Updated April 2, 2025, by Priya Pandey; Spanish version added September 2025 (see link below)
Originally published in 2019 by Rebecca Ullrich and updated in February 2022 by Alejandra Londono Gomez
Early childhood programs play an important role in the lives of young children and their families. But in our current political climate, families across the country are questioning whether it’s safe to attend or enroll.
In January 2025, the Trump Administration rescinded the Biden Administration’s guidelines for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection enforcement actions in certain “protected areas.” Immigration enforcement actions had previously been restricted at or near these locations, which include early childhood programs such as licensed child care, preschool, pre-kindergarten, and Head Start programs.
In response, we have updated “A Guide to Creating ‘Safe Space’ Policies for Early Childhood Programs,” which gives practitioners, advocates, and policymakers information and resources to design and implement “safe space” policies that safeguard early childhood programs against immigration enforcement, as well as protect families’ safety and privacy. The guide also includes sample policy text that early childhood providers can adapt for their programs.
The thread between parent and child should be one of love and stability. But too often, substance use tears at that thread until it frays. Sometimes the fraying goes beyond repair, leaving behind wounds and loss that no one can fix.
This crisis hits home for me. The generational cycle of addiction shaped my life. While I managed to find a path forward, it wasn’t because there was a system of resources and support in place. I survived — but I can’t say the same for people I love, or for countless others across this country.
Recovery Is About Families, Not Just Individuals
When we talk about substance use, we often focus on the individual — their journey, their choices, and their healing. But for mothers, recovery goes far beyond just them. Substance use impacts the entire family. A mother’s journey to recovery is deeply tied to her children, her family, and her community. Without recovery support, trauma seeps between generations like water through cracked foundations, weakening structures that might have otherwise held strong.
Consider two families.
In one, a mother seeks help. She is ready to recover, but does not have access to programming that allows her to stay with her children. There are waitlists. She’s told that programs in her community have been cut back due to lack of funding. Defeated, she tries to hold her family together while struggling alone. Her son grows up carrying the weight of his mother’s pain, internalizing the instability, the stigma, and the silence that follows substance use. Years later, the son turns to substances to cope — and he doesn’t survive his battle. His death represents the loss of a brilliant young man who never got the chance to graduate, walk down the aisle, or become a father — he never had the opportunity to truly thrive. He was one of more than 80,000 people who lost their lives to drug overdoses in 2024.
In another family, a mother enters a treatment program that allows her to keep custody of her children. For the first time, she feels supported rather than punished. She receives counseling, housing support, and guidance from other mothers who’ve walked a similar path. Her children are also welcomed into the process, given therapy and space to process their emotions instead of silently carrying them. Together, the family begins to heal and learns how to overcome the trauma that fueled generations of substance use and pain. By the time the mother completes her program, the family has grown stronger, closer, and more resilient — living proof of what’s possible when recovery embraces the whole family.
The Ripple Effect of Losing Support
In 2023, approximately 19 million children in the United States lived with a parent or primary caregiver struggling with substance use; that’s roughly one in four children. Even more heartbreaking, a child growing up in a home with substance use is eight times more likely to develop an addiction than a child who is growing up in a home free of addiction. This highlights a clear intergenerational cycle of addiction, showing how the cycle repeats when families don’t get the support they need.
When a mother or other caregiver in recovery can’t get the help they need — whether that’s counseling, child care during treatment, peer mentorship, or safe housing — the impact doesn’t stop with them. The consequences ripple outward, shaping the lives of their children and even future generations. For children, this often looks like persistent anxiety or depression, behavioral disruptions or trouble in school, and deep feelings of neglect or abandonment. The effects can linger for years, shaping mental health, relationships, and opportunities well into adulthood.
Children whose mothers lack access to recovery support are more likely to experience housing instability, food insecurity, and trauma. These early hardships not only cause immediate harm but also set the stage for poor health, educational setbacks, and cycles of poverty that are incredibly difficult to break. This is why recovery support must extend beyond the parent — it must embrace the entire family.
The Disproportionate Harm to Black Families
For Black mothers, the stakes are even higher. The child welfare system disproportionately targets Black families, often under the guise of “protection,” but too often mirroring tactics rooted in slavery: separating children from their mothers, weakening family bonds, and undermining the stability of Black households.
