logo
ACLU sues to halt Trump administration attacks on Head Start child-care program

ACLU sues to halt Trump administration attacks on Head Start child-care program

The American Civil Liberties Union, on behalf of six early childhood organizations, including one in California, sued the Trump administration Monday to halt the dismantling of Head Start and restore cuts to the program, alleging that the actions required congressional approval.
The lawsuit, filed in the Western District of Washington, also alleged that the administration's directive to strip the program of diversity, equity and inclusion efforts is 'unconstitutionally vague,' violates the free speech of its teachers and does not provide enough guidance for providers to know what must be done to avoid losing federal funding.
The DEI allegations come days after federal judges blocked a Trump administration directive that threatened to withhold federal funds from K-12 public schools that did not comply with its anti-DEI guidance. The federal judge who made the initial ruling said the administration was unclear in its definition of DEI.
Head Start serves 800,000 low-income families across the country, including about 80,000 in California. The six organizations that joined the suit are: Parent Voices Oakland, Family Forward Oregon and Head Start associations in Washington, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
The lawsuit alleges that the changes to Head Start have been made in 'blatant contravention' of Congress' approval of funding for the program. Congressional action requires the Department of Health and Human Services to maintain Head Start at its current funding and staffing levels and ensure current capacity as mandated by the Head Start Act, the suit said.
It also alleges that the anti-DEI directives compromise the quality of the program by preventing it from effectively fulfilling the 'diverse needs' of its families as dictated by the Head Start Act. Head Start requires the ability to provide linguistically and culturally appropriate services and must be permitted to employ a diverse staff in order to ensure that that is the case, the lawsuit read.
The Department of Health and Human Services, which funds Head Start, did not respond to a request for comment Monday.
Head Start, which has provided child care, health screenings and meals to millions of low-income children since its founding in 1965, has faced multiple disruptions since the start of President Trump's term. Centers faced funding delays after an executive order temporarily froze federal aid in January, causing some providers to struggle to meet payroll and others to shutter temporarily. Then, scores of federal Head Start workers were laid off in February, followed by the closure of five of 12 regional offices in April, including the Region 9 office, which oversees California.
Most recently, a leaked draft of the budget proposal for the Department of Health and Human Services revealed the department's proposal to totally defund Head Start by 2026. The budget proposal must be approved by Congress.
'We know what this administration's goal is — they've told us,' said ACLU Women's Rights Project attorney Jennesa Calvo-Friedman, who is lead counsel in the case. 'It's to terminate the Head Start program. We are seeing them already take steps to do that.'
Clarissa Doutherd, executive director of Parent Voices Oakland, said eliminating Head Start would bring many families to a breaking point.
'We're seeing families struggle paycheck to paycheck trying to establish a better future for their children, and those dreams are slipping through their fingers,' Doutherd said. 'It's critical — this comprehensive support system that helps families thrive by providing education, health and workforce development opportunities.'
Head Start has historically received support from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, though Trump has challenged the program's funding before — albeit unsuccessfully. He proposed cutting Head Start funding by $85 million in 2018 and by $29 billion over 10 years in 2019, but neither proposal succeeded. Instead, program funding increased during both budget years.
This year Head Start was slated to receive more than $12 billion in funding. California alone was slated to receive about $1.6 billion in grants.
The program was most recently targeted by Project 2025, which called for its termination, alleging it was 'fraught with scandal and abuse' and had 'little or no long-term academic value for children.' Head Start, however, does not mandate a particular curriculum and is not the only child-care program available to low-income families. Research has also shown it's had a number of positive impacts on children.
This article is part of The Times' early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed. The Stein Early Childhood Development Fund at the California Community Foundation is among the funders.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Will Trump invoke the Insurrection Act? 'We'll see,' he says
Will Trump invoke the Insurrection Act? 'We'll see,' he says

USA Today

time36 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Will Trump invoke the Insurrection Act? 'We'll see,' he says

