-2024 year… roughly a third of all children in Head Start across the country.” In Ohio, Hancock reports, 33,465 students were enrolled in Head Start during the 2023-2024 school year.
Trump Administration will propose ending Head Start as part of FY 2026 federal budget.
The consequences of the termination of Head Start would be catastrophic. Head Start was created to provide early education for children whose families are too poor to afford enriched Pre-K education. Child advocates at First Focus on Children, Averi Pakulis and Lily Klam explore the likely consequences if Head Start disappears:
“Head Start currently serves over 775,000 children and their families, including children with disabilities, those in foster care, and children experiencing homelessness. The program has served more than 40 million children and families throughout its history. The Head Start program includes preschool and child care for children ages 3 and 4; care and home visiting through Early Head Start for infants, toddlers, and expectant families; the American Indian and Alaska Native Head Start program; and the Migrant and Seasonal Head Start program.”
Pakulis and Klam continue: “Costs for (child) care are astronomical and would climb even higher by eliminating Head Start. In 2023, the cost to a family of child care for two children in a center was more than annual mortgage payments in 45 states and the District of Columbia. The cost of child care for an infant at a center was more than in-state tuition at a public university in 39 states and D.C. (The) Child Care and Development Block Grant, which is only able to offer child care assistance to a fraction of eligible families, would be unable to absorb families that formerly received Head Start services.”
In her Washington Post column, Catherine Rampell powerfully tells Congress why it should oppose the Trump administration by refusing to eliminate Head Start:
“Head Start, which serves low-income children from birth to age 5, began as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty but has received bipartisan support through the decades since. It’s no wonder why: These programs provide educational, nutritional, health and psychological support to poor children and their families. And states get to decide how to administer the programs. Head Start spending also provides enormous bang for the buck by improving long-term educational outcomes and economic self-sufficiency. In fact, one recent study found the program ‘pays for itself’: Over their lifetimes, children in Head Start end up making more money, paying more in taxes and needing fewer safety-net benefits. These returns more than offset the up-front cost of enrollment, so the government saves money by paying to educate and care for these kids.”