This statement can be attributed to Wendy Chun-Hoon, executive director and president of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP).
Washington, D.C., June 9, 2025— CLASP is outraged by the Los Angeles ICE raids and the unlawful arrest of David Huerta, president of SEIU-USWW, over the weekend. Huerta was assaulted, injured, and detained while advocating for immigrant workers.
The LAPD violated L.A.’s status as a sanctuary city by assisting federal ICE agents in terrorizing neighborhoods, impeding people from going to work, attending their children’s graduations, and taking care of their families. Protests erupted on Friday in Los Angeles after at least 44 people were arrested by federal immigration agents that day. As a result, President Trump unilaterally deployed 2,000 National Guard members without consulting California officials to respond to the protests, violating the right to protest by using tear gas and other means to injure protestors.
Immigration enforcement actions like these tear families apart and traumatize children. Research, including CLASP’s 2018 study on the impact of immigration policies on young children, has found that separation from a parent due to detention or deportation causes long-term harm to the health, economic security, and overall well-being of children, including U.S. citizen children. Massive raids also put an unnecessary strain on communities, including schools, child care providers, faith-based institutions, and other organizations that serve immigrant children and families. The administration’s actions in Los Angeles are yet another alarming example of its willingness to inflict terror across our communities and undermine the constitutional rights of citizens and noncitizens alike.
The unlawful arrest, assault, and detainment of David Huerta for engaging in peaceful protest on behalf of immigrant workers’ rights is a violation of his constitutional rights. As SEIU California president, he was practicing solidarity to defend fellow workers. His arrest is an attack on communities, workers, and our First Amendment rights.
We call on Congress and policymakers across the country to demand the release of Mr. Huerta and others arrested for protesting ICE’s actions, reject the administration’s lawless and reckless actions, and commit to protecting immigrant families and our Constitution.
This statement can be attributed to Wendy Chun-Hoon, executive director and president of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP).
Washington, D.C., June 5, 2025—Late last week, President Trump sent details of his 2026 budget proposal to Congress. This document makes no secret of Trump’s disregard for children, families, immigrants, and workers, all of whom would be grievously harmed by his proposal.
Trump’s proposed budget slashes $12 billion from federal education programs; $5 billion from agriculture programs and initiatives; $4.6 billion from the Department of Labor (representing more than a third of the department’s total budget); and more than $60 billion from health, housing, and community development work, including $1.1 billion from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The proposed budget would also more than double funding for the Department of Homeland Security, in order to fund mass deportation and family separations.
This draconian budget would harm millions of people who are already forced to live on the margins. Among those who would be adversely affected by these cuts are students with low incomes trying to earn a degree, people who rely on housing choice vouchers or public housing for shelter, immigrant families who will be driven even further into the shadows, workers seeking to unionize for fair wages, and working families who need affordable child care.
It’s also notable that funding cuts to the IRS will greatly reduce the agency’s capacity to ensure that the wealthiest are paying their fair share of taxes.
Trump’s proposed budget clearly shows that his administration’s main priorities are attacking diversity, funding massive tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy, and laying waste to the services, initiatives, and programs that have enriched the lives of Americans for generations. This budget, coupled with cuts to Medicaid and SNAP in the reconciliation bill, will deepen poverty and exacerbate inequality. CLASP calls on Congress to reject the Trump budget and support policies that truly support children, families, and communities across the country.
This statement can be attributed to Wendy Chun-Hoon, executive director and president of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP).
Washington, D.C., May 22, 2025—CLASP is outraged that the U.S. House of Representatives voted today to pass its reconciliation bill. This bill guts health care, restricts access to food, sacrifices our higher education system, and punishes immigrant families, all to provide more tax breaks for wealthy people and corporations. The legislation will now go to the Senate, where further changes are expected to be made.
The reconciliation bill contains numerous policies that will make life even more difficult for millions of children, families, and people living on the margins. Cuts to essential benefit programs will cause disproportionate hardship to communities of color, individuals with disabilities, immigrants, U.S. citizen children with one or more undocumented parents, and college students with low incomes. If signed into law, states across the country will see costs shift to them as the federal government pulls back funding for important programs. This will negatively impact state budgets and force states to push people off Medicaid, SNAP, and end other public services.
