CLASP and the National Women’s Law Center submitted a public comment opposing the Department of Health and Human Services’ proposed Head Start rule that would destabilize the program by overhauling the regulations that underpin Head Start’s effective, high-quality, wraparound services model. On top of eliminating approximately 90 percent of the performance standards that make Head Start strong, the rule introduces an English-only instruction requirement that would harm immigrant families, dual language learners, and Head Start staff.

By Stephanie Schmit

This blog is part of a series exploring a shared vision for universal child care and CLASP’s efforts, alongside partners, to turn this vision into a reality. The full series can be found here.

Every vision needs a strong foundation. That is why CLASP has engaged with partners through the Child Care for Every Family Network for many years to develop a strong foundation for universal child care rooted in a commitment to learning from one another’s perspectives and expertise, supporting all families, centering those with diverse lived experiences, and designed in a meaningful way.

This intentional effort created the shared policy principles that ground all our joint efforts: equity, access, guaranteed care, support for a thriving workforce, culturally and linguistically responsive, financially stable, well-governed, quality, and designed by those most impacted.

Together we envisioned a publicly funded universal child care system that:

serves all children 0-13+, including additional support for children with disabilities;
provides free, comprehensive care via center-based child care, family child care in homes, and family, friend, and neighbor care;
prioritizes children’s safety, development, and well-being; and
compensates the child care workforce in a way that actually reflects the critical value of their work, and where every worker has a voice in the profession they love.

A universal child care system is one where every family who needs child care can access it. To create the supply needed to make care universal, providers must be adequately compensated and supported to stay in the field and provide high-quality care. Through fully funded public investment, a universal system ensures cohesive and clear availability and accessibility to care and learning for all families with children, regardless of race, immigration status, income, disability, geography, and other factors that have historically impeded access. A universal system also ensures that the child care workforce is well-paid, provided with benefits like health care and retirement, and has access to training or higher/continuing education if desired, advancement opportunities, and more. To achieve this vision, the lived experience of the families and providers who rely on and sustain the system is centered in policy design and implementation. Ultimately, a universal system ensures that child care is a public good, not a family’s private responsibility.

The story of these principles is about the “what,” of course, but it’s also about the “how.” These principles were built in partnership with diverse perspectives and people who are directly impacted, including parents and providers, and have guided the Network’s collective efforts across partners. CLASP helped to draft these principles, but also strives to live in them in our day-to-day work as we create and analyze policy porposals and continue to build trusted relationships with those closest to the challenges of the sector.

These principles and the intentional design of the Network have built momentum for a very exciting moment. CLASP is proud to stand with our partners in the Child Care for Every Family Network to launch the Child Care for All campaign.

This campaign is a national movement of partners from across the country who have come together to win free, universal child care for everyone. We are working to create a world where every family has access to the care that they need, when and where they need it. It is an effort that will benefit everyone: families, child care providers, employers, and the economy.

All of the work that CLASP is engaging in to fight back against attacks at the federal level and push progress forward at the state level is in service of the universal child care vision we are trying to achieve and to help us to build the power and foundation for what’s necessary to make Child Care for All a reality.

Join us in this important effort!

To learn more about what it means to build a truly equitable universal child care system, please join us for CLASP’s next installment of Equity Matters, “What if the Current Fight to Protect Child Care is also an Opportunity to Transform it?” on October 22 from 1-2:30 pm ET. Register here.

By Wendy Chun-Hoon

Excerpt from op-ed:

Earlier this month, the U.S. Census Bureau released its annual report on the nation’s poverty rate. At first glance, the announcement tells a rosy story: Real median household income is up, and the official poverty rate fell a half a percentage point. What the 2025 numbers reflect, however, is the status quo ante before President Donald Trump re-entered the White House. What the “official” numbers omit are the catastrophic impacts of his administration’s policies on low-income families, and immigrant households in particular.

Read the full Washington Monthly op-ed here.

By Alyssa Fortner

This is the first blog in a series exploring a shared vision for universal child care and CLASP’s efforts, alongside partners, to turn this vision into a reality. The full series can be found here.

The need for a stronger, universal child care system is clearer than ever as the Trump Administration is actively working to dismantle it. The administration has laid off over half of the Office of Child Care and Office of Head Start staff; illegally moved to freeze child care funding for states they consider political opponents; peddled unfounded fraud allegations that attack the integrity of child care providers and the state administrators that help families access care; and released regulations that destabilize the child care and early education sector further when it is in need of critical support.

