
Head Start groups sue Trump administration over efforts to ‘dismantle' early childhood development program
A lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's efforts to 'dismantle' Head Start programs in Illinois and across the country has been filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Head Start groups, arguing the federal actions are unconstitutional and have left Head Start operators in a position where they 'do not know whether they will suddenly be forced to close in a day, a week or a month.'
In Illinois, Head Start programs last year received over $400 million in federal funding, supporting 28,000 low-income children and families while employing more than 9,000 Illinois residents. Along with supporting early learning, these programs provide meals, health services, support for children with disabilities and more, according to Lauri Morrison-Frichtl, executive director of the Illinois Head Start Association, a plaintiff in the lawsuit.
'This is not against any party. It's against those that don't have the common sense to know that this is a really important engine to drive our economy,' Morrison-Frichtl said. 'Without child care, parents won't have a place to take their child, to go to work, and it's those kinds of points in the mission that have always, you know, that both sides of the aisle support because they realize the importance of our work.'
In addition to asking the federal court to stop the administration from stripping funding for Head Start and closing program offices, the lawsuit also challenges a mid-March executive order requiring programs to certify that they've removed all diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives before they can receive grant funding, calling it unconstitutional and overly vague. It was filed in the Western District of Washington and names defendants including the Department of Health and Human Services and its secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The Illinois Head Start Association is one of six Head Start organization plaintiffs.
Head Start advocates say the federal actions have delayed access to funds, suspended some Head Start services and could lead to continued program closures. The actions also defy Congressional laws authorizing these Head Start programs, according to an ACLU statement on the lawsuit.
'Over the last three months, Donald Trump has put a bull's-eye on the backs of 3- and 4-year-olds,' Joel Ryan, executive director of the Washington State Association of Head Start, one of the plaintiffs, said during a news conference on Tuesday. 'We felt like there's no other option for us than to seek litigation and to push back against the Trump administration … we see what the Trump administration is doing is anti-civil rights, it's un-American and it's unlawful.'
A Health and Human Services spokesperson said the department does not comment on pending litigation.
Head Start programs have received federal funding and mostly bipartisan support since the preschool effort was started more than 60 years ago as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's War on Poverty. According to Ryan, Head Start has helped over 40 million children and families since its founding.
Under the Trump administration, the federal government in early April closed five regional Head Start offices, including the Chicago regional office. The administration also is asking Congress to eliminate funding for Head Start in the 2026 fiscal year, according to a 64-page internal draft budget document obtained by The Associated Press in late April. Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation policy group thought to have influence on the Trump White House, advocated for Head Start's elimination, a position noted in the lawsuit.
U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth joined a coalition of lawmakers in sending a letter to Kennedy demanding answers on the closures of the regional Head Start offices.
A Health and Human Services spokesperson told the Tribune in early April that Head Start programs were not in any danger and that the closures of the regional Head Start offices are part of a broader restructuring of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that the Trump administration says will save taxpayers $1.8 billion a year.
Yet advocates don't buy that Head Start programs are safe and worry about the consequences if the programs are lost.
Ryan, the Washington Head Start executive, said Head Start programs typically help recipients be more prepared for school, less likely to need expensive special education services, more likely to graduate high school and college, and receive higher paying jobs, he said.
Some Illinois programs struggled to access funding for weeks after the Trump administration's federal freeze at the end of January, with one program in Aurora shutting down because it could not pay its employees, according to Morrison-Frichtl. Several advocates for independent early childhood sites funded by Head Start said the programs couldn't survive without the federal funding.
YWCA Metropolitan Chicago's single biggest source of federal money comes through Head Start, CEO Nicole Robinson said. The organization supports 1,650 home-based and community-based early child care providers across Lake, DuPage and Kane counties.
The possible loss of federal Head Start funding is 'not only a threat to this organization (YWCA), it's a threat to those 1,650 child care providers' that YWCA Metropolitan Chicago offers services to, Robinson said.
'No program should be dismantled in this way,' Robinson said, 'but talk about dismantling child care is really walking away from our children, walking away from families and it's walking away from our economy.'
