By Teon Hayes
Black women in America are more than three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications than their White, Latina, and Asian counterparts—a devastating disparity rooted in this country’s systemic failures.1 Even more troubling, this heightened risk persists regardless of income or education, proving that both individual and systemic racism is the driving force behind these outcomes. No matter how “successful” a Black woman may be, she is still more likely to lose her life during pregnancy, childbirth, or the postpartum period.
As a Black woman who recently gave birth, I know this fear intimately. It was terrifying to know that there were forces far beyond my control that could have a fatal impact on both me and my son. No one should have to carry that fear while preparing to bring new life into the world. This stark statistic has become a rallying cry in health equity circles, sparking overdue attention to racism in maternal care. But one critical factor remains overlooked in too many of these conversations: food insecurity.
The nation’s food system is facing serious threats. In just the past year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture ended funding for several local and regional food programs that helped bring fresh, affordable food to communities in need. Current budget reconciliation proposals include hundreds of billions in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is the nation’s largest anti-hunger program. At the same time, the President’s budget for fiscal year 2026 calls for deep cuts to WIC, a vital source of nutrition support for pregnant women, infants, and young children.
These attacks on the nation’s food system come amid rising living costs and in the midst of a deepening Black maternal health crisis. If this trajectory continues, it will further impact the communities already facing the highest maternal mortality rates and could drive those numbers even higher.
Food insecurity or the lack of consistent access to enough food for an active, healthy life is not just a symptom of poverty; it’s a silent force exacerbating the Black maternal health crisis. In many Black and historically underfunded communities, expecting mothers are navigating pregnancy while skipping meals, stretching limited food supplies, or relying on corner stores with few healthy options.
Poor nutrition during pregnancy is linked to high blood pressure, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, low birth weight, and complications during delivery. These are not rare or abstract conditions; rather, they’re some of the most common contributors to maternal death in the United States. When an expecting mother can’t access fresh fruits, vegetables, or protein-rich foods, she’s more vulnerable to a fatal outcome. These health risks are compounded by broader systemic inequities that shape where and how people live. The barriers to good nutrition and safe pregnancies are not just medical; they are rooted in longstanding structural inequities.
Food deserts don’t appear by accident. They are the result of decades of redlining, disinvestment, and discriminatory policies that have stripped Black neighborhoods of grocery stores, public transit, health services, and economic opportunity. One out of every five Black households is situated in a food desert. Many of the same communities where food insecurity is highest are also maternity care deserts. These are areas that do not have access to birthing hospitals, birth centers that offer obstetric care, or obstetric providers. This double bind means Black women are more likely to experience poor nutrition and receive substandard prenatal care.
That’s why protecting and strengthening nutrition programs is critical. Policymakers must take a holistic view and consider the ripple effects these decisions will have on communities. Undermining the nation’s food system will only widen racial inequities and may further increase Black maternal mortality rates. These outcomes aren’t the result of individual failures—they reflect systemic ones. Addressing food insecurity requires fully funding and restructuring the food system and maternal care infrastructure to ensure every Black birthing person has consistent access to nutritious food, while also dismantling inherently racist policies that restrict access and deepen health inequities.
This multifaceted approach should include but not limited to:
If we’re serious about ending the Black maternal mortality crisis, we have to think beyond hospital walls. A mother’s health starts long before labor. It begins with the food on her plate, the safety of her neighborhood, and the policies that shape her access to care.
—–
1 CLASP recognizes that people of all genders can be pregnant and give birth. Some use the terms “birthing people” and “pregnant people” to capture this. In most cases, we have chosen to use “women” to be consistent with the terminology used in the statistics throughout this piece.
By Kaelin Rapport and Christian Collins
The Trump Administration’s unprecedented and illegal action to revoke Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students gives the university an opportunity for true leadership by using its name, reputation, and resources to influence policies that affect all postsecondary students. The administration has already declared war against American higher education and marginalized students, with Harvard becoming a specific target for being among the first to publicly resist this encroachment. Harvard’s actions will have consequences not just for the school or the Ivy League, but for institutions of higher education across the country, including state schools, minority-serving institutions, and community colleges.