At the same time, our child care system has continued to be shaped by racial, gender, and economic inequities and decades of underinvestment. Despite the immense value of child care, from supporting children’s development to sustaining a strong economy, it remains inaccessible and unaffordable for many families. Per the most recent data, only 1 in 7 eligible children had access to a subsidy through the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), the primary federal funding source created to provide child care assistance for families with low incomes. And the child care workforce remains deeply underpaid and undervalued, earning less than 97 percent of other professions and frequently lacking benefits like health insurance and retirement. The harm is even more pronounced for Black and Latina early educators, who despite holding equivalent educational credentials, earn thousands less than white early educators.

But what if the current fight to protect child care is also an opportunity to transform it?

We can already see what’s possible: while the federal government is undermining the sector, states like New Mexico and New York are stepping up to move the work forward and deliver on the true needs of children and families. And while states should not carry this responsibility or financial burden alone, their transformational efforts offer exciting proof points for what is possible when child care is seen and valued as a public good. Building on significant investments during the COVID-19 pandemic, New Mexico has expanded free child care for all families regardless of income or immigration status, while New York is pursuing expanded access through investments in child care infrastructure and beginning to implement free “2-K” in New York City.

In the past, we’ve even seen congressional action in working toward universal child care, too. In 1971, Congress passed the bipartisan Comprehensive Child Development Act (CCDA). And in 2021, the Biden-Harris Administration’s proposed Build Back Better (BBB) plan would have made historic, robust investments in child care and pre-kindergarten to lay the groundwork for universal child care as well. Unfortunately, President Nixon’s veto of the CCDA and the failure of the Senate to pass BBB stalled both major federal efforts. However, current congressional interest, combined with many state actions, shows us that not only is universal child care possible, it is essential.

The lessons learned, strong partnerships with directly impacted people, and the positive proof points we are seeing at all levels of government, make it clear that we have an opportunity to leverage these efforts to preserve what exists to create a vision for the future of child care that is inclusive, comprehensive, and truly meets the needs of all who participate in it.

Now is the time to turn the defense of what we have into the power we need to work together to build the system children, families, and providers have always deserved.

To learn more about what it means to build a truly equitable universal child care system, please join us for CLASP’s next installment of Equity Matters, “What if the Current Fight to Protect Child Care is also an Opportunity to Transform it?” on October 22 from 1-2:30 pm ET. Register here.

Wendy Chun-Hoon appeared on MomsRising Radio to discuss the affordability crisis. She used the 2025 poverty data from the U.S. Census Bureau to describe how bad public policy decisions created this crisis — and how good decisions could address it.

Listen to her appearance here:

“>

By Mikayla Slaydon

On July 16, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a new public charge rule that could impact immigrant families’ access to basic needs and education programs. The final rule, effective on September 18, 2026, makes changes to an immigration process used in some green card determinations known as public charge. It removes parameters established in 2022 around the types of programs that DHS officers can or cannot consider when determining whether a noncitizen is likely to become a “public charge,” creating confusion and uncertainty for green card applicants.

On August 18, DHS published guidance on how the final rule will be implemented. Here is what early childhood partners and the child advocacy community need to know:

What is a “public charge”?

DHS uses the public charge determination as one component of the green card application review process for some immigrants to determine the likelihood of the applicant to primarily depend on the government for support in the future. If an immigration officer determines that an applicant is likely to become a “public charge,” their application for admission to the United States or their application for lawful permanent resident status (green card) can be rejected.

What does the new public charge rule do?

The new policy and guidance take away clear rules for deciding whether someone could become a “public charge” and leaves the question about which benefits count toward someone being considered a “public charge.”

We expect immigration officers to increase their individual discretion when assessing whether someone is considered a “public charge.”
For applications received before September 18, only the two historically utilized categories (cash assistance, like TANF, and long-term institutionalization) can be considered in the public charge determination.
For applications received on or after September 18, means-tested public benefits received on or after that date can be used to determine whether someone is a “public charge.”
The guidance does not establish a list of which programs could be considered. Public benefits can be used in a public charge determination when eligibility depends on income or assets. Decisions on which programs will be considered are left to the discretion of the immigration officer. Programs could include cash assistance, food assistance, government-funded health coverage, public or assisted housing, and certain financial aid.
The guidance does make it clear that public benefits are those provided by an agency of the government and refers to all levels of government, from local to federal.

