By Ashley Burnside
As Congress works to advance the proposed budget reconciliation bill of 2025, CLASP’s series “The 2025 Budget Reconciliation’s Impact on People with Low Incomes” will examine the policies put forward that have particular resonance for children, families, and communities with low incomes. This is the fifth blog in the series.
On May 13-14, the House Ways and Means Committee met to mark up its portion of the reconciliation bill. The tax package that passed in 2017, which the reconciliation bill seeks to extend, was skewed to the wealthiest individuals and widened the racial wealth gap. Congressional leadership is using the same playbook now. The proposed tax package will continue to widen inequality by benefiting the wealthiest people and corporations by cutting critical health and nutrition programs that families rely on. It will also enforce harmful restrictions for families who file taxes with Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs), despite the fact that ITIN filers pay taxes and contribute substantially to our nation’s economy. No families should be left out of important tax credits simply because they don’t have a Social Security number.
Below, we take a closer look at some particularly harmful parts of the proposed bill.
CTC and Immigrant Children
The committee is considering changing the Child Tax Credit (CTC) so that only households where every member has a Social Security number would be eligible for the credit. In families where even just one parent has an ITIN, otherwise eligible children would no longer receive the CTC. This would restrict access to an estimated 4.5 million children who are U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. The bill also permanently restricts children who don’t have Social Security numbers from accessing the CTC, which is estimated to impact 1 million children.
All families who file a tax return and are otherwise eligible should be able to get the CTC, regardless of their immigration status. People with ITINs pay federal taxes — that’s why they have an ITIN number. This provision only perpetuates the myth that undocumented immigrants don’t pay taxes. In 2022, undocumented immigrants paid an estimated $59.4 billion in federal taxes and $37.3 billion in state and local taxes, totaling $96.7 billion. And in 40 states, undocumented immigrants pay higher state and local tax rates than the top 1 percent of households in the state.
CTC Leaves Behind Too Many Children
Policymakers have proposed raising the maximum CTC amount to $2,500 per child from tax years 2025 through 2028 and adjusting it to inflation. However, this will not address the equity gap in the CTC or most effectively reduce child poverty because children in families with very low incomes will continue to be left out of getting the full credit.
An estimated 17 million children don’t get the full CTC because their families don’t have high enough incomes. These children are disproportionately likely to be Black and Latino due to structural racism embedded within our nation’s labor market. In addition, 30 percent of children living in rural communities were not eligible for the full CTC because their families’ income was too low. If the maximum credit increases to $2,500 per child, an estimated 20 million children would not get the full credit.
Lawmakers should prioritize changes to the CTC that make the credit fully refundable and available to families with little to no earnings in the reconciliation package. This would be the most effective way to reduce child poverty. And there is precedent for bipartisan support for these reforms: Under last year’s Wyden-Smith proposal, lawmakers reached an agreement on CTC reforms that would have helped families with low incomes get a higher credit through increasing the credit available to families with low incomes and multiple children, and by removing the refundability cap.
Immigrant Eligibility for Health Programs
Undocumented immigrants are already restricted from coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and its premium tax credits, but the proposal goes further to restrict authorized immigrants from affordable health coverage. It establishes new restrictions for the Advanced Premium Tax Credit (APTC) for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders or individuals covered by or Deferred Enforced Departure (DED), individuals with humanitarian parole, or asylees or those with a pending asylum application.
This is significant because the APTC allows working-class families to better afford health coverage on the ACA Marketplace. Improved parental insurance coverage and health outcomes consistently benefit children in the short- and long-term through improved family health and financial security, just as a lack of health care coverage and the inability to afford medical costs lead to significant burdens on families.
Additionally, the bill strips Medicare coverage for older immigrants who have contributed to the program, often for decades, including TPS and DED holders, refugees, asylees, persons granted withholding of removal, individuals with humanitarian parole, and other immigrants authorized to be in the United States. People work and contribute to programs like Medicare with the expectation that they’ll have access to that support when they are older and retired. Pulling the rug out from under their feet will leave millions of older individuals and individuals with disabilities without coverage.
