By Rachel Wilensky
On February 3, 2026, Congress passed an amendment to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, funding all federal programs with the exception of the Department of Homeland Security for a full year. President Trump subsequently signed the bill into law. The law offers small increases for many nondefense discretionary programs, including an additional $85 million for the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG). This increase was incredibly important, given the challenging fiscal environment states will face due to the cuts made to vital public benefit programs in H.R. 1.
CCDBG is a critical support for families with low incomes who, without access to assistance, would likely be unable to afford their current child care arrangements. However, due to limited federal funding, child care assistance funded through CCDBG and other federal sources only reached 15 percent of eligible children in 2021, the most recent year that data is available.1 The annual appropriations process is an important opportunity to increase federal investments in programs that respond to greater need and ensure funding keeps up with rising inflation.
As concerns about economic recovery, unemployment, and inflation persist, significant and sustained increases in annual discretionary funding remain a critical support. And, given the fragile nature of the child care sector caused in part by decades of insufficient federal funding, the need for long-term and sustainable increases for child care remains ever present.
Furthermore, recent actions by the administration to freeze or delay funding for child care and threaten programs like Head Start, which are a vital part of the child care and early education ecosystem, make this moment particularly volatile.2 Additionally, this $85 million increase for CCDBG does not keep pace with inflation, falling over $160 million short of what’s necessary to ensure there are enough resources to serve all children currently accessing care through CCDBG.3 This comes on top of stagnant funding in fiscal year (FY) 2025. Ultimately, this means that states will not be able to sustain their current costs, which may result in serving fewer children. Moreover, Congress’s massive cuts to food assistance, Medicaid, and other vital programs to pay for harsh immigration policies and offer tax cuts for billionaires and corporations will continue to harm children, families, and child care providers. These are, in many cases, the very same families impacted across numerous programs. As Congress engages in the FY27 appropriations process, it is essential that they protect programs families rely on and fight for investments that align with need, like urgent investments in child care.4 The following table provides each state’s estimated distribution of grant year (GY) 2026 annual discretionary funds.5
For questions, please contact Rachel Wilensky at rwilensky@clasp.org.
|
State |
Estimates of GY2026 Discretionary Allocations[i] |
GY2025 Discretionary Allocations |
Estimated Increase from GY2025 to GY 2026 |
|
Alabama |
$172,877,730 |
$171,213,823 |
$1,663,907 |
|
Alaska |
$15,503,527 |
$15,354,309 |
$149,218 |
|
Arizona |
$181,205,597 |
$179,461,536 |
$1,744,061 |
|
Arkansas |
$102,172,155 |
$101,188,772 |
$983,383 |
|
California |
$744,676,980 |
$737,509,641 |
$7,167,339 |
|
Colorado |
$92,557,430 |
$91,666,587 |
$890,843 |
|
Connecticut |
$64,045,803 |
$63,429,377 |
$616,426 |
|
Delaware |
$23,822,438 |
$23,593,153 |
$229,285 |
|
District of Columbia |
$13,539,118 |
$13,408,807 |
$130,311 |
|
Florida |
$537,802,845 |
$532,626,620 |
$5,176,225 |
|
Georgia |
$337,176,144 |
$333,930,904 |
$3,245,240 |
|
Hawaii |
$29,104,960 |
$28,824,832 |
$280,128 |
|
Idaho |
$45,307,035 |
$44,870,966 |
$436,069 |
|
Illinois |
$270,465,225 |
$267,862,062 |
$2,603,163 |
|
Indiana |
$200,310,276 |
$198,382,337 |
$1,927,939 |
|
Iowa |
$85,385,918 |
$84,564,099 |
$821,819 |
|
Kansas |
$78,936,160 |
$78,176,418 |
$759,742 |
|
Kentucky |
$173,920,188 |
$172,246,248 |
$1,673,940 |
|
Louisiana |
$168,210,656 |
$166,591,668 |
$1,618,988 |
|
Maine |
$23,662,638 |
$23,434,891 |
$227,747 |
|
Maryland |
$123,009,257 |
$121,825,322 |
$1,183,935 |
|
Massachusetts |
$118,062,874 |
$116,926,547 |
$1,136,327 |
|
Michigan |
$257,523,841 |
$255,045,235 |
$2,478,606 |
|
Minnesota |
$120,482,527 |
$119,322,911 |
$1,159,616 |
|
Mississippi |
$109,861,817 |
$108,804,423 |
$1,057,394 |
|
Missouri |
$153,827,353 |
$152,346,801 |
$1,480,552 |
|
Montana |
$22,381,572 |
$22,166,155 |
$215,417 |
|
Nebraska |
$54,127,674 |
$53,606,708 |
$520,966 |
|
Nevada |
$75,004,363 |
$74,282,464 |
$721,899 |
|
New Hampshire |
$16,311,097 |
$16,154,107 |
$156,990 |
|
New Jersey |
$162,953,218 |
$161,384,832 |
$1,568,386 |
|
New Mexico |
$65,227,285 |
$64,599,488 |
$627,797 |
|
New York |
$409,236,449 |
$405,297,645 |
$3,938,804 |
|
North Carolina |
$281,501,322 |
$278,791,939 |
$2,709,383 |
|
North Dakota |