Who does public charge apply to?

The “public charge inadmissibility test” only applies to people applying for a green card or a visa to enter the U.S., or to green card holders who leave the country for more than 180 days.

Public charge does not apply if you’re a U.S. citizen; you’re applying for or already have Temporary Protected Status, a “U” or “T” visa, asylum, refugee, or Special Immigrant Juvenile Status; you currently have no pathway to obtain a green card; or you do not plan to apply for a green card in the future. For more information on different immigration status categories and how public charge does or does not apply, see this resource.

Will a child’s use or receipt of benefits count against an immigrant parent?

The 2026 final rule and guidance defines what the word “receipt” means in the context of the application. Receipt only occurs when the immigrant applicant is listed as the beneficiary of the benefit. If, for example, an immigrant applicant applied for SNAP on behalf of their citizen child, the applicant would not be considered as the beneficiary. However, if the child or another person under the legal care of the applicant qualifies for the benefit because the applicant’s income falls below an eligibility threshold, guidance has stated that DHS may consider the applicant’s underlying financial circumstances. Therefore, an immigrant applicant’s low income can be a factor in the public charge assessment.

Universal benefit programs could include food pantries, public libraries, and other programs that allow anyone to benefit and do not verify income to determine eligibility.
It’s important to note that “universal benefits,” meaning benefits available to everyone regardless of income, and “earned benefits” like Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment benefits, are excluded from a public charge determination.

What does the public charge rule mean for the early childhood community?

The final rule does not specify a list of benefits that will or will not be considered in a public charge determination, but says that means-tested benefits—that is, those where eligibility is based on income or resources—can be considered. Receipt of a means-tested benefit does not automatically mean that an applicant will be considered a public charge. Instead, officers make individualized determinations based on the totality of the applicant’s circumstances.

The preamble to the final rule discusses various public benefits that officers may consider in a public charge determination. However, this is not legally binding. DHS states in the preamble that it “will consider the participation in means-tested child care, child development, and child education programs, including Head Start, and [Early Intervention] services, funded by the government” when received by immigrant children who are themselves subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility.

DHS also addresses situations in which an immigrant parent is subject to a public charge determination and their child participates in a means-tested, government-funded program. DHS states in the preamble that it “will also consider the children’s receipt of such benefits as part of the parents’ assets, resources, and financial status, if the children’s eligibility for the benefits is based on the parents’ income falling below a certain threshold.” However, receipt of benefits by a family member does not need to be reported on the adjustment of status form. Parents’ employment and earnings are also important components of the totality of circumstances determination.

In both scenarios, DHS also clarified in the preamble and in subsequent guidance that it will only consider receipt of means-tested child care, child development, and child education programs funded by the government on or after the effective date of the final rule.

What should early childhood partners communicate to providers, parents, and anyone else who works with immigrant families?

Partners who work with immigrant families will likely receive questions from parents who are concerned about their children’s use of benefits, or how accessing federally funded child care programs may affect their immigration status or citizenship application. To continue to serve as a trusted source of information, partners must be able to answer basic questions and point parents in the right direction for more complicated questions.

The use of public benefits alone does not automatically make you a public charge. The guidance is clear that benefit use is only one factor in a public charge determination.
It’s important to keep in mind that this policy change doesn’t directly impact many people in immigrant families. A number of immigration statuses are not included in public charge tests. Parents should seek legal advice if they have a question about whether they are subject to public charge rules.
Direct parents and families to reliable information, including legal expertise, that can give them specifics relevant to their status. These rules are complicated, and while we are working hard to provide the latest and most comprehensive guidance based on available information, we cannot provide legal advice. Community members should consult a trusted immigration attorney or accredited legal representative before making important decisions, especially before leaving the United States or applying for a green card. Families who don’t have a clear answer on applicability should be referred to legal support and reminded that they should do what is best for themselves and their families based on their individual circumstances.

Share resources with parents and families. Our goal is to make sure people have accurate and timely information so they can make informed decisions, not decisions based on fear or rumors.