Proposed changes to the Child Tax Credit could lead to an estimated 4.5 million children who are U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents no longer benefiting from this credit. Medicaid could see $715 billion in cuts, and an estimated 13.7 million people are at risk of losing health insurance. The new provisions to SNAP would cut nearly $300 billion from the program—marking the largest reduction in its history—meaning 11 million adults and children may receive less food assistance or lose it entirely. A proposed increase of $45 billion in funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement puts millions of mixed-status immigrant families at risk of being detained and deported as part of the administration’s devastating mass deportation plan. And education-related cuts include severe restrictions on federal student aid for students with low incomes.
These numbers only include people who will be directly harmed by funding cuts. They don’t account for the local economies that will be destabilized by residents having to choose between buying groceries or paying rent, missing work out of fear of immigration raids, or forgoing needed health care because they are no longer covered by Medicaid or afraid to access it even if they are eligible.
Millions of families will lose their health care, access to food, and the Child Tax Credit if this bill is passed into law, and more immigrant children and families will suffer long-term harm. CLASP is opposed to this bill and calls on the Senate to do everything it can to stop this bill from becoming law.
CLASP’s budget reconciliation blog series examines the policies put forward that have particular resonance for children, families, and communities with low incomes. The series can be found here.
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 Christian Collins 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 the children, families, and communities with low incomes. This is the second blog in the series.
On April 29, the House Education & Workforce committee marked up its portion of the House’s reconciliation bill. The committee voted to advance the legislation, which makes drastic changes to Department of Education programs and initiatives, by a party-line vote of 21-14.
Republicans claim that their legislation will save over $330 billion and make federal education policy more effective. But the details of this plan make it clear that the GOP is sacrificing the future of the country for working people to fund planned tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy. Below, we examine some of the most concerning proposals.
Pell Grants
The committee’s bill would increase funding for the Pell Grants program by $10.5 billion from fiscal year (FY) 2026 to FY2028. However, students would need to take at least 15 credit hours each semester to maintain eligibility, up from the current requirement of at least 12 credit hours per semester. This change would place an unnecessary burden on students who also work, parent, or have other time-consuming responsibilities in addition to pursuing a degree in higher education. As a result, fewer students would be eligible for Pell grants.
Student Loans and Financial Aid
The bill also changes how student loan programs would operate, including ending subsidized loans altogether and causing loan interest to accumulate immediately. In addition, schools would be required to repay a portion of their students’ loans if the students miss payments. Moreover, federal aid would be eliminated if the number of students who miss payments is considered too high. According to the committee’s own data, 98 percent of institutions would have to make these payments, and 75 percent would experience a net loss of federal funding, even factoring in the performance-based incentives and grants included in this bill.
Republicans claim that this will impel schools to put more effort into ensuring their graduates find high-quality jobs. This assertion ignores the fact that schools with higher populations of students having low incomes are more likely to need student loans in the first place, will be disproportionately at risk of losing federal funding, and may be reluctant to even consider accepting students who need aid.
It is also notable that this Republican proposal would change the way that financial aid eligibility is determined. Currently, the amount of federal aid a student receives is based on the cost of attending the school in which they plan to enroll. This new proposal would base the amount on the median cost of attending a similar program nationally. However, no clarity was offered as to how the Department of Education will determine median costs; if they have the workforce to do this, given widespread cuts at the department; and how this would be enforced if the GOP makes good on Donald Trump’s oft-stated vow to dismantle the department altogether.
Loan Forgiveness
Access to all existing income-based plans would be eliminated and replaced with a new “Repayment Assistance Plan,” which could cause borrowers to see a disproportionate spike in their monthly payment whenever they move across the proposal’s arbitrary income thresholds. The bill also proposes collapsing the current standard, graduated, and extended repayment plans into a single “standard” plan with varying repayment lengths based on a borrower’s loan balance. These changes would leave borrowers paying more per month, becoming more likely to land in defaults, and ultimately affect the economic security of millions of borrowers.