$16,216,500 |
$16,060,420 |
$156,080 |
|
Ohio |
$283,210,084 |
$280,484,254 |
$2,725,830 |
|
Oklahoma |
$123,947,702 |
$122,754,735 |
$1,192,967 |
|
Oregon |
$78,850,827 |
$78,091,907 |
$758,920 |
|
Pennsylvania |
$274,267,735 |
$271,627,973 |
$2,639,762 |
|
Puerto Rico |
$60,006,694 |
$59,429,144 |
$577,550 |
|
Rhode Island |
$19,909,864 |
$19,718,236 |
$191,628 |
|
South Carolina |
$160,049,619 |
$158,509,179 |
$1,540,440 |
|
South Dakota |
$20,187,247 |
$19,992,950 |
$194,297 |
|
Tennessee |
$192,923,197 |
$191,066,357 |
$1,856,840 |
|
Texas |
$995,925,511 |
$986,339,965 |
$9,585,546 |
|
Utah |
$84,602,064 |
$83,787,789 |
$814,275 |
|
Vermont |
$10,212,916 |
$10,114,619 |
$98,297 |
|
Virginia |
$189,684,896 |
$187,859,224 |
$1,825,672 |
|
Washington |
$134,040,373 |
$132,750,266 |
$1,290,107 |
|
West Virginia |
$56,788,709 |
$56,242,131 |
$546,578 |
|
Wisconsin |
$127,268,052 |
$126,043,127 |
$1,224,925 |
|
Wyoming |
$9,623,949 |
$9,531,321 |
$92,628 |
|
United States |
$8,831,387,000[ii] |
$8,746,387,000[iii] |
$85,000,000[iv] |
1 Nina Chien, “Estimates of Child Care Eligibility & Receipt for Fiscal Year 2021,” Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, September 2024, https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/a91fd97aa80b53fa52a52d38cd323509/cy2021-child-care-subsidy-eligibility.pdf.
2 Shira Small, Rachel Wilensky, and Stephanie Schmit, How the First Year of the Trump Administration Undermined Child Care and Early Education, Center for Law and Social Policy, January 2026, https://www.clasp.org/publications/fact-sheet/trump-admin-undermine-child-care-early-ed-programs-25/.
3 CLASP’s estimates are based on the Congressional Budget Office’s The Budget and Economic Outlook 2025-2035, published in January 2025. CLASP takes an average of the inflation rates looking at the change from year to year for both the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI-u) and the Employment Cost Index (ECI) to conduct our estimate. These rates can be found in “Table C-1: CBO’s Economic Projections for Calendar Years 2025 to 2035,” Congressional Budget Office, January 2025, https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-01/60870-Outlook-2025.pdf.
4 Fiscal Year (FY) refers to the period from October 1 through September 30 during which states and territories may spend funds awarded in the current and prior years. Grant Year (GY) refers to the year the funds were awarded, although states and territories may liquidate some Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) funding streams in later fiscal years. Note: CCDF refers to the federal funding sources for child care and is used interchangeably with CCDBG in this fact sheet.
5 CCDBG annual discretionary funds are distributed based on three main factors. The first two factors compare the ratio of the number of children in a state to the number of children in the country within the following categories: the number of children under five and the number of children who receive free or reduced priced lunch. The other factor makes a comparison of the three-year national per capita income with the three-year average state per capital income.
6 The state discretionary funding distributions are derived from “GY2024 CCDF Allocations (Based on Appropriations),” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, current as of April 10, 2024, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/occ/data/gy-2024-ccdf-allocations-based-appropriations. Actual amounts may differ due to the Health & Human Services Secretary’s authority and discretion in set-aside funding and re-allocation of previous year’s resources.
7 This total includes funding for tribes and territories, as well as research, technical assistance, administration, hotlines, and websites in addition to the state funding outlined in the table. As a result, this total exceeds the sum of the state distribution.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
CLASP and other national partners organized a sign-on letter and submitted comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on February 4, 2026.
NPRM sign-on letter Note: This sign-on collected 207 signatures from national, state, and local advocacy and membership organizations, unions, and child care programs.
By Shira Small, Rachel Wilensky, and Stephanie Schmit
Updated January 23, 2026
Since taking office on January 20, 2025, the Trump Administration has repeatedly undermined families’ access to child care and early education—disproportionately harming families with low incomes and families of color—by forcing Head Start closures; sowing fear and uncertainty among children and families, particularly immigrants; and weakening the federal agencies that support early childhood programs. CLASP’s new fact sheet documents these actions, outlines efforts to defend critical programs, and makes clear the urgent need to protect providers, children, and families from further harm.