In addition to losing Medicare coverage and access to the APTC, the bill also strips coverage for lawfully present immigrants to even access the Marketplace coverage if they are under 100 percent of the federal poverty level, or roughly $32,000 for a family of four. This special exception was created because many lawfully present immigrants with low incomes are ineligible for Medicaid coverage. Removing this exception means that immigrants with low incomes would not be eligible for the ACA or Medicaid, denying them any pathway to affordable health coverage.
“No Tax on Tips” and “No Tax on Overtime” Policies
The bill’s attempt to prohibit tips from taxation is regressive and would reduce federal revenue. Workers who don’t pay federal taxes because they earn too little would largely miss out on the benefits of this proposal. The policy would affect payroll and income taxes by reducing what tipped workers pay into and get out of Social Security in retirement.
For its part, the “no tax on overtime” proposal would fully exclude overtime pay from federal income tax. Workers who earn too little to owe federal income tax—often people who are the lowest-paid and most economically vulnerable—receive no benefit at all, despite often working long or irregular hours. The proposal also assumes that all workers have equal access to overtime, but overtime opportunities are not evenly distributed. Workers in sectors like hospitality, caregiving, and retail, who are disproportionately women and people of color, often face unpredictable schedules and limited access to overtime. A truly worker-centered policy would expand access to overtime protections and provide refundable tax credits that reach workers regardless of income level or tax liability.
A Bill That Benefits the Wealthy
Republicans claim that this bill will help workers and families. But these proposed changes—along with tax breaks that reward ultra-wealthy corporations; proposals to exclude immigrant student borrowers and create financial incentives for students to pursue low-quality education programs; an end to the Direct File program; implementing complicated pre-certification requirements in the Earned Income Tax Credit; and punishing private postgraduate institutions that the Trump Administration considers too “woke”— make it clear that only the wealthy and corporations will truly benefit from the current version of the bill. The child care and paid leave provisions will not reach the people who would most benefit from them, and cannot compare to true investments in child care and paid leave.
If Congress votes to include these proposals in the final reconciliation bill, children and families will be worse off. These proposals will deepen income inequality, make it harder for people to access benefits they contribute to, and reward wealthy Americans and corporations at a time when everyday Americans are struggling.
By Teon Hayes
As Congress works to advance the proposed budget reconciliation bill of 2025, CLASP’s series “The 2025 Budget Reconciliation’s Impact on People with Low Incomes” will examine the policies put forward that have particular resonance for children, families, and communities with low incomes. This is the third blog in the series.
On May 13, the House Agriculture Committee met to mark up its portion of the GOP’s proposed reconciliation bill. One of the main issues under consideration is the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides food assistance to families with low incomes.
The proposed changes largely restrict access, tighten eligibility, and shift administrative costs from the federal government to the states. If enacted, this will amount to the largest cut in the program’s history.
Implementing Strict Work Requirements
Most adults who use SNAP either are already working but in jobs that pay low wages and offer unstable hours. They could also be briefly between jobs, have a disability, and/or have significant caregiving responsibilities. The House Agriculture bill proposes raising the age for work requirements from 54 to 64 for able-bodied adults without dependents and redefines “dependent child” to include any child under seven, instead of under 18. It also limits the USDA’s ability to approve state waivers for work requirements only in areas with over a 10 percent unemployment rate and reduces the allowable exempt population from 8 percent to 1 percent. This means that more caregivers and older adults are expected to work to receive SNAP, a change that may disproportionately affect Black and brown families, especially single mothers with school-aged children.
This heartless provision jeopardizes the livelihoods of 6 million adults by putting them at risk of losing SNAP benefits entirely. It could also reduce food assistance for an additional 5 million people in their households, including more than 4 million children between the ages of 7 and 17. That’s about 11 million people in total. Cuts of this scale would have devastating consequences for the most vulnerable. Families in areas with high unemployment could lose protections due to stricter waiver rules, and it would be more difficult for states to protect vulnerable populations during economic downturns or in areas with unemployment rates that are high but not extreme. Simply looking for work doesn’t count toward the requirement, and many unemployed individuals need more than the allotted three months to secure a job, even in strong labor markets.