The Montessori School of Englewood in Chicago, which works with 70 low-income children ages 3 to 5 years old, would have to shut down if it does not receive federal funding by December, said Rita Nolan, the school's executive director. Many of the children in the program are unhoused and rely on the school for clothing, food, emergency care, dental care, fresh fruit and vegetables, therapy and more, Nolan said.
'Early childhood is the most important developmental period in a child's life,' Nolan said. 'If they have a speech issue or developmental issue, we can get them services. We can already have identified them and gone through the observation and the identification process, so you're not going to kindergarten and then having to wait. The longer you wait for these services, the harder it gets.'
Until federal funding decisions are made, Nolan said Head Start programs have a choice to make.
'Do we look for alternative funding or do we keep on going blindfolded until we actually could be told yes, we're going to fund the programs or no, we're not going to, like, the financial instability of that is just daunting,' she said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What the Trump-Musk Feud Means for SpaceX and NASA
The U.S. government relies on SpaceX to support NASA and other agencies, and the company has received more $20 billion in federal contracts for it. As Musk and Trump threaten to cut ties, here's what that would mean for the U.S.'s space ambitions.


Business Insider
23 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Trump Ready to Ditch His Tesla Car amid Musk Fallout: 'I Might Just Get Rid of It'
WASHINGTON — June 7, 2025 President Donald Trump is distancing himself from Elon Musk—publicly and materially. According to The Washington Post, Trump has told aides in recent days that he is considering selling or giving away the red Tesla (TSLA) Model S he purchased in March, a gesture that once symbolized his support for Musk. Confident Investing Starts Here: 'I might just get rid of it,' Trump told aides, according to a senior White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The car, still parked near the White House as of this week, has become a visible casualty of the rapidly souring relationship between Trump and Musk. The split followed Musk's harsh criticism of the administration's latest domestic policy bill, which he publicly called a 'disgusting abomination.' That comment triggered a sharp response from the president, both publicly and privately. On Air Force One, when asked by a reporter about Musk's alleged drug use, Trump replied: 'I don't want to comment on his drug use. I don't know what his status is.' 'I read an article in The New York Times. I thought it was, frankly, it sounded very unfair to me.' But privately, Trump has reportedly told associates that Musk is 'crazy' and blamed his behavior on drug use, according to The New York Times. Musk Gave No Public Comment on the Car—But a Hint at Peace? As of Saturday afternoon, Elon Musk has not issued any public statement specifically addressing Trump's decision to unload the Tesla. However, he did respond to a suggestion from investor Bill Ackman on X that the two men should reconcile for the good of the country. 'You're not wrong,' Musk replied—his only recent public comment that could be interpreted as a gesture toward de-escalation. Beyond that, Musk has been active on X in recent days, directing criticisms at others, including Steve Bannon and critics of Tesla, but has avoided commenting directly on Trump's actions regarding the car or federal contracts. Trump Weighs Tesla Breakup The sale—or symbolic disposal—of the Tesla would mark a final, visual severing of a political and personal alliance that once had significant policy weight. Musk had been one of Trump's most prominent business backers, and the March purchase of the Model S was, at the time, framed by aides as a nod of approval to the entrepreneur's role in the administration. Now, according to officials, the car is being referred to inside the West Wing as a political relic. And while no final decision has been made, staff say it's become a quiet but pointed symbol of Trump's intent to distance himself from Musk for good. Trump himself, speaking about Musk during a press gaggle on June 6, said: 'I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot.' Whether the car is sold, donated, or simply removed from view, it now stands as a monument to one of the most dramatic falling-outs in recent political history. Is Tesla Stock Still a Buy? Meanwhile, Wall Street isn't exactly bullish on Musk's flagship automaker. According to TipRanks, Tesla currently holds a 'Hold' rating based on 37 analyst reviews over the past three months. It's a split camp: 16 analysts rate it a Buy, 10 say Hold, and 11 recommend Sell — a clear reflection of the uncertainty swirling around the company. The market seems just as cautious. The average 12-month price target for TSLA is $284.37, suggesting a 3.7% downside from its current level.

31 minutes ago
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.'