The administration has used a number of tactics to intimidate Harvard: weaponizing claims of antisemitism to threaten funding cuts and a revocation of the university’s tax-exempt status; demanding policy changes that include stopping all diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives; imposing harsh penalties on student and faculty protestors; and halting Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program, which would jeopardize the legal status of approximately 27 percent of the university’s students. The university has since sued the administration over this action, which was blocked by a federal judge.
In deciding how to best protect itself against President Trump, Harvard must first acknowledge its role in designing the coffin the administration is trying to bury it in. Harvard’s administrators only publicly responded to the administration when its funding was threatened. In doing so, the university is falling into the same appeasement trap as Columbia University. Prior to its public response, Harvard had already punished students who expressed First Amendment rights, failed to uphold equity as a core institutional value by renaming diversity offices, and ended affinity group celebrations at graduation.
The actions of the president and federal agencies threaten the foundations of American democracy and academic integrity, setting a dangerous precedent that schools with fewer resources will be hard-pressed to overcome. These attacks have gained legitimacy because they mirror how Harvard treats its own campus, like ignoring its Jewish students denouncing their political exploitation to derecognize pro-Palestine student organizations and forcing its own standard about what constitutes Jewish identity onto their own students.
Harvard can defy these demands by utilizing their endowment in alliance with peer institutions and civil rights organizations, with the same urgency that these partners are supporting Harvard in protecting its own independence and academic integrity. The Ivy League collectively held over $190 billion for fiscal year 2024; Harvard’s own endowment is $52 billion. Though significant portions of endowments cannot be easily liquidated or used outside of specific purposes, there are enough resources to support litigation strategies, legislative advocacy, and public messaging highlighting that the country depends on the services provided by higher education institutions.
In the immediate term, Harvard and its donors could effectively put those resources and partnerships to use by uniting behind opposition to the harmful education policies currently included in the reconciliation bill. Lawmakers are preparing to ram through a devastating suite of federal policy changes to trap future students with low incomes into student debt through changes to student loans, reopen pathways for for-profit colleges to exploit student veterans, and cut aid for nearly two-thirds of current Pell Grant recipients.
Though Harvard has significant power thanks to its reputation, that power withers without meaningful action from the school to redress its own war on students. Institutions of higher education must be willing to protect the rights and well-being of students and faculty now, or risk losing the trust of future cohorts who will no longer view higher education as a safe or inclusive learning environment. If students are not confident that they can exercise their First Amendment rights on campus without punishment or surveillance, how can they be confident that they will be safe from further escalations by the Trump Administration?
Complacency to President Trump’s demands paves the way for the erosion of public trust in higher education across the United States, a mistake that American institutions have repeatedly committed in the past and seem eager to continue to make. Harvard’s past actions have emboldened the administration’s efforts to erode academic freedom and weaken educational institutions nationwide, but Harvard still has the opportunity to position higher education as a core pillar of American democracy.
By Parker Gilkesson Davis
In honor of the Juneteenth holiday, this brief looks at the history of agricultural injustice experienced by Black and immigrant farm workers and offers bold policy ideas that center the dignity, equity, and value of all historically marginalized communities.
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.
June 4, 2025, Washington, D.C. – Last July, the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) voluntarily recognized CLASP Workers United, a new employee union represented by Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU), Local 2. On May 23, 2025, CLASP Workers United and CLASP ratified their first-ever collective bargaining agreement, which was effective immediately and covers the next 24 months.
The agreement addressed the bargaining unit’s rights and protections, hiring processes, pay scale, leave policy, and workplace disputes, among other provisions.
