The Trump Administration, which has pledged to dismantle the , has previously targeted higher education and . Now, early childhood education is in its sights.
As the White House prepares to submit its budget request for the 2026 fiscal year to Congress, a preliminary internal budget proposal, reportedly 64 pages long, obtained by the , revealed intentions for significant financial reductions to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). These cuts would represent approximately one-third of the department’s discretionary budget, according to a report on April 16.
Among the programs facing potential cuts is Head Start, which has been providing comprehensive early childhood education and care to low-income families for six decades. The document reportedly states that “the federal government should not be involved in mandating curriculum, locations, and performance standards for any type of education.”
The plan to completely eliminate Head Start, which was among and first reported by earlier this month as being included in the Trump Administration’s upcoming budget proposal, would affect around 750,000 children, according to the nonprofit National Head Start Association (NHSA). This proposal has been met with strong opposition from Democrats.
Here’s what you need to know about the program.
Head Start’s history and effectiveness
Since its inception in 1965 under President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty,” Head Start has focused on promoting school readiness and development for over 40 million children from birth to age 5. In addition to education, its free services also encompass meals, medical and dental screenings, and social support. Families meeting federal poverty guidelines are eligible for the program’s benefits.
During the program’s launch, Johnson described it as “one of the most constructive, sensible, and exciting” initiatives, placing it under the Office of Economic Opportunity.
Over the years, the program’s scope and funding have expanded under both Democratic and Republican administrations, with its budget exceeding $1 billion. For the 2025 fiscal year, Congress authorized a budget of approximately $12 billion for Head Start.
However, there has been debate regarding the program’s effectiveness in improving learning and health outcomes.
In 1985, HHS conducted a meta-analysis of research on Head Start and concluded that “in the long run, cognitive and socioemotional test scores of former Head Start students do not remain superior to those of disadvantaged children who did not attend Head Start.” This finding has been used by critics to argue that the program is ineffective. A separate study also found that “the advantages children gained during their time in Head Start and up to age 4 yielded only a few statistically significant differences in outcomes at the end of 1st grade,” a phenomenon often referred to as a “fade out” effect. Former TIME columnist Joe Klein, in 2011, advocated for eliminating the program entirely, stating: “In these straitened times, we need world-class education programs, from infancy on up. But we can no longer afford to be sloppy about dispensing cash—whether it’s subsidies for oil companies or Head Start—to programs that do not produce a return.”
But proponents argue that Head Start is effective. Numerous studies have indicated positive long-term results, such as reducing crime rates and increasing the likelihood of higher educational attainment, even improving future parenting practices. They contend that the program is hindered by inadequate funding and teacher compensation and requires strengthening rather than cuts. The reported on April 16 that some Head Start-backed preschools across the country have been forced to close this year due to delays in funding that Congress had already approved.
Reactions to the proposal to eliminate Head Start
NHSA executive director Yasmina Vinci told USA Today that eliminating the program’s funding would be “catastrophic,” urging “every parent, every American, and every believer in the American dream to reach out to their elected officials to express their outrage about such a proposal.”
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D, Conn.), a ranking member of the House Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, labeled the Trump budget proposal “Every Child Left Behind,” a reference to the George W. Bush Administration’s “No Child Left Behind” education policy, in a statement. DeLauro stated that “Head Start has had broad, bipartisan support since it was created—this is not a Republican or Democratic issue,” adding that eliminating Head Start “to pay for tax cuts for billionaires would be an unrivaled and unthinkable betrayal of middle class, working class, and vulnerable families who need help with the cost of living.”
Gov. Tony Evers (D, Wis.) tweeted on April 15 that the Trump Administration “is once again going back on their word, and now, HeadStart programs that more than 10,000 kids and their families across our state depend on are at risk. I will fight any action that messes with our kids and families.”
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D, Minn.) tweeted on April 16 that the Trump Administration’s proposed elimination of Head Start “would be disastrous for hundreds of thousands of children and families, who would no longer have access to early education. We need to invest in our kids, not turn our backs on them.”
And Sen. Patty Murray, (D, Wash.) said in a statement, “As he works to give more tax breaks to billionaires like himself, Donald Trump is doing everything he can to destroy Head Start.” Trump wants to “rip pre-K and essential support away from families nationwide,” Murray added, noting, “Democrats won’t let a proposal like that go anywhere in Congress—but make no mistake: Trump is already doing all he can to wreck the program on his own,” in reference to the recent withholding of already-appropriated federal funding. “I’m going to keep fighting back with all I’ve got,” Murray said, “because we’ve got to keep mobilizing and opposing this administration’s cruel agenda to help billionaires and hurt working families.”
“`