Resources

Protecting Immigrant Families Coalition (PIF): Public Charge Toolkit
PIF: 2026 DHS Public Charge Rule FAQ
PIF: Public Charge ‘Does This Apply to Me?’
PIF: Public Charge: What Advocates Need to Know
CLASP: Safe Spaces Guide
CLASP fact sheet on immigrant eligibility for child care programs
CLASP blog on immigrant eligibility for child care programs
Online screening tool with state-specific resources to help community members and legal practitioners understand public charge applicability
NILC: Public Charge Applicability Tables
NAEYC blog on how new rule threatens immigrant families

This resource was developed in partnership with our colleagues at NAEYC.

By Shira Small

The Trump Administration continues to harm a child care and early education sector in desperate need of support. Recent efforts to weaken the programs meant to make child care more affordable and accessible are not new; the administration has only built on their destabilizing early education policies from year one in office. Through harmful regulatory action, illegal funding freezes, and unfounded fraud allegations, the Trump Administration has spent its second year continuing to dismantle the early childhood education programs children and families need most.

The child care sector is already on shaky ground: the average annual cost of child care has risen to $13,184, while only 1 in 6 children eligible for child care subsidies are able to access them, per the most recently available data. The rising cost of living is straining both families and the child care workforce, whose woefully low compensation drives turnover and attrition—especially for providers participating in the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), the primary federal funding stream for child care assistance.

Working to increase funding, center family and provider needs, and engage state and local systems to expand access to care would all be critical steps in addressing the affordability crisis. Instead, here is how the administration has targeted the child care and early education sector in 2026 so far:

Cast unfounded doubt on child care program integrity. In response to a YouTuber’s allegations of child care fraud in Minnesota, the Trump Administration illegally froze $10 billion in child care assistance funds and began requiring states to submit a “Defend the Spend” justification to access CCDF funds that Congress had already approved. The administration’s embrace of the unfounded influencer allegations initiated an avalanche of legislative and administrative attacks to CCDF, despite having no evidence of widespread fraud.
Catalyzed legislative action that focuses on influencer allegations, not the root causes of the child care crisis. Congress has devoted more attention to the child care fraud narrative than the child care affordability crisis that came before it. It has passed legislation, held hearings, launched taskforces, and initiated investigations on child care fraud that ignore the foundational challenge facing the sector—inadequate funding for a broken market. A core facet of the legislative response has been the conflation of improper payments and error rates with intentional fraud, wherein administrative processing errors are being used as evidence for a widespread, calculated abuse of public dollars, without regard for the existing program integrity protections in child care assistance.
Introduced regulations that weaken child care and early education programs.
- In January, the Trump Administration released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for CCDF proposing to repeal the Biden Administration’s 2024 requirements to limit family co-payments for child care at 7 percent; pay providers prospectively for their services; pay providers by their classroom enrollment rather than actual attendance; and use grants and contracts to help reach populations that have fewer care options. The rule was finalized in July.
- The administration has also released two proposed rules regarding Head Start:
  - One in June proposing to roll back Biden Administration requirements to increase Head Start staff pay and benefits in June.
  - One in August repealing nearly all of the Head Start Program Performance Standards, which provide guidance on how to ensure that families have robust access to Head Start’s comprehensive services.
- Combined with other sprawling regulatory actions meant to restrict any government agency’s access to funding if they implicate “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” these regulations all destabilize the early childhood sector and the critical government-funded programs that help families access the care they need.

Weakened trust in public benefits while limiting their own transparency. The administration’s rhetoric has also played into longstanding narratives meant to weaken trust in public benefits and the people who receive them, in order to justify gutting the programs that help families in need of support. While casting doubt on public benefit program integrity, the administration has reduced its own government transparency and was sued in July for failing to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request regarding their “Defend the Spend” policy and the January funding freeze.

Conclusion
The legislative and regulatory attacks to CCDF from the Trump Administration make one thing clear: they have no real solutions to the child care crisis. Instead of using their power to address skyrocketing costs for families and support a strained child care workforce, this administration has attempted to divert attention from their policy failures by weakening the public’s faith in public services and the public servants who administer them. Deregulation, attacks to program integrity, and attempts to censor the role that racial inequity plays in this country’s economy and history only amount to a destabilized sector, with parents still struggling to afford care and providers still not earning enough to provide it.

These attacks have real consequences for vulnerable families and an already fragile sector. Child care centers have been raided as a result of the administration’s rhetoric, and immigrant communities are being targeted and attacked, on top of the dangerous immigration policy agenda the administration was already leading. The result is communities in crisis, with families afraid to access the supports for which they’re eligible and the provider workforce shrinking further as immigrant early educators are attacked.