Will Trump invoke the Insurrection Act? 'We'll see,' he says Show Caption Hide Caption Anti-ICE raid demonstrators protest into fourth night Anti-immigration raid protests are continuing into the fourth night as the Pentagon deployed active-duty U.S. Marines. President Donald Trump mulled invoking the Insurrection Act, which would give him more leeway to use the military for domestic purposes, as he deploys troops to Los Angeles in response to protests prompted by ICE raids in the region. "If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it,' Trump said June 10 during an event in the White House. 'We'll see. But I can tell you, last night was terrible. The night before that was terrible." Trump deployed the California National Guard to Los Angeles over the objection of Gov. Gavin Newsom, sparking a lawsuit from the state. Marines were also sent to help the guard after protests erupted over his immigration enforcement efforts. The troops are limited to protecting federal property and law enforcement officers. The Insurrection Act would give Trump authority to use them more broadly. More: 'High-stakes game': Trump-Newsom clash pits two political heavyweights Trump said there were parts of Los Angeles on June 9 where "you could have called it an insurrection. It was terrible." Newsom described Trump's actions as "the acts of a dictator" and accused the president of 'inciting and provoking violence,' 'creating mass chaos,' and 'militarizing cities.' Legal experts say invoking the Insurrection Act is an extreme step. It has been done 30 times in U.S. history. "The invocation of it would be viewed as a pretty dramatic act," said Duke Law Professor H. Jefferson Powell. Powell said the law is "dangerously broad." The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in May 1992, by President George H.W. Bush at the request of California's governor, to quell rioting in Los Angeles after four White police officers were acquitted for beating Black motorist Rodney King.

What the 'Big, Beautiful' tax bill means for municipal bonds
What the 'Big, Beautiful' tax bill means for municipal bonds

Yahoo

time36 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

What the 'Big, Beautiful' tax bill means for municipal bonds

JPMorgan raised its forecast for municipal bond sales in 2025 to $560 billion as US lawmakers deliberate over President Trump's "big, beautiful" tax and spending bill in the Senate. Goldman Sachs Asset Management co-head of municipal fixed income Sylvia Yeh weighs in on what policy changes to the US tax code could mean for municipal bond investors, as well as valuation catalysts in comparison to Treasury yields (^TYX, ^TNX, ^FVX). Goldman Sachs manages several municipal bond ETFs (GMUB, GCAL, GMNY, GUMI). To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Catalysts here. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

LA protests far different from '92 Rodney King riots
LA protests far different from '92 Rodney King riots

Yahoo

time40 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

LA protests far different from '92 Rodney King riots

The images of cars set ablaze, protesters tossing rocks at police and officers firing nonlethal rounds and tear gas at protesters hearkens back to the last time a president sent the National Guard to respond to violence on Los Angeles streets. But the unrest during several days of protests over immigration enforcement is far different in scale from the 1992 riots that followed the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. President George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to call in the National Guard after requests from Mayor Tom Bradley and Gov. Pete Wilson. After the current protests began Friday over Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of 4,100 National Guard troops and 700 Marines despite strident opposition from Mayor Karen Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom. Trump cited a legal provision to mobilize federal service members when there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit Monday saying Trump had overstepped his authority. Outrage over the verdicts on April 29, 1992 led to nearly a week of widespread violence that was one of the deadliest riots in American history. Hundreds of businesses were looted. Entire blocks of homes and stores were torched. More than 60 people died in shootings and other violence, mostly in South Los Angeles, an area with a heavily Black population at the time. Unlike the 1992 riots, protests have mainly been peaceful and been confined to a roughly five-block stretch of downtown LA, a tiny patch in the sprawling city of nearly 4 million people. No one has died. There's been vandalism and some cars set on fire but no homes or buildings have burned. At least 50 people have been arrested for everything from failing to follow orders to leave to looting, assault on a police officer and attempted murder for tossing a Molotov cocktail. Several officers have had minor injuries and protesters and some journalists have been struck by some of the more than 600 rubber bullets and other 'less-lethal' munitions fired by police. The 1992 uprising took many by surprise, including the Los Angeles Police Department, but the King verdict was a catalyst for racial tensions that had been building in the city for years. In addition to frustration with their treatment by police, some directed their anger at Korean merchants who owned many of the local stores. Black residents felt the owners treated them more like shoplifters than shoppers. As looting and fires spread toward Koreatown, some merchants protected their stores with shotguns and rifles.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store