The Republican proposal on behalf of the House Education & Workforce Committee is nothing more than a brazen sacrifice of our higher education system to further enrich the wealthy through tax cuts. These measures do not increase educational access for students, make investments into institutions that reflect their role as a public good, or adequately address the growing national concern around student debt. Republicans claim that American higher education needs fiscal reform to maintain future sustainability, but they have only presented policies meant to decimate the system and ensure that only students who are already wealthy can earn degrees.
By Christian Collins
Athletic conferences are arguably the greatest existing system of collaboration between universities. These conferences are specifically designed to foster partnerships between schools that otherwise compete against each other for students, funding, and survival. Of the nearly 5,900 total Title IV higher education institutions across the United States, 1,097 Division I, Division II, and Division III members are already organized through National Collegiate Athletic Association conferences.
This collaboration has particular resonance now, as the Trump Administration has unleashed a ceaseless wave of weaponized policy meant to crush higher education. Surviving this unprecedented challenge calls for unique solutions from institutions to preserve American higher education through their endowments. Colleges and universities across the country have thus far hesitated to use those funds for their own protection—but the Rutgers University faculty senate presented a proposal that is a necessary and natural extension of the athletic conference partnership and offers a potential blueprint for protecting higher education.
Back in March, Rutgers’s faculty senate passed a resolution requesting that the university president formally call a meeting between all 18 member institutions of the Big Ten Academic Alliance (BTAA) and “propose and help establish a Mutual Academic Defense Compact among all members of the Big Ten Academic Alliance.” Versions of this proposal have since been passed by faculty senates at half of the BTAA member institutions and counting.
This “compact” would essentially operate as a mutual aid fund where members pool resources to protect each other when facing attacks from policymakers. Though 16 of the 18 current BTAA members are public institutions, the Alliance itself operates independently of direct policymaker control and thus has more flexibility in rapid response actions.
The Trump administration has created multiple existential crises for American higher education, including lackluster institutional leadership. Administrators seeking to protect students from policy threats are embracing a strategy of quiet resistance involving behind-the-scenes lobbying and assisting in active lawsuits against the administration. While these are valid courses of action, they fail to consider calls from students and the higher education workforce for their leaders to be more public-facing and forthright in countering the ways the administration is deliberately violating the law. These failures, in turn, cede media coverage to institutions openly complying with unlawful actions. In contrast, the academic workforces on campuses across the country have shown a far greater level of public resistance to the Trump administration through visceral protests and organizing days of action, filing lawsuits that institutional administrators showcase despite having far more personal and professional risk, and leading the call of boycotting institutions willingly exposing their students to threats.
The Rutgers proposal provides specific protections that exemplify the holistic impact of public flagships and would be the exact strong public showing of resistance from institutions that their students and workforces are desperately seeking. Participating institutions would commit resources to a shared defense fund used to provide immediate and strategic support to any member institution under direct political or legal infringement. The fund would also provide legal counsel, governance experts, and public affairs offices to coordinate a unified and vigorous response to threats, including legal actions, legislative and public advocacy, and research tools.
For fiscal year 2024, the combined endowments of BTAA institutions and related foundations totaled just under $113 billion,[1] representing the significant resources already available across the Alliance to protect each other. All the institutions also provide invaluable resources to their communities and the country through their medical research and health care services, the number of jobs they provide, and their chief mission of generating positive social mobility for all students.
The Rutgers faculty is leading this endeavor because tenured faculty, non-tenured faculty, and graduate students are unionized together, demonstrating how leadership can still come from campus employees even if it won’t come from campus leadership. Solidarity is the key aspect of resistance against authoritarian assaults on democracy, which is understood by campus workforces calling on their institutions to “find their spines” and lead resistance efforts.
Beyond the specifics of protecting each other against the Trump administration, the Rutgers proposal is an opportunity for public flagships to reclaim their role as leaders in higher education. The administration has shown no signs of halting its extortion of institutions, while Congress and state policymakers are preparing their own pathways to dismantling public education. Institutions have been given a viable strategy from their own academic workforce to protect their students and communities through a model that other universities across the country can easily adopt and expand. They must act before American higher education becomes too damaged to repair.