Research shows that work requirements do not lead to stable jobs or economic security but, rather, cause a large decline in program participation. Work requirements don’t address the real barriers that keep people from finding stable employment—they ignore systemic issues like racial discrimination, lack of child care and transportation, and the shortage of living-wage jobs. Therefore, work requirements push people deeper into a cycle of low-wage, volatile, unstable work. These policies have roots in harmful, racially charged narratives about who is “deserving” of help—narratives that have long targeted Black and brown communities. Work requirements make public benefits more complicated to access and add unnecessary burdens for people who need food. They also cost states millions of dollars. When Arkansas implemented work requirements for Medicaid, the policy ended up costing the state and federal government $26.1 million without achieving its intended employment goals. Basic, life-sustaining support should not depend on meeting a work requirement.
State Match
Currently, the federal government covers 100 percent of SNAP benefits, while states share administrative costs, which are typically split 50/50 with the federal government. The proposed reconciliation bill would require states to gradually cover a minimum of 5 percent of SNAP benefits starting in fiscal year (FY) 2028. States with high SNAP error rates would pay up to 25 percent. The federal share of administrative costs would drop from 50 percent to 25 percent, with states having to contribute up to 75 percent of these costs.
This shift would push states into a cost-containment mindset, giving them financial incentives to restrict eligibility and reduce participation, even if the need for benefits remains high. It would also cost states hundreds of millions of dollars at a time when their budgets are under strain and could lead to stricter eligibility rules, reduced benefit amounts, or both, as well as reduced staffing, services, and program access at state agencies. States that struggle to cover their share may be forced to limit participation, making it harder for families striving for economic security to access the nutrition they need to stay healthy and financially stable. While this change would impact all states, large states like Texas and California, and poor states, primarily in the Deep South, would be disproportionately affected.
Restricting Thrifty Food Plan Updates
This bill also seeks to permanently freeze the Thrifty Food Program (TFP) and adjust it only for inflation. This proposal would lock SNAP benefits to outdated food cost estimates, ignoring both scientific evidence and the actual cost of a healthy diet. This would prevent benefits from keeping pace with rising food prices—repeating the same shortcomings seen during the 50 years before the 2021 update. Even after that update, SNAP benefits remain modest, increasing from just $4.80 to $6.20 per person, per day. As food prices continue to rise and funding for food assistance programs is reduced nationwide, families will be left without enough support to put food on the table, and with fewer community resources like food banks to help fill the gap.
Restricting Immigrant Eligibility
The proposed legislation would deny food benefits to all non-citizens who are not lawful permanent residents, including refugees and people who have been granted asylum. These two categories of immigrants were exempted from restrictions enacted in 1996. In FY23, 434,000 refugees and asylees participated in SNAP.
It’s essential to understand that asylees and refugees have fled persecution and violence, and often carry deep trauma. Instead of supporting their healing, policies that restrict access to food only add to their stress and hardship. In addition, this proposal creates fear and confusion, discouraging even eligible immigrants and U.S. citizen children from accessing food assistance. When immigrant families avoid programs like SNAP due to fear, it deepens hunger and poverty. This change would have a particularly chilling effect on SNAP enrollment among immigrant communities. It could also cause mixed-status families to lose benefits or face confusion and fear around eligibility.
We must remember the human lives behind these numbers. These harmful cuts will directly impact hardworking adults, parents, children, seniors, and people with disabilities—those who already face some of the most significant barriers to stability. Black and brown communities, who have long been marginalized and disproportionately affected by hunger and poverty, will bear the brunt of these changes. Hunger and access to food should never be treated as political bargaining chips. It is the duty of our elected leaders to protect and uplift the communities they serve. This reconciliation bill does the opposite. It reflects priorities that are out of step with justice, compassion, and basic human dignity, and we must demand better.
CLASP submitted this statement for the record in response to the United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions “Hearing on Fiscal Year 2026 Department of Health and Human Services Budget.”
CLASP submitted this statement for the record in response to the May 14, 2025 “Budget Hearing-Health and Human Services” of the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations.
By Wendy Cervantes
This week, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear oral arguments on Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order (EO). Issued on the first day of the Trump Administration, the EO is an attempt to deny birthright citizenship to babies born without at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident.
Birthright citizenship has long been a constitutional right of every child born in this country. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment overturned SCOTUS’s 1857 ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which had denied U.S.-born children of African Americans the right to citizenship. The Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark also confirmed that the right to U.S. citizenship also applies to children of immigrants born in the U.S. The enshrinement of birthright citizenship in our Constitution has helped to ensure that for over a century our youngest children are protected from the prejudices of the day, including the current xenophobic, anti-immigrant agenda of certain policymakers.