Enslaved Black women were denied the right to raise their own children, a deliberate act to dismantle family structures and maintain control. When a Black mother faces substance use challenges, the system is more likely to remove her children rather than provide the support she needs to recover while keeping her family intact. Black children are two to three times more likely to be separated from their families than white children.
This was my own reality. And to make matters worse, after separating families, the system does very little to follow up with the child or parent to ensure their needs are met, their mental health is cared for, and they are not left carrying invisible wounds for years to come.
Policy decisions must be made with care, recognizing their impact not only on individuals but on children, extended families, and entire communities. The conditions we see today in many Black and brown neighborhoods — violence, police surveillance, poor health outcomes, inadequate housing, and limited opportunities — are not the result of individual failings. They are the predictable outcomes of intentional policies and decades of disinvestment. Ending dedicated funding for substance use programs would only intensify these harms, stripping away one of the few pathways to healing and family stability.
What Recovery for Mothers Should Look Like
To create real change, we must invest in a system of care that truly supports recovery and breaks intergenerational cycles of addiction. This means funding and expanding:
Comprehensive, family-centered treatment that allows women to heal without losing custody of their children.
Safe, stable housing that is affordable and located near treatment and support services.
Access to child care during treatment and recovery programs, so mothers don’t have to choose between healing and caregiving.
Peer recovery support led by women with lived experience, who can provide guidance and empathy and reduce stigma.
Culturally responsive care and professionals who address racial inequities and center the needs of Black women and families.
Targeted support for children and youth, ensuring they learn healthy coping mechanisms, build resilience, and receive opportunities to heal as they navigate the impacts of substance use in their families.
Family therapy for parents, children, and extended relatives, designed to strengthen relationships, repair trust, and end intergenerational cycles of addiction.
Research and policy solutions that explicitly connect substance use to mental health and trauma, with a focus on historical and generational trauma as a driver of substance misuse. This includes building a workforce of professionals trained to explore, address, and heal trauma at its core.
The Path Forward
We cannot afford to go backward. Too many lives are on the line. That’s why it’s essential to protect and strengthen funding dedicated to substance use prevention, treatment, and long-term recovery support and services. These resources ensure that people — especially those without insurance — can access treatment, prevention programs, and recovery support. Disrupting these funding streams would be devastating not only to mothers but also to the generations connected to them.
Dedicated and stable funding for treatment, prevention, and recovery services doesn’t just support individuals in recovery, it also creates a lifeline for their children. It ensures families can stay together, heal together, and rebuild together. Without that funding, too many families are left trapped in cycles of trauma, loss, and grief. Ending funding support for substance use deepens racial inequities, perpetuates historical harms, and robs future generations of stability and opportunity.
Instead, we should be expanding investments in family-based recovery models and holding systems accountable for keeping families together. The two families introduced in the beginning stories run parallel, but the outcomes couldn’t be more different. The difference wasn’t the mother’s choices or love — it was access. One family met closed doors while the other found open arms.
Recovery is not just about surviving substance use. For mothers and those they love, it’s about building a future where healing is possible, families are whole, and every generation has the chance to thrive.
For me, this truth carries the weight of my brother, David. He was the son who never got the chance to thrive. His absence is a constant reminder of what’s at stake — the fragile threads that hold families together, and how every policy decision and funding choice determines whether those threads hold or unravel. My heart goes out to every frayed thread that has ended in loss due to substance use. This grief and absence ripple through families, felt for generations to come — a smile no longer there, a presence no longer felt.
The fight for healing and wholeness for families navigating substance use must continue.
Dedicated to “Lil David.” May you rest in eternal peace.
Washington, D.C., September 9, 2025—Today’s release of the U.S. Census Bureau’s national Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance data for 2024 shows that while the overall economy is strong, the nation has much more to do to reduce poverty, especially among women and Black Americans.
For the most part, the poverty rate remained largely unchanged from 2023 to 2024. But the poverty rate among Black Americans increased from 17.9 percent in 2023 to 18.4 percent in 2024. And while overall child poverty rates dropped very slightly from 2023, the number of Black children living in poverty increased from 20.3 percent in 2023 to 22.7 percent in 2024, according to the Supplemental Poverty Measure. This measure looks at not simply earnings, but the resources people have after factoring in work and medical expenses, taxes, as well as tax credits and non-cash benefits.