“With this contract, our goal was to set a strong foundation for the negotiating team that will come to the table two years from now. We absolutely achieved that goal,” said Jesse Fairbanks, CLASP Workers United’s President, “We secured several systemic changes in this contract that can be built upon by future members of our union.”
“I am proud of management and staff for coming together on a collaboratively developed agreement rooted in mutual respect and shared values. It embodies our values, codifies fair labor and compensation practices, reinforces clear promotion pathways, and embraces equity and transparency,” said Wendy Chun-Hoon, CLASP’s new president and executive director. “This agreement strengthens both our internal culture and external impact.”
In particular, the agreement bolsters compensation and workplace practices by:
“We are pleased to welcome the employees at CLASP into the OPEIU Local 2 family. Among other things, I was impressed with the bargaining team’s unwavering dedication to ensuring that the lowest-paid employees were elevated to a living wage. This speaks highly of their commitment to the principles of the labor movement as well as the principles that brought them to CLASP employment,” said Sarah Levesque, Secretary-Treasurer, OPEIU, Local 2.
# # # #
The Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) is a national, nonpartisan, anti-poverty organization advancing policy solutions for people with low incomes. Because poverty in America is inextricably tied to systemic racism, CLASP focuses its policy and advocacy efforts for economic and racial justice on addressing systemic racism as the primary cause of poverty for communities of color.
CLASP Workers United (CWU) unionized in 2024 as a member of OPEIU Local 2. Our union aims to ensure a balance of institutional power between CLASP management and its workers through increased transparency and shared decision-making. We make space for workers at CLASP to step into their people power and demand organizational change.
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.
By Eddie Martin, Jr.
In just over three months, the Trump Administration has launched a sweeping and coordinated attack on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) across nearly every level of government. The administration seeks to dismantle the infrastructure that ensures equity, fairness, and justice through misinformation and public policy, while systemically co-opting the very language and tools used to pursue and silencing the voices DEIA was designed to uplift and protect.
This is a defining moment in the history of the U.S., one transcends advocacy and policy and is a fight for the very soul of our democracy.
It took less than 100 days for the administration’s agenda to go mainstream. Federal agencies are rescinding executive orders that once required equity assessments across the design and implementation of federal programs, and DEI offices at the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, and beyond are being defunded, dismantled, and terminated.
For example, the Internal Revenue Service has laid off more than 20,000 employees, including nearly eliminating the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, its civil rights office. A staggering 75 percent of the office’s staff has been laid off and the rest have been reassigned. The office was vital in promoting equitable tax practices and addressing systemic disparities in tax enforcement. Now, critical oversight mechanisms initially intended to stop discriminatory audit practices that have historically targeted Black and Latino taxpayers at disproportionately high rates are no longer in place. If algorithmic bias is allowed to remain unchecked without this accountability framework, communities of color are more likely to encounter greater financial vulnerability. Additionally, the IRS’ lack of equity-focused policy guidance weakens efforts to improve access to tax credits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, which have been critical in combating poverty in households with low incomes. These moves could ultimately widen the wealth gap between races, stifle community-level investment, and erode confidence in the government agencies tasked with enforcing fiscal justice.
At the state and local levels, governors and state legislatures have introduced anti-DEI bills with record speed. These measures ban funding DEI offices at public universities, prohibit inclusive curriculum, and annihilate scholarship programs aimed at historically marginalized communities. In states like Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma, the language of “colorblindness” has been weaponized through legislation to erase the ability to even acknowledge, let alone address, existing racial and systemic inequities.
These are not simple administrative cutbacks but rather a blatantly targeted plan to unravel the very civil rights protections that have represented the foundation of American democracy for 60 years.
In order to understand the magnitude of what is being rolled back, we have to remember the origins of DEIA. This is not a recent fabrication born from campus culture or corporate social branding. Rather, DEIA is a direct result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and decades of legal precedent, executive orders, and hard-fought policy reform. It is the embodiment of our country’s slow and painful progression toward public justice.
