Warnock Leads Bicameral Coalition in Opposing Trump Administration’s Proposed Head Start Overhaul

Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock and 38 Congressional colleagues are calling on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to rescind its proposed overhaul of the Head Start program

The administration's proposal jeopardizes access to quality early learning and child care services for more than 700,000 children across the country

Head Start provides comprehensive early learning and family support services across the country, particularly in rural and low-income communities

Senator Warnock is a proud Head Start alumni and founding member of the Head Start to Congress Caucus

Senators Reverend Warnock, colleagues: "Let us be very clear: what you are proposing seriously weakens the high-quality, comprehensive research-backed services required by law, undermines access to critical services, restricts access for children and families, and creates uncertainty for Head Start programs across the nation"

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock (D-GA) led a bicameral group of lawmakers in opposing the Trump Administration's proposed overhaul of Head Start, a federal program dedicated to improving academic and health outcomes for children by providing comprehensive early learning and family support services across the country, particularly in rural and low-income communities.

"Let us be very clear: what you are proposing seriously weakens the high-quality, comprehensive research-backed services required by law, undermines access to critical services, restricts access for children and families, and creates uncertainty for Head Start programs across the nation," wrote Senator Warnock and his colleagues. "This proposed rule is a brazen attempt to dismantle Head Start without regard for the hundreds of thousands of young children and working-class families who depend on these programs and services every year."

In August, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced changes to the Head Start Program Performance Standards that effectively eliminate the central mechanism for evaluating and ensuring the quality of early childhood education services provided through Head Start. The administration's proposal jeopardizes access to quality early learning and child care services for more than 700,000 children across the country.

As a proud Head Start alum and founding member of the Head Start to Congress Caucus, Senator Warnock has long championed the program and its mission. Earlier this year, he joined a bicameral coalition in opposing a similar HHS proposal that would eliminate salary increases and improvements to employment benefits for full-time Head Start staff. In 2025, Senator Warnock introduced the bipartisan Head Start Education and Development Workforce Advancement and Yield (HEADWAY) Act to address early childhood workforce shortages by allowing Early Head Start classroom teachers to continue teaching while earning their Child Development Associate (CDA) credential.

Alongside Senator Warnock, the letter is led by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), and cosigned by Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Richard Durbin (D-IL), John Fetterman (D-PA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Angus King (I-ME), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jack Reed (D-RI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-CT), Ron Wyden (D-OR), and 152 Members of Congress.

A copy of the letter can be found HERE and text is below:

"Dear Secretary Kennedy,

"We write to express our strong opposition to the proposed rule, 'Reducing Federal Burden for Head Start Programs,' which seeks to illegally dismantle Head Start by removing over 90 percent of standards that ensure children receive high-quality early education and comprehensive services. This proposal is a blatant effort to gut core aspects of this longstanding, anti-poverty program and is in direct conflict with the Head Start Act.

"Let us be very clear: what you are proposing seriously weakens the high-quality, comprehensive research-backed services required by law, undermines access to critical services, restricts access for children and families, and creates uncertainty for Head Start programs across the nation. Under your proposal, 80% of children in Head Start will face worse staff-to-child ratios. Nearly 1 in 10 children currently served in Head Start could become ineligible for services overnight. Key Head Start health, dental, mental health, and developmental services will be reduced nationwide. And the duration of the Head Start school day could be cut in half in many communities, leaving working families stranded and without child care. That is unacceptable.

"Since 1965, Head Start has served more than 40 million young children with age-appropriate education, health care, dental care, and healthy meals. The program has also provided working-class parents with connections to job training, adult education, nutrition services, housing assistance, and other support services that strengthen families. Research shows that children who attend Head Start are more likely to be ready for kindergarten, graduate from high school, attend college, and are less likely to have adverse health outcomes than non-participants. Every year, roughly 1,600 Head Start grantees serve over 700,000 young children and their families through a unique, multi-generational and holistic approach. The scope and quality of these programs have changed the lives of millions.

"Despite Head Start's essential role, you have led the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to repeatedly undermine and disrupt Head Start services. Since the very start of this Administration, Head Start programs have had their funding illegally withheld and delayed, lost federal staff who were essential to their community-driven successes, and faced new requirements that create constant confusion. Last year, a leaked version of the fiscal year 2026 budget proposal indicated the Administration's plan to eliminate the Head Start program. You made a commitment to Congress to 'preserve' Head Start, yet this proposed rule is the latest attempt by the Administration to deteriorate and ultimately eliminate the program by gutting the core standards and services that have long-defined and ensured its success.

"This proposal strikes nearly all of the Head Start Program Performance Standards ('Performance Standards') in defiance of statutory requirements and is antithetical to the mission of Head Start, which is to provide quality early learning and comprehensive services for children and families with the highest needs. Head Start's unique federal-to-local model relies on the Performance Standards to provide clarity to grantees, while considering evolving research, science, and community needs.