Before reaching SCOTUS, Trump’s EO has been rejected by every federal court that has addressed it and is blocked from going into effect nationwide. The first ruling came from Judge Coughenour, who was nominated to the bench by President Reagan in 1981. In describing the EO, he said,
“I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as it is here. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
In the weeks that followed, other federal courts also blocked President Trump’s EO.
The principles behind birthright citizenship are rooted in the belief that every child deserves the rights and protections necessary to grow and thrive from birth. Denying citizenship to newborns of undocumented or other noncitizen parents would have profound negative consequences for generations. In an amicus brief on behalf of 96 social science scholars, the experts argue that ending birthright citizenship through Trump’s EO would “cause serious harm, not only to U.S. immigrants and their children, but also to the entire United States.” Additionally, new research from the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) finds that ending birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children with parents who are either unauthorized or are temporary immigrants would increase the unauthorized population by an additional 2.7 million by 2045 and by 5.4 million by 2075.
The consequences children and families would suffer if birthright citizenship were repealed include:
Birthright citizenship is fundamental to ensuring that our youngest citizens are afforded the rights and benefits they deserve from the moment they are born. The research is clear that consistent, reliable access to essential services coupled with the freedom to live without fear of immigration enforcement or family separation is essential to children’s well-being. Denying birthright citizenship to babies would significantly harm newborns, families, and communities.
By Juan Carlos Gomez and Sarah Erdreich
As Congress works to advance the proposed budget reconciliation bill of 2025, CLASP’s series “The 2025 Budget Reconciliation’s Impact on People with Low Incomes” will examine the policies put forward that have particular resonance for children, families, and communities with low incomes. This is the first blog in the series.
On April 30, the House Judiciary Committee met to mark up its portion of the GOP’s proposed reconciliation bill. During the nine-hour session, Democrats offered amendments to, among other things, prevent the deportation of U.S. citizen children, ensure that children have access to counsel, and prevent funds from being used for immigration enforcement activities in elementary schools—while Republicans remained largely silent. All of these amendments failed, and the committee voted 23-17 along party lines to advance the legislation.
As it stands now, this legislation will significantly increase the authority of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); expand detention facilities, including family detention facilities; and impose exorbitant fees for immigrants who are trying to stay in or adjust their status in the United States. All of these policies are harmful not just for immigrants and their families, but to the country as a whole.
CLASP research from the first Trump Administration showed how deeply enforcement activities negatively impacted children. Educators and parents observed high rates of depression, anxiety, and fear among children and increased housing instability and economic hardship among families. This, in turn, affected the communities in which immigrant families lived and worked. Allowing ICE to conduct enforcement activities in spaces where young children are present will only destabilize families and communities that are already reeling from the administration’s relentless and indiscriminate assault on immigrants, mixed-status families, and U.S. citizen children.
Likewise, the expansion of family detention means that children could be indefinitely detained, and unaccompanied children could be detained for long periods of time. No amount of detention is appropriate for children, and this expansion does not comply with decades of policy to ensure protections for children in federal custody. The expansion also shows no consideration for victims of trafficking, who would not be screened and given appropriate services.
The legislation’s inclusion of steep fees also represents a wealth test for immigrants, their families, and their communities. These fees will be a barrier to reuniting unaccompanied children with their families, and will also make it difficult for eligible immigrants to apply for asylum, adjust their status, and keep their work permits, ultimately denying people peace of mind and the ability to provide for their families.
We are only at the beginning of the markup period, and any reconciliation bill that passes the House will still have to make it through the Senate. But it is worth noting that the GOP is intent on increasing funding for immigration enforcement and included $51.6 billion for a border wall and other resources for Customs and Border Protection in the House Homeland Security markup. This increased funding comes at the cost of cutting programs U.S. citizens benefit from, such as Medicaid and SNAP, and leaving millions of children, families, senior citizens, and disabled individuals without health insurance and access to food.
By Alyssa Fortner
Child care enables parents and caregivers to participate in the workforce, attend school and training programs, and take care of other responsibilities while their children are cared for in safe and stable early education programs. Despite its value, child care has historically been underfunded and inaccessible for the majority of those who need it. Because of this, the funding that states receive through the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), the main federal funding source to support families with low incomes in accessing child care, is a vital support for many across the country.