January 20, 2026, Washington, D.C. – The first year of Donald Trump’s second term has been marked by unprecedented attacks on economic, racial, and gender justice. In a new report titled “The First Year of Trump’s Second Term: Harms to Children, Families, and Workers,” the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) provides a sampling of how the Trump Administration has pushed immigrants, workers, LGBTQ+ communities, and people of color further to the margins.
CLASP’s report is not intended to be a comprehensive list. Rather, it highlights a number of specific actions and executive orders in the areas of immigration, child care and early education, nutrition, economic supports, health care and mental health, housing, higher education, and workers’ rights. In addition to documenting the harms of this past year, the report offers an overview of responsive actions taken by communities, policymakers, and courts to withstand and counter the administration’s constant attacks on children, families, and workers. Finally, it provides ways that individuals and communities can fight back against these attacks.
“We know Trump’s playbook,” said Wendy Chun-Hoon, president and executive director of CLASP. “We know that firing federal workers and slashing the federal government is a blow to the health care and public services that all our families count on.”
“We know that the funding bait and switch that’s canceled food and nutrition programs in order to expand ICE and ‘protect’ us is making all our child care centers and communities less safe. And we know that this playbook of harm, hypocrisy, and hate lines the pockets of Trump’s billionaire cronies while all the rest of our families struggle to pay for groceries and rent,” said Chun-Hoon.
“CLASP is paying attention to the harm and fear being inflicted by the very people who should be supporting us. Our communities are paying attention. And we won’t stop fighting for what we know everyone needs to thrive,” she said
The report is downloadable here.
By Shira Small and Isha Weerasinghe
High maternal mortality rates and rising mental health stressors across the country underscore the need for policies, research, and programming that support maternal mental health and evaluate existing services, particularly for communities of color who face disproportionate barriers to accessing care.
This paper seeks to advance maternal mental health care and policy that best serves communities of color and other historically disenfranchised populations, highlighting both progress and opportunities for improvement.
Using Michigan and Colorado as case studies, the report analyzes key state-level policies and programs ascertained through informant interviews, focus groups, and background research to identify existing services, policies, funding streams, and the broader context in both states. Through this analysis, the authors aim to help policymakers develop, evaluate, and advance maternal mental health systems to eliminate inequities in their own states.
Barriers to maternal mental health care have deadly consequences. In Michigan, 81 percent of Black maternal deaths are preventable, and these inequities persist regardless of income level. In Detroit specifically, pregnant Black people are 2.2 times more at risk of maternal mortality than their white counterparts.
Similarly, in Colorado, pregnant Black and Indigenous people face the highest maternal mortality rates in the state, and almost 40 percent of Colorado counties are considered maternal health care deserts, meaning they lack a hospital, birth center, or obstetric care providers. Existing disparities and implementation challenges have been compounded by diminishing fiscal support from the federal government.
The Trump Administration’s 2025 budget package is expected to greatly deplete funding for federal health programs, including those serving communities of color, communities with low incomes, and other historically marginalized groups.
Many of the state-administered programs discussed in this report distribute federal funding to local communities, meaning their work is at risk. Current and upcoming federal funding cuts have already changed program infrastructure and will greatly impact the programs discussed in this report and the families they serve.
Maternal mental health is a rising policy priority in Michigan, with Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s leadership fueling legislative efforts to address maternal mortality inequities in the state. Positive policy developments include:
Colorado lawmakers have also achieved legislative momentum for maternal mental health, with the COVID-19 pandemic underscoring the need to better support new parents.
Efforts in the state legislature built on the creation of the Colorado Behavioral Health Task Force Governor Jared Polis commissioned in 2019, but strict budget limitations across the state have restricted progress.
Positive policy developments include:
Despite the increased awareness, interest, and policy development to improve maternal mental health in both states, key informants felt that their state still needs more policies in place to support birthing people’s needs and expand the supply of affordable, accessible, and culturally responsive care.
Amid efforts to improve the system, there can still be a disconnect between policymakers, providers, and directly impacted groups.
The report makes recommendations to help states provide equitable care that prioritizes the well-being of people during the perinatal, pregnancy, and postpartum periods. They include, but are not limited to:
To read the full report, please reach out to Shira Small and Isha Weerasinghe.
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., January 9, 2026 – This week, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has announced the withholding of funding for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) child care subsidies, and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) program from California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York. These states stand to lose a total of $10 billion in federal funding this year for allegations of fraud. And the administration has already signaled that broader cuts may be coming.