It is not divisive to ask public agencies to take disparate impacts into account in their policies, making informed policy decisions and ensuring positive impact for all. It is not illegal to create space for voices that have been historically marginalized. It is not immoral to create workplaces, schools, and health care systems where race, gender, disability, and income are not barriers to thriving.
The backlash against DEIA currently positions it as all of these things: divisive, discriminatory, un-American. This is not a misunderstanding—it is disinformation that is meant to stoke fear, galvanize political bases, and dismantle protections rationalized as neutrality.
The effects of dismantling DEIA are already being felt across the country. Educational systems are removing curriculums that affirm the identity of Black, Indigenous, LGBTQ+, and immigrant students and school boards are banning books. DEI offices intended to close disparities in maternal health and mental health are being shut down. In environmental justice spaces, community-led climate initiatives are being defunded and leaders left hanging with no guidance on feasible next steps.
At the most insidious level, the dismantling of DEIA is eroding the very infrastructure that will be needed to deliver on landmark legislation, including the American Rescue Plan Act and Inflation Reduction Act. These economic resources were planned to address historic and ongoing inequities in housing, economic development, and climate resilience. However, without equity assessments or community partnerships in place, it is highly unlikely these funds will reach the communities they are intended to serve.
In the meantime, DEI professionals—especially those who are Black, queer, Indigenous, or disabled—are being driven out of public service altogether. Many have been harassed or threatened, or are facing the ongoing turmoil of attempting to do equity work in an environment that no longer values or permits their existence.
This issue extends beyond programmatic loss. It is a democratic backslide.
DEIA is a direct expression of democratic values: voice, participation, equitable protections under the law. When we eliminate DEIA, we eliminate public trust, exacerbate inequity, and provide a blanket of cover for authoritarian leaders who thrive on division and disempowerment. Public agencies will no longer have tools to challenge inequity, and, thus, will fail to serve the public. This is not neutrality—this is structural discrimination.
And let us be clear: when equity is criminalized, democracy becomes optional.
More than grief, this moment calls for action. We are already witnessing courageous leadership across sectors:
However, much more is required.
This is not a fight for inclusion. This is a fight for democracy.
We must stop thinking about DEIA as a set of programs. DEIA is a framework justice, the toolset we use to repair harm, create resilience, and ensure the promise of equal protection.
We cannot let this be the moment in history we allowed DEIA to be quietly dismantled. We cannot allow decades of social and legal progress to disappear at the hands of misinformation.
Because ultimately, what we do today is going to determine who we will become tomorrow.
And that choice is still ours to make.
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 Kaelin Rapport
The first observance of Earth Day was held 55 years ago. Originally envisioned as large-scale public protests to raise awareness of environmental threats, Earth Day now promotes environmental conservation and sustainable energy. That reminder is more necessary than ever as the Trump Administration reduces the federal budget through mass layoffs at government agencies, including those that have historically protected the environment, and pushes executive orders that will devastate the environment and marginalized communities.
The actions of President Trump, his appointees, and the Department of Government Efficiency are part of a strategy to roll back regulations protecting the environment. These partisan decisions attack validated climate science and allow the federal government to evade responsibility for perpetuating environmental racism in the pursuit of short-term economic gains.
Researchers at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined racial minorities are the most likely to live in areas predicted to be adversely affected by climate change. Majority non-white communities and communities that are predominately composed of families with low incomes suffer more from storm and flood events, extreme heat, infectious disease, and disruptions to labor markets, all of which are occurring more frequently because of climate change. Immigrant families are distinctly vulnerable to being excluded from health care policies, which can make it difficult to receive assistance to address environmental hazards. Research has connected higher temperatures, humidity, and vapor pressure with increases in mental distress, visits to the emergency room, and exposure to environmental-related trauma. Black people in particular are 40 percent more likely than other racial minority groups to live in areas with the highest projected mortality rates due to extreme temperatures.