CCDF funding is provided through mandatory funding in the Social Security Act—referred to as the Child Care Entitlement to States—and discretionary funding in the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act (CCDBG) of 1990. States can receive additional child care funding through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). Under CCDF, the amount of money each state receives annually is calculated using a formula that considers factors including the number of children receiving free or reduced-price lunches, the state share of children younger than five, and the state’s per capita income.
However, Congress has never adequately funded this program to serve all eligible children. For example, in CLASP’s most recent estimate, only 14 percent—or 1 in 7 children—had access to a CCDF subsidy based on state income eligibility requirements. Limited federal investments in state child care systems mean that far too many families are not getting the critical support that they need.
The historical inequities and systemic racism that plague the child care sector create additional barriers for families of color, including those who are eligible for CCDF. These barriers stem from a long history of policies and practices that often excluded, marginalized, or disproportionately harmed people of color. These impacts continue to be felt in many ways, including in the idea of who deserves care; difficult eligibility requirements; inequitable access to child care subsidies across racial and ethnic groups; and poverty-level wages for early educators of color, particularly Black and Hispanic providers. Working in child care often means low wages, a lack of benefits, and a physical and emotional toll on providers, all of which have created retention and recruitment challenges. This, in turn, has led to persistent shortages in the child care workforce—which further impacts access to care for families and the ability of providers to stay in a role they are passionate about. The impacts of this history have only continued to intensify and became increasingly evident due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
By Alyssa Fortner
Child care enables parents and caregivers to participate in the workforce, attend school and training programs, and take care of other responsibilities while their children are cared for in safe and stable early education programs. Despite its value, child care has historically been underfunded and inaccessible for the majority of those who need it. Because of this, the funding that states receive through the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), the main federal funding source to support families with low incomes in accessing child care, is a vital support for many across the country.
CCDF funding is provided through mandatory funding in the Social Security Act—referred to as the Child Care Entitlement to States—and discretionary funding in the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act (CCDBG) of 1990. States can receive additional child care funding through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). Under CCDF, the amount of money each state receives annually is calculated using a formula that considers factors like the number of children receiving free or reduced-price lunches, the state share of children younger than five, and the state’s per capita income.
However, Congress has never funded this program adequately to serve all eligible children. For example, in CLASP’s most recent estimate, only 14 percent—or 1 in 7 children—had access to a CCDF subsidy based on state income eligibility requirements. Limited federal investments in state child care systems mean that far too many families are not getting the critical support that they need. Additionally, the providers who accept these subsidies are receiving low reimbursement rates.
The historical inequities and systemic racism that plague the child care system creates additional barriers for eligible families of color. These barriers stem from a long history of policies and practices that often excluded, marginalized, or disproportionately harmed people of color. These impacts continue to be felt in many ways, including in the idea of who deserves care; difficult eligibility requirements; inequitable access to child care subsidies across racial and ethnic groups; and poverty-level wages for early educators of color, particularly Black and Hispanic providers. Working in child care often means low wages, a lack of benefits, and a physical and emotional toll, all of which have created retention and recruitment challenges. This, in turn, has led to a persistent shortage of the child care workforce—which further impacts access to care for families and the ability of providers to stay in a role they are passionate about. The impacts of this history have only continued to intensify and became increasingly evident due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
This statement can be attributed to Cemeré James, interim executive director and president of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), and Wendy Chun-Hoon, incoming executive director and president of CLASP.
Washington, D.C., April 28, 2025—For over 50 years, the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) has worked to advance policies that support children, families, and individuals with low incomes, as well as people of color, immigrants, and other historically marginalized communities. In the first hundred days of President Trump’s second term, we have witnessed unprecedented threats to health, stability, security, and fundamental freedoms—disproportionately harming the most vulnerable. Efforts to dismantle the federal government put all of us at risk. Now, more than ever, our ability to understand, measure, and respond to these risks is critical.
In response, CLASP has launched a new tracker that compiles and updates the harmful actions taken by the Trump Administration—particularly through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by unelected billionaire Elon Musk—to dismantle the federal government. We will update the tracker weekly, as DOGE announces new directives and layoffs.
DOGE’s actions are having an immediate and devastating impact on workers, families, communities, and the government’s ability to function.