—-
[1] This figure was reached by using the following sources: “Public NCSE Tables,” National Association of College and University Business Officers, February 26, 2025, https://www.nacubo.org/Research/2024/Public-NCSE-Tables; “University of California Annual Endowment Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024” University of California, https://www.ucop.edu/investment-office/investment-reports/annual-reports/annual-endwoment-report-fy-2023-2024.pdf; “WFAA Annual Update,” Wisconsin Foundation & Alumni Association, University of Wisconsin-Madison, https://www.advanceuw.org/annual-report/; and “2024 Consolidated Endowment Fund (CEF) Annual Report,” University of Washington, https://finance.uw.edu/treasury/cef2024
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 Rachel West
(Excerpt)
Nearly four million Pennsylvania workers—66 percent—currently lack paid family and medical leave from their employer. That means each year, hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians need to take time off to care for themselves or a loved one, but cannot do so. And those who do, yet must take unpaid or partially paid leave, lose out on $2 billion in wages every year, according to the Center for Law and Social Policy.
By Lulit Shewan
The Trump Administration has nominated Crystal Carey, an attorney at Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, as General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This nomination is a direct attack on worker’s rights. Carey has spent her career defending employers and challenging the existence of the NLRB as a whole. Her confirmation would severely weaken the NLRB’s ability to safeguard workers, protect collective bargaining and fair working conditions, and uphold fair labor practices, as well as shift the balance of power even further in favor of corporations.
At Morgan Lewis, Carey oversees efforts to dismantle workers’ rights throughout the country, including the particularly alarming pursuit to declare the NLRB unconstitutional. She supports captive-audience meetings and has defended the employer practice of spreading negative claims about unionization in the workplace. Carey also advocates limiting corporate oversight and mitigating union growth, stances that are bound to be reflected in the NLRB’s enforcement priorities upon her confirmation.
Morgan Lewis is one of the largest and most powerful employer-favoring law firms in the country. It currently represents large corporations known for violating workers’ rights, including Amazon, SpaceX, Apple, and Tesla. The firm is expressly anti-union and has a storied history of opposition to organized labor. Morgan Lewis attorneys have extensive expertise fighting against unions in NLRB elections, vehemently backing large corporations in worker-led job quality lawsuits and advocating for tactics that suppress unionization.
The firm also had strong links to Trump’s anti-union NLRB during his first term. Former firm employees John Ring and Phil Miscimarra both served as NLRB chairs during Trump’s first term, and both have spoken out in favor of regressive union certification policies with the backing of their firm.
The General Counsel plays a critical role within the NLRB, overseeing the investigation and prosecution of labor violations across the country and setting its overall agenda for changes to labor policy and enforcement priorities. Given this positionality, Carey’s nomination is a clear indication of the direction that Trump’s NLRB is moving toward— an agency that operates with evident bias toward bolstering corporate power and determination.
Carey’s confirmation is an essential part of ongoing administrative efforts to decimate union and worker power. Prior to her nomination, the administration pushed for the discriminatory firing of Board chair and career labor representative Gwynne Wilcox. Just a week after her nomination, the NLRB froze two legal cases against Apple addressing the corporation’s unlawful interference with employee unionization efforts, one of which was due for a hearing this month. Carey is listed in the agency’s records as an attorney acting in Apple’s defense in both cases.
Acting Counsel William Cowen has already helped further the Trump Administration’s reshaping of labor law. He rescinded a series of memoranda issued by his predecessor, Jennifer Abruzzo, including regarding remedies, rights of college athletes, restrictive covenants, and union recognition; and also withdrew several exceptions to administrative law judges’ decisions filed under Abruzzo’s tenure that sought precedent shifts. Likewise, Carey would interpret the NLRB in a way that aligns more closely with employer interests, advancing cases and arguments that give the Board opportunities to change the law and return to more corporate-friendly standards.
As national union density struggles to see growth, the policy direction of General Counsel of the NLRB is a powerful determinant in the future of organizing efforts and working-class autonomy. CLASP unequivocally believes that the confirmation of Crystal Carey is a substantial marker of regression for the labor movement.