Despite the depth and breadth of data signaling a need to address climate change and environmental racism head-on, the administration has taken alarming measures to accelerate global warming and extreme weather changes. On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order to initiate withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Accords for the second time. The Paris Accords represent an international climate initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Also on his first day in office, Trump signed the executive order “Unleashing American Energy,” which called for the removal of 100 environmental regulations, including limiting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, cars, and trucks; limiting wildlife protections; and making more land available for corporations to drill for oil and gas. According to the Trump Administration, both orders removed barriers placed by the Biden Administration between the country’s natural resources and its prosperity.
The hunt for economic gains also led to the administration firing thousands of federal employees, which hit agencies like the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) particularly hard. NOAA employed 13,000 people and used advanced technology across thousands of institutions to gather data on the weather and climate. NOAA also serves as the quality control for this data and developed weather prediction models, which it used to coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, another agency expected to fire staffers soon.
Since the start of the current administration, roughly 10 percent of NOAA’s staff have been cut or taken a deferred resignation. Fewer federal employees means that less meteorological data will be collected nationwide, which in turn means forecasts will be less accurate. That also means that the Trump Administration is sacrificing the people and communities most vulnerable to climate change in the interest of presumed short-term economic gain. Even if NOAA is totally dismantled, the federal government would only save a projected 0.097 percent of the $6.75 trillion the government spent in 2024. Compared to the 27 weather or climate disaster events in 2024, each causing over $1 billion in damages and a combined 568 deaths, those savings are inconsequential.
NOAA’s official stance on climate change is that the impacts of climate change and extreme weather have reached every region of the United States. Research backs up this stance; in 2024, researchers at Yale University and George Mason University conducted a study on American sentiment toward climate change. They determined that the majority of Americans believe in and are fearful of climate change. Furthermore, they want schools to teach about global warming and for clean energy to be a priority for Congress and the president. Last year was also the first year that the world passed the 1.5°C of warming over pre-industrial levels that the Paris Climate Accord uses as a marker to avoid freefalling into an irreparable climate catastrophe.
Continuing to fight these illegal federal agency layoffs and environmental deregulation efforts will mitigate climate change and reduce human and economic costs, especially for historically marginalized communities. Other ways to help mitigate the impact are by supporting the efforts of organizations like the Center for Health, Environment & Justice, which offers organizing, policy analysis, and research training in communities hit by environmental degradation. Finally, the voices of those from communities that have been and will continue to be most affected by climate change must be included in disaster relief programming, along with the work of grassroots organizations and activists and researchers who have been in the field for decades.
More information on environmental justice groups in your area can be found in the Environmental Justice Atlas.
April 11-17, 2025 is Black Maternal Health Week. For more information and resources, please see here.
By Isha Weerasinghe
The prenatal and postpartum periods are some of the most vulnerable times a person can experience, and the shift in roles and responsibilities can cause a great deal of stress and anxiety. These periods can bring new perspectives and symptoms to parents that they may not have been prepared for, including complications in pregnancy and delivery leading to a demanding recovery; being unable to breastfeed or afford baby formula; and a significant lack of sleep, among other difficulties. Any of these factors can significantly contribute to adverse impacts on a new parent’s mental health. The Trump Administration’s recent cuts to federal agency staff and elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs will only compound these challenges.
The administration’s actions around DEI, cutting grants, and consolidating federal departments are already having significant effects on health funding. States are experiencing the results of cutting more than $12 billion in federal grants related to the impacts of COVID-19, resulting in potential cuts of millions of dollars for mental health services in states like New York, Utah, and Wisconsin. Significant changes and eliminated departments within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS), including firing staff in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Health Resources and Services Administration and then shifting the agencies to the Administration for a Healthy America umbrella; eliminating the Office of Minority Health; funding cuts to state and city offices including in the Office of Civil Rights; and eliminating regional offices that work to reduce health disparities all have severely negative impacts on mental health outcomes. Among the casualties will be less research into and data on how race, ethnicity, and gender factor into mental health outcomes; a reduction in funding for culturally responsive programming; little to no enforcement of antidiscrimination rules; and fewer resources to hire a diverse set of providers to serve people who are pregnant, both in terms of expertise/experience and cultural background. All of these elements are critical to address maternal mental health inequities.