For the second year in a row, women faced a large earnings gap. The median earnings for women in 2024 were $45,380, while the median earnings for men were $60,020. This gap is greater than in 2023, when median earnings for women were $43,200 and $57,740 for men.
“These numbers are not surprising,” said Wendy Chun-Hoon, president and executive director of CLASP. “The wage gap between men and women has existed for decades, as has the disparity in Black poverty rates compared to the rest of the country. While the nation has made incremental improvements, the reasons for these disparities are systemic, and we must do more to disrupt them. There’s no silver bullet to remedy these inequalities; rather, we need sustained investments to close the gender-racial wage gap—higher wages, more equal access to quality jobs, affordable family care, equitable tax policy, and paid leave. We should solve for people’s basic needs, not eviscerate our social safety net.”
Signs already point to a weakening economy in 2025. For instance, the August 2025 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) jobs report showed an addition of only 22,000 jobs last month, well below economists’ expectations, and unemployment at a four-year high of 4.3 percent.
Black families are the last to do well, even when the economy is growing. The most recent BLS report made that clear, showing the unemployment rate for white men was 3.7 percent, but was 7.1 percent for Black men. The report also showed the unemployment rate for Black women was 6.7 percent, compared to 3.2 percent for white women.
The gender wage gap persists for a variety of reasons, notably that women are still concentrated in some of the lowest-paid jobs, the price of child care remains out of reach for families, and employers are implementing return-to-office policies. The real-world effects of inflexible work policies and unaffordable care are already being felt: the share of working mothers ages 25-44 in the labor market has fallen every month in 2025 and dropped three percentage points between January and June. This is the lowest level of labor force participation from women with children in more than three years.
Increased poverty in 2025 is all but assured due to the severe restructuring of programs that support basic needs in July’s reconciliation bill and the Trump Administration’s executive actions aimed at people with low incomes, immigrant families, women, people of color, and other historically marginalized communities. Congress, with the administration’s approval, has consistently chosen to exclude many families with low incomes and immigrants from the Child Tax Credit, cut Medicaid and SNAP, increase immigration enforcement, and boost tax breaks for the ultra-rich.
“The president promised to lower costs. He and this Congress have clearly broken that promise for so many, making it more expensive for families to afford not just gas and milk but other family basics like housing, health care, and child care. This is not just a broken promise. It’s a breach of contract to the American people,” said Chun-Hoon.
Poverty is not inevitable. It’s the direct result of policy decisions. We know how to reduce it, and now it’s time for policymakers to choose dignity for all and invest in our communities.
By Rachel Wilensky and Stephanie Schmit
As Congress negotiates the fiscal year (FY) 2026 appropriations package, another year of level funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), which has been proposed in the House Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies bill marked up this week, would result in more children losing access to child care. CLASP estimates that the impact of level funding will mean approximately 24,000 fewer children will have access to child care through CCDBG in FY26. The compounded impact of two years of stagnant funding would mean nearly 50,000 fewer children have access to child care assistance.
No child should have to think about whether their mom ate breakfast. But in many immigrant families across the United States, that small sacrifice is not an exception—it’s the norm. So are lunch boxes packed with too little, and school days that start with hunger pangs. These moments may feel invisible, but they have deep consequences. They affect how children learn, how caregivers function, and how families feel a sense of belonging in the communities they call home. And as the impact of President Trump’s budget reconciliation law becomes clear, even more families will find themselves making these same dreadful choices.
While policy decisions shape the framework of who has access to food, the story doesn’t end there. Even when families technically qualify for benefits, factors like social and cultural barriers, language gaps, stigma, misinformation, and fear often determine whether that access becomes reality. If we want to address child hunger in immigrant communities, we can’t just look at eligibility. We must also look at the lived experienceof trying to feed a family in a country where accessing benefits means filling out numerous forms, navigating a language barrier, and encountering far too many snap judgments and assumptions.
SNAP Eligibility and the Bigger Policy Picture in 2025
The effects of food insecurity ripple far beyond the dinner table. Children who don’t eat regularly experience more behavioral issues, lower academic performance, and higher rates of emotional stress. Research showsboth that students facing hunger score lower on reading and math assessments and that providing school breakfast is associated with fewer disciplinary infractions and better attendance and tardiness rates. These outcomes make it clear why federal nutrition assistance programs are so critical to both addressing immediate hunger relief and supporting long-term health, education, and stability.