Arbitrarily withholding federal funds from these five states is illegal, reckless, and cruel. While instances of fraud should be taken seriously, these unilateral actions to freeze funding for basic needs programs cause widespread harm. In fact, there is no evidence to prove the alleged claims. Programs already have extensive built-in mechanisms for managing allegations, ranging from detailed state plans outlining intentions for how resources will be utilized to extensive reporting and audit requirements.
TANF provides families who have very low incomes with temporary monthly cash assistance, work activities and support, and child care services. Children and families will bear the brunt of these cuts, while already facing an affordability crisis and cuts to other critical public benefit programs, like SNAP and Medicaid. Without TANF funding, families with low incomes won’t have access to monthly cash assistance that helps parents afford essentials like rent, diapers, and groceries.
Freezing CCDF funds for child care centers and family child care homes will threaten providers’ ability to provide services and keep their doors open, which will challenge access to care for parents. Most programs operate on razor-thin margins with limited or no reserves. This comes on top of all states being required by the “defend the spend” directive to provide detailed justification to draw down resources to support child care subsidies.
SSBG freezes will not only impact child care but also local health services, services for vulnerable and elderly adults, services for individuals with disabilities, and more.
This all comes at a time when states face an increasingly challenging budgetary environment, especially as they begin to implement mandatory changes in SNAP and other programs specified in H.R. 1, which narrowly passed last July and creates new barriers to food assistance and health coverage that will leave millions hungry and uninsured. Moreover, the increased costs of health coverage follow the failure of Congress and the administration to extend the enhanced premium tax credits for the ACA Marketplace. Families are already experiencing increased costs of living. The administration’s persistence in further burdening families by stripping away supports that allow them to thrive will have devastating consequences for all our communities and states.
The Trump Administration is using politically motivated, racist, and anti-immigrant commentary to villainize those who oppose them and excuse the illegal withholding of federal funding. Children, families, and child care providers will suffer from these actions. Moreover, state administrators of these programs are already facing confusion and chaos, adding to the existing burden of navigating the barrage of regulatory contradictions from the administration. HHS should reverse this decision and provide all states with their funding to serve children and families.
By Grace Segers
(EXCERPT)
“They’re not going to have access to health insurance, they’re not going to have access to food, and now are going to have a challenging time accessing childcare. It’s going to be multiple hits to families who already are in a position where they need support,” said Schmit. “I see this as, on the whole … something that’s really aiming to undermine the needs of families with low incomes in this country.”
Read the full article on The New Republic.
BY SOPHIA PAFFENROTH/MISSISSIPPI TODAY
(EXCERPT)
Other states have successfully conjoined funding streams so that extra TANF funds can be used on child care vouchers without technically being considered “transferred funds,” explained Stephanie Schmit, director of Child Care and Early Education at the Center for Law and Social Policy. It can sometimes be complicated.
Read the full article from the Associated Press.
Washington, D.C., January 5, 2026 — Last week, an ill-informed YouTube “influencer” accused child care centers run by Somali providers in Minnesota of fraud. In response to these accusations and without any further investigation, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) took immediate actions to freeze federal child care funding for Minnesota, to implement a “Defend the Spend” effort for all states, and to establish a fraud reporting website and hotline. Since then, numerous “influencers” have made similar claims against child care providers in other states.
Stephanie Schmit, Director of Child Care and Early Education at the Center for Law and Social Policy, said, “It is hard to see this as anything but politically motivated attacks on child care providers and reactions that will punish children and families nationwide. Child care providers of diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds offer critical, culturally competent care that meets the unique needs of the children and families in their communities across the country.”
The Child Care and Development Fund is a lifeline for families with low incomes to access stable and reliable child care so they can go to work. Disruptions to this essential funding will only harm children, families, and providers.
While HHS has not yet released information about how it will implement “Defend the Spend,” the very brief implementation of the program in April resulted in delayed payments to states. This created barriers for families because providers, who operate on razor-thin margins, depend on timely payments from the states to run their programs. Because additional information has not yet been released, there is significant confusion and worry about the impact that this might have.
“Child care providers and state child care agency staff already put a lot of effort and energy into reporting how they spend their resources. Adding further reporting requirements to their overburdened workload will take their time and attention away from where it should be–focused on providing the best care possible for children,” Schmit said.
It is troubling that a federal agency would make such a destabilizing decision based on the unfounded claims of an “influencer” with a long history of videos that prioritize shock over facts. HHS should consider the actual impacts of any requirements on children, families, and providers, and make decisions accordingly.
By Madeline Mitchell
[EXCERPT]
Suma Setty, senior immigration policy analyst for The Center for Law and Social Policy, a nonprofit policy think tank in Washington, D.C., says child care providers have also lost some of their workers with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) “because of fears of immigration enforcement.” DACA is a government program that allows for work authorization and puts a temporary hold on deportation for those who were brought into the country illegally as children.
Read the full article in USA Today here.
Note: This article was republished by scores of media outlets across the country.