As it stands, pregnant women[1] of color often feel high levels of distrust with health systems. This is due to high maternal mortality rates among Black and Indigenous women, known past and present sterilization practices across the country, and stories of children being taken away from their parents. Implicit bias among providers, well known among many communities of color, also affects the communication between provider and patient and impacts the quality of care. For many immigrant communities with limited English proficiency, cultural and linguistic barriers between pregnant women and their providers can make prenatal care, delivery, and postpartum care more complicated.
All of this can lead to increased stress and anxiety throughout pregnancy and the postpartum period. Twenty-nine to 44 percent of Black women experience postpartum depressive symptoms, and very few report accessing necessary mental health services. Indigenous women have 87 percent higher odds of developing postpartum depression than white women. Collectively, about one in five American Indian,[2] and Alaska Native, Asian, or Pacific Islander,[3] and Black women report symptoms of perinatal depression compared to one in ten white women. Hispanic women[4] experience postpartum depression at around 12 percent, although rates are significantly higher among certain populations within the identity, and not enough recent data exists to accurately determine inequities within Hispanic populations. All of these rates are likely underestimates because many communities of color experience fear and stigma and do not want to highlight concerns in their medical records out of fear of increased scrutiny, discrimination, and/or jeopardizing their health or their children’s ability to live within the same household.
Pregnant immigrants—both those with and without legal documentation—are impacted by the onslaught of anti-immigrant policies and mass deportations threatening and hurting their communities. People who are pregnant may refuse to visit a health care facility for prenatal care or during labor out of fear of arrest and deportation, which could impact their baby’s health as well as their own physical and mental health. Some immigrant communities are becoming increasingly fearful of the health system, even delaying or avoiding care to deliver their babies, which increases adverse mental health conditions. Coupled with mental health stigma, immigrant parents will not receive the critical mental health care they need during the prenatal and postpartum periods.
In addition to attacks from the executive branch, there are serious legislative threats in the pipeline. House Republicans aim to cut $880 billion from the Medicaid program through the budget reconciliation process. Medicaid funds four in 10 births in the U.S. and is the single largest payer of mental health care services. If these cuts are passed into law, they would have significant impacts on state budgets, putting states at a crossroads to cut key health programs and coverage. Programs providing key clinical outpatient services for pregnant women with low incomes are deeply concerned about these cuts, as Medicaid often provides the funding to pay providers and keep these essential programs alive. Cuts to Medicaid will also likely impact postpartum Medicaid coverage, currently available in 48 states and Washington, D.C..
It is critical for us to understand the links between these policy and funding changes and how they will impact perinatal and postpartum services. We have to let our legislators and policymakers know why these recent administrative and federal legislative directives are deeply concerning. Collectively, we must support and uphold the need for these critical services during the incredibly vulnerable time before and after delivery. Remaining silent means that positive health outcomes for marginalized people will be in jeopardy, and maternal morbidity and mortality rates will rise.
April 11-17, 2025 is Black Maternal Health Week. For more information and resources, please see here.
[1] CLASP recognizes that people of all genders can be pregnant and give birth. Some use the terms “birthing people” and “pregnant people” to capture this. In most cases, we have chosen to use “women” to be consistent with the terminology used in the statistics throughout this piece.
[2] The Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) uses the term Indigenous, but for the sake of continuity with national datasets, is noting American Indian and Alaska Native here.
[3] CLASP uses the term Asian American, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander, but for the sake of continuity with national datasets, is noting Asian and Pacific Islander here.
[4] CLASP uses the term Latino, but for the sake of continuity with national datasets, is noting Hispanic here.