Yet in 2025, access to these programs became significantly harder. Most SNAP recipients are U.S. citizens. Lawful permanent residents become eligible after five years, while refugees and asylees can qualify sooner; as can certain children and pregnant individuals. But under President Trump’s recent budget reconciliation law, major changes went into effect that directly target immigrant families.
The bill expandedwork requirements, mandating that most adults between 18 and 64, including those with dependents, work at least 80 hours per month to maintain eligibility. But the reality is that most SNAP recipients are already working, caring for a family member, or temporarily between jobs. Research consistently shows that work requirements do not improve employment outcomes but instead create red tape and make it harder for people to keep the support they need.
For immigrant families, who already face eligibility restrictions like five-year bars for lawful permanent residents, pro-rated benefits in mixed-status households, and confusion over public charge messaging, these expanded work mandates risk deepening food insecurity by raising barriers just when access is most crucial. The bill also shifted financial responsibility to states, creating a chilling effect as local administrators face the difficult task of implementing the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) upcoming guidance on this provision. Most alarmingly, the reconciliation bill barred eligibility for asylum seekers, temporary protected status holders, trafficking survivors, and refugee populations, groups that previously had immediate or easier access to food assistance.
A request from the USDA that states share SNAP applicant data, including immigration status and details on non-applicant household members, has only further compounded fear and confusion. While a number of states have sued the USDA over these requests, for many mixed-status families, this has created a chilling effect, where eligible members choose not to apply at all. The Urban Institute projects that over 22 million families could lose benefits under the bill, including 5 million that may lose at least $25 per month. These policy shifts don’t just tweak technical rules. They fundamentally alter who gets to eat and who doesn’t.
The First Invisible Barrier: Language Challenges and Misinformation
Even when families remain eligible, navigating the system isn’t straightforward, especially if English isn’ttheir first language. Many SNAP applications are only available in English or have poor-quality translations. For Limited-English-Proficient (LEP) families, that means relying on community whispers, social media threads, or outdated news. Misinformation spreads easily, andin immigrant communities, which are reeling from years of punitive policies and currently seeing ramped–up enforcement activities, fear is potent.
Some programs are working to bridge this divide. Cornell University’s Translator-Interpreter Program (TIP), an organization I am proud to be a part of, connects multilingual students with over 300 local organizations to expand access to key services and benefits for non-English-speaking communities. These students have translated everything from food safety trainings for immigrant dining hall workers to SNAP applications for local families. Every time someone says, “Now I get it,” the barrier shrinks a little.
The Second Invisible Barrier: Cultural Norms and Stigma
Policy and paperwork are only part of the issue. For many immigrant families, the deeper barrier is cultural. In some communities, accepting food aid is equated with failure, something shameful, or embarrassment. Parents worry that neighbors will judge them; children skip free meals to avoid being labeled “poor.” These internalized beliefs can be just as limiting as ineligibility itself, and the result is the same: families who could get help don’t.
There are ways to address this barrier without adding to stigma. For instance, both the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Urban Institute note that schools that adopt universal free meals or “Breakfast in the Classroom” programs see participation rise significantly, especially among children of immigrants. In Detroit, when schools began offering halal options, immigrant student participationin breakfast programs rose by 60 percent. When food feels familiar, students feel like they belong. They show up ready to learn, to socialize, and to connect. And when children thrive, their families do, too. Caregivers can work, study, and build consistent routines with less stress and more dignity. When everyone eats, no one feels singled out. Meals become moments of community, not reminders of need.
Addressing the Skepticism
There are many myths around SNAP, including fraud, cost, and whether immigrants should use public aid. SNAP is explicitly excluded from public charge evaluations under current Department of Homeland Security rules. In addition, research from the National Conference of State Legislatures shows that expanding translated applications and using trained interpreters actually increases uptake without increasing misuse. Finally, cutting SNAP doesn’t save money. It simply shifts the burden to emergency rooms, food banks, and schools – places that aren’t built to bear the weight of widespread hunger.
Why This Isn’t Just an Immigrant Issue
Ensuring equitable food access also strengthens public health, economic efficiency, and community resilience. Every SNAP dollar spent generates $1.50 to $1.80 in local economic activity. When children are well-fed, they miss fewer school days, perform better academically, and grow into healthier, more productive adults. Over time, that means lower health care and emergency aid costs and fewer lost wages.