The child care and early education sector needs stronger investment and good-faith engagement from leaders who want the best for children, families, and providers, not the best for their political agenda.

The following statement can be attributed to Wendy Chun-Hoon, president and executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)

Washington, D.C., August 19, 2026—On September 15, the U.S. Census Bureau will release reports with national data on Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance for 2025. While we anticipate a slight rise in poverty across the board compared to the data from 2024, we know that next month’s numbers will serve as a bellwether for what’s coming.

The changes wrought by H.R.1, signed into law by President Trump in July 2025, are already taking effect in communities across the country. For example, Congress let the Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits expire last December when it passed H.R.1, pushing nearly three million people off their health insurance in early 2026. While the 2025 data don’t yet capture this drop in access to affordable health insurance for millions, we know that individuals and families are desperately struggling to pay for health care.

We should anticipate a rise in poverty for women, higher poverty for children of all races, and more poverty among immigrants, all driven by the many provisions in H.R.1 that are destabilizing families, such as the elimination of more than $200 billion in basic food assistance over the next decade. SNAP work requirements have also been tightened for elderly people and people with disabilities. Already, between October 2025 and February 2026, we’ve seen WIC participation decline by 250,000 people.

The administration’s relentless attacks on immigrants and their families will continue to have a chilling effect on access to the public benefit programs they are eligible for. This includes policymakers imposing significant eligibility restrictions on Medicaid, ACA, and SNAP for immigrants authorized to be in the U.S. In addition, immigration enforcement has created conditions in which workers lose wages and can fall into poverty if they stay home due to fear of ICE officers at workplaces.

While the administration and Congressional leaders have targeted immigrants in their slashing of social safety net programs, populations across the country are seeing their Medicaid, food assistance, and child care assistance gutted at the federal level in favor of funding military actions and aggressive immigration enforcement. We also know that last fall’s longest-ever government shutdown—a crisis manufactured by the White House and Congress—pushed countless people to the economic brink. Moreover, millions are living with the consequences of policy choices that have driven up inflation, driven down wages, and reduced funding for programs that meet basic needs. As a result, far too many people are taking on debt just to buy groceries and pay for the gas they need to commute to work.

We expect the September reports will show a wider gender pay gap and a rise in income inequality for Black households relative to white households. This phenomenon is largely driven by the disproportionate job losses experienced by Black women and the fact that it took Black women twice as long to find a job as white women in the second half of 2025. After attaining employment, Black women are paid less than their white peers, regardless of their educational level.

The Census reports will be much more than a look-back at the state of the country in 2025. Sadly, they will be a preview of the harm ahead for our communities because policymakers have chosen to enrich the wealthiest and finance a siege on immigrants over helping people meet their most basic, human needs. Poverty is the result of systemic failures, and our nation and the people who show up every day to make our economy work deserve better.

In recent years, states like New York and New Mexico have demonstrated that universal child care is possible. However, despite widespread awareness of the value of child care and positive progress at the state level, the Trump Administration has continued to dismantle the existing child care and early education system through funding freezes and fraud allegations. As a result, the administration has further destabilized an already fragile sector. But what if the fight to protect child care is also our opportunity to transform it?

CLASP’s next installment of Equity Matters, “What if the Current Fight to Protect Child Care is also an Opportunity to Transform it?” will examine what it means to build a truly equitable universal child care system—and why the building process matters as much as the vision itself.

Our panel of experts will discuss how meaningful engagement with families, providers, and other directly impacted communities—particularly communities of color, people with low incomes, and immigrants—strengthens policy design, informs implementation, and centers equity.

Attendees will gain a deeper understanding of why centering the leadership and expertise of those most impacted is essential to advancing racial equity and building a universal child care system that is just, inclusive, and responsive to all who rely on and sustain it.

Tune in on October 22 to learn more and join the conversation. We will share additional event details soon. In the meantime, please register below:

By Alecia Murray

What if the people most impacted by child care and early education policies helped design them?

This brief explores why systemic parent engagement is essential, how gaps at the federal level impact families locally, and why solutions like a state-level Parent Cabinet could transform how policy is shaped. This transformation is needed, because when parents move from being heard to having influence, systems do not just improve- they become more equitable, responsive, and effective.

View brief