The harm includes:
History shows that an informed, engaged public is key to driving social change and economic stability. In a time of confusion and fear, this tracker helps cut through the chaos, offering clear, digestible information so communities can strategize and protect those most affected.
While CLASP’s mission focuses on marginalized communities, the tracker shows that these cuts impact people across all demographics. Children and families who rely on programs that support basic needs are already feeling the effects, but the federal workforce is also being hollowed out at an alarming rate.
DOGE’s so-called “efficiency” is a thinly veiled attempt to gut programs without Congressional oversight—benefiting Musk and fellow billionaires while destabilizing public services. The skilled civil servants who’ve dedicated their careers to making government work are being pushed out, their expertise dismissed.
We hope this tracker, alongside the work of our partners, shines a light on the real-world impacts of these cuts. CLASP remains committed to lifting the voices of those most affected and fighting for policies that truly support workers, families, and communities.
By Shira Small
The Trump Administration’s cuts to federal child care and early education programs and staff are putting children, families, and the economy at risk. Children are already losing access to care, the remaining federal workforce is overburdened, child care providers are losing their jobs, communication channels are being eliminated, and parents are experiencing uncertainty over whether they will have care tomorrow. All of this upheaval only exacerbates the existing access and affordability crisis facing the child care sector, particularly for families with low incomes and families of color who face disproportionate barriers to access as the result of systemic racial and economic injustice.
The chaos began in late January when the administration froze federal funding, which locked Head Start providers and Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) administrators out of the websites they use to access grants. This contributed to dozens of Head Start programs closing temporarily. Though the funds were restored, program administrators received limited to no communication about whether they would be able to access the grants needed to keep their programs open and their providers paid.
In the months that followed, the administration took a number of additional actions that are harming programs, families, and providers, including:
Laying off federal employees. Probationary staff at the Office of Head Start (OHS) and the Office of Child Care (OCC) were laid off in February, resulting in a reduction of approximately 20 percent of staff. This was followed by the mass layoffs announced on April 1, resulting in an overall reduction of 40-50 percent of staff in OHS and OCC and the closure of five regional offices, which provided training and technical assistance, administrative support in ensuring grants reached facilities, and served as a liaison between program administrators and the federal government. These offices in Boston, Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle oversaw grantees in 23 states and five territories, and comprised half of the total regional offices across the country.
Impounding funds. Recent data shows that nearly $1 billion fewer dollars have been disseminated to Head Start programs compared to this time last year. The exact cause for this is unclear. Whether this is an intentional decision or the result federal workforce cuts, the reduction causes confusion and strain for already underfunded programs.
An Executive Order targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Head Start grantees received a directive in mid-March from the Acting Assistant Secretary at the Administration for Children and Families saying that no funds will be approved for program expenditures that promote or take part in diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Given Head Start’s core commitment to these values, it is unclear what the implications will be for the children, families, and staff in their programs.
Proposing the elimination of Head Start. Recent news indicates that President Trump will propose complete elimination of Head Start in his forthcoming Fiscal Year 2026 budget proposal.
Children and families are paying the price for these actions. Head Start serves over 750,000 children and CCDF, administered within OCC, subsidizes care for 1.4 million children annually, according to the most recent available data. Longstanding economic and racial inequities mean that families of color, particularly Black and Latino families, will be hit the hardest by these cuts, compounded by the administration’s degradation and removal of DEI programs that are intended to advance equity.
We are already seeing the direct impacts on children and families. Head Start programs in Washington have had to shut down because of the loss of federal support. As a result, 400 preschool children are without care and 70 staff members have been laid off. Even more children are at risk of losing care as the House and Senate make decisions on which programs will be impacted by the recently passed budget resolution, which calls on committees to slash funding for programs supporting families with low incomes to fund tax breaks for the wealthy. These cuts are attacks on families with low incomes, the child care workforce, and the economy, and Congress must push back.
The child care sector is one of many under assault by the current administration, and widespread federal funding cuts and layoffs will only worsen existing racial and economic inequalities. The racial wealth gap is widening, wealth inequality is growing, and the cost of living is rising — and the Trump Administration is eliminating the policies that support families with low incomes and families who face racial injustice. This administration may want to enrich the wealthy, but CLASP is fighting back to defend the programs that help children and families thrive.