But beyond the numbers, this is about who we are as a society. How we treat our neighbors, especially in moments of vulnerability, reflects our collective values and our commitment to human dignity. Expanding SNAP access and outreach in immigrant communities and protecting the privacy of recipients is not only sound policy. It is a statement that every person’s well-being matters.
A Future Worth Building
Ultimately, there need to be policies and practices backed by public investments that are responsive to the real needs of people in this country. Until then, schools and community centers can adopt TIP-style interpreter programs to break down language barriers. School districts and other child-focused settings should incorporate culturally familiar foods into their menus to ensure every child feels seen.
Policymakers and funders need to protect and expand outreach in immigrant neighborhoods, not scale it back. And for the rest of us, small actions matter such as volunteering at food banks, asking how programs serve LEP clients, or starting language-access efforts in our own communities. We must also have honest conversations within our communities to destigmatize receiving public benefits. Normalizing support helps ensure that everyone feels empowered to access the resources they need.
Imagine a cafeteria where every lunch tray reflects a different culture, and every stomach is full. Imagine a food system built not on fear or paperwork, but on dignity and belonging. That’s not a fantasy. It’s a future we can build. One plate, one program, one translated form at a time.
*Parthenia Tawfik was a Zero Hunger Intern at CLASP, where she supported the Child Care and Early Education Team. She is a student at Cornell University studying Political Science and Near Eastern Studies, and a member of the Translator-Interpreter Program, which works to support immigrant and refugee communities by bridging language gaps in access to public services. As an Egyptian American, Parthenia brings a strong commitment to language justice, cultural inclusion, and community-centered policy solutions.
CLASP is grateful for the opportunity to work with Parthenia this summer and for all her important contributions.
CLASP writes in opposition to the harmful new interpretation the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is taking in regard to the definition of a “Federal public benefit” under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. We respectfully submit this comment urging the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to withdraw this proposed rule in its entirety.
Question:Why is access to child care important for families?
Answer: Child care helps parents or caregivers work, look for jobs, attend school and trainings, and tend to other responsibilities while their children are receiving early care and education that is safe, stable, and developmentally appropriate. It is a critical support for family well-being and economic stability.
Question:What is the primary federal funding source for child care assistance?
Answer: The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) provides child care assistance through subsidies for families with low incomes and helps improve the overall quality of care for all children in states, tribes, and territories. CCDF is made up of the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), a discretionary funding stream (which is determined annually by Congress during appropriations) and the Child Care Entitlement to States (CCES), a mandatory funding stream (which is consistent and guaranteed funding that can only be changed through distinct legislation).
Question:How much funding does CCDF receive?
Answer: In fiscal year (FY) 2025, CCDF was funded at $12.2 billion, $8.75 billion from the CCDBG and $3.55 billion from the CCES. This is level funding from FY2024.
Question: What role do states play in financing child care assistance?
Answer: To draw down all available federal dollars, states are required to contribute funding toward their CCDF-funded child care assistance program through a state match and a “maintenance of effort” (MOE). Territories and tribes are exempt from this requirement. States must match their CCES dollars at their state’s Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAPs) rate. MOE requires states to continue spending at least the same amount on child care services as they did prior to reauthorization of CCDBG in 1996. States can also invest more than the requirements to support their programs.
Question: How are CCDF resources distributed to states, tribes, and territories?
Answer: In addition to their mandatory funds from CCES, the amount of money each state and territory receives annually is calculated using a formula that considers factors like the state share of children younger than five, the state’s per capita income, and the number of children receiving free or reduced-price lunches. A portion (typically around two percent) of discretionary funding and up to two percent of mandatory funding must be reserved for tribal child care, whose funds are distributed based on a formula that considers the number of children under age 13 in the tribal service area and other program characteristics.
Question: Are there other federal funding streams that can be utilized alongside CCDF for child care assistance?
Answer: Yes, states can utilize Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) funds for child care. Both of these grants can be spent directly on child care, and states can also transfer up to 30 percent of TANF funds to CCDF or 10 percent to SSBG. However, the total amount transferred to CCDF and SSBG cannot be more than 30 percent of TANF funds that a state received.
Question: Who is eligible to receive child care assistance through CCDF?
Answer: Under federal law, eligible children must be age 13 or younger or up to 19 for those with disabilities or under court supervision; reside with a caregiver(s) that is working or attending school or training programs; have a family income that does not exceed 85 percent of their state median income (SMI); and is in a family who does not have more $1 million in assets. States have the ability to modify most eligibility parameters within the confines of the federal law, including, for example, establishing lower income eligibility limits. Many states do set their threshold below the federal limit of 85 percent SMI due to constrained funding.
Question: How many children are served by CCDF?
Answer: According to the most recently published data, in FY2022, 1,434,900 children were served by CCDF in states and territories. In FY2023, the Administration for Children and Families reported that 17,000 children were served by CCDF in tribes. However, this figure is likely an underestimation because not all tribal CCDF recipients are required to report the number of children served, and tribal CCDF data is made public less frequently.
Question: How has participation in CCDF shifted over the years?
Answer: Since FY2006, the peak year for participation, to FY2022 (the most recently published data), 335,200 children lost CCDF-funded child care, because CCDF funding has not kept pace with inflation. There were 225,204 providers who accept CCDF subsidies in FY2022, a decrease of 68 percent (475,394) from 2006. This decrease is due to a variety of factors, including low reimbursement rates from CCDF, administrative burdens in the program, and a decreasing provider workforce rooted in undercompensation and inequities in the child care sector.
Question: Do all eligible children receive child care assistance?
Answer: No. In FY2021, 11.5 million children were eligible under federal rules. Due to the flexibility states have in determining eligibility, 8 million children were eligible to be served by CCDF funds under state rules. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation estimates that approximately 1.8 million children were reached through all funding sources in 2021. This means that only 15 percent of those eligible under federal rules and 22 percent eligible under state rules had access to assistance.
Question: How does access to subsidies differ across racial and ethnic groups?
Answer: In CLASP’s most recent analysis using FY2020 data, we found that Black and Latino families are overrepresented in who is eligible for care. This means that a racial/ethnic group represents a higher proportion of all eligible children when compared to their proportion of the total population of children. This overrepresentation is a result of historical and current economic inequity within some racial and ethnic groups that has led to lower average incomes and created disproportionate need for financial assistance to afford and access child care for these children and their families. Black children had the highest rate of access and Asian and multiracial children had the lowest rates of access nationally when compared to potentially eligible children of other racial and ethnic groups.
Question: What can be done to increase access to and affordability of child care assistance for families with low incomes and support the recruitment and retention of child care providers?
Answer: CCDF has never been funded at the level needed to support all eligible children, and even more children could benefit from child care assistance than those who are currently eligible. To deliver on a child care system that truly meets the needs of children and families and to support the severely undervalued child care workforce, there needs to be large-scale, sustained federal investments in a system that aligns with the child care needs of children and families. With these investments, this country must confront and address the ways that racism, sexism, and classism have shaped the devaluation of child care and early education, the many other systems people rely on, and how they continue to directly harm children, families, and providers today.
So advocates marshalled research, with the help of national groups including the National Association for the Education of Young Children and Center for Law and Social Policy. They highlighted that there has been no evidence that stricter child care regulations lead to reduced supply. Lawmakers seemed moved by the argument that lower ratios support better health and safety for children.
CLASP responds to the Request for Information (RFI): Ensuring Lawful Regulation and Unleashing Innovation To Make America Healthy Again. We seek to offer our perspective and insights based on our work on programs administered by HHS, including child care and early education programs run by the Office of Child Care and the Office of Head Start, Medicaid, Affordable Care Act Marketplaces, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
This statement can be attributed to Wendy Chun-Hoon, President and Executive Director of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
Washington, D.C., July 3, 2025 – This afternoon, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the budget reconciliation bill, which President Trump is expected to sign on July 4. This bill will cause unprecedented harm across the country, particularly to communities with low incomes, people of color, immigrants, workers, women, and children. CLASP has vociferouslyopposed the reconciliation bill and is busy working on a strategy for supporting the people at the heart of our mission who will be left to deal with the bill’s catastrophic cuts and spiteful policy changes. Our fight to ensure the dignity, security, and well-being of those who have been most marginalized is far from over, and CLASP is ready to meet the moment.