"Under section 641A(a)(2)(C)(ii) of the Head Start Act, HHS cannot modify the Performance Standards in a way that will 'result in the elimination of or any reduction in quality, scope, or types of health, educational, parental involvement, nutritional, social, or other services required to be provided under such standards as in effect on the date of enactment of the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007.' Yet, this proposed rule does exactly that: it illegally eliminates and reduces the core components of Head Start as they currently exist.

1. Undermine quality early childhood education and services

"We oppose your proposed elimination of federal standards for staff-to-child ratios, class sizes, safety practices; proposed removal of limits on suspensions and expulsions; and proposed removal of Head Start staff professional development, training, and wellness breaks. This overhaul of the Performance Standards will diminish the quality of services and jeopardize the safety and well-being of children.

Staff-to-Child Ratios and Group Sizes

"Removing staff-to-child ratios and group size limits in 45 C.F.R. §1302.21(b) and deferring instead to state policies will diminish program quality and threaten children's safety. State and local policies for child care ratios and group sizes vary widely, which is why the Performance Standards include research-informed, national baselines for high-quality settings that support child development, health, and safety. For example, in Idaho, state law and regulations allow a single educator to care for up to six infants, while in 35 other states, the required ratio is 1:4 and is aligned with the current Performance Standards. According to the Children's Equity Project, your proposal to replace these federal regulations with state child care standards is estimated to worsen staff-to-child ratios for 80 percent of children enrolled in Early Head Start or Head Start Preschool. HHS's own analysis of the rule expects a 16 to 32 percent increase in the average number of children per Head Start educator. These changes will make it harder for staff to provide adequate supervision of children, result in poorer quality interactions with children, increase staff burnout, hinder accommodations for children with disabilities, and diminish the delivery of complex early learning science.

Child Safety

"We also oppose the proposed changes to essential safety standards that protect young children and give families peace of mind that their children will be well cared for in Head Start. Many of these changes are unconscionable, such as removing the prohibition on leaving children unsupervised and reducing protections against the maltreatment or endangerment of children, including restraint and seclusion practices. Disparities in discipline-including the use of restraint and seclusion-begin as early as preschool, with particularly concerning disparities involving children of color with disabilities. The elimination of these provisions would mean that young children could be subject to a higher risk of corporal punishment, abuse, neglect, shaming, and humiliation, or being left alone while enrolled in Head Start.

Suspensions and Expulsions

"The proposal to remove federal disciplinary standards in 45 C.F.R. §1302.17 that prohibit or severely limit the uses of suspensions, expulsions, or unenrollment of children will push children out of programs and disrupt their social and emotional development. According to a 2016 study, as many as 250 preschoolers are suspended or expelled every day. Research has found that boys of color, children with disabilities, and children who are English language learners are disproportionately more likely to experience suspensions or other disciplinary practices in preschool. Further, these disciplinary practices have negative consequences on children and families' mental health and children's development, education, and health.

Standards for Teaching and Learning, Staff Qualifications, Trainings, and Wellness

"The proposed rule eliminates standards for best practices for teaching and learning (currently regulated in 45 C.F.R. §1302.30-1302.36), erodes staff qualifications, limits access to training and professional development, and reduces wellness services (required under 45 C.F.R. §1302.90-93), which will worsen conditions for the Head Start workforce and their capacity to provide children with high-quality early learning. The proposed rule removes clear guidelines on individualizing instruction that integrates early learning standards into curriculum and teacher training. The proposed rule effectively prohibits postsecondary education credentials-which runs counter to section 648A of the law that outlines Head Start staff qualifications. At a time when 59 percent of the Head Start programs report challenging classroom conditions as among the top reasons for staff vacancies, the proposed rule also seek to remove coaching, some teacher training, developmental screenings for children, wellness breaks, and mental health information for Head Start staff. This elimination of professional and supportive services will worsen environments for the Head Start workforce, who are already underpaid and turning over at a rate that limits the capacity to serve more eligible children and families. Even worse, this comes at a time when HHS is in the process of finalizing another rule, 'Restoring Flexibility to Support Head Start Program Access,' that rolls back provisions that would have increased wages and required benefits for Head Start staff. Together, these changes will exacerbate staff stress and burnout and compound recruitment and retention challenges, making it harder to serve more children and disrupting the continuity of care.

2. Deteriorates critical comprehensive services for children and families

"Under section 636 of the Head Start Act, one of the stated purposes of Head Start is to provide 'health, educational, nutritional, social, and other services' to low-income children and their families across the country. The proposal guts regulatory provisions (45 C.F.R. §§ 1302.40-46) that are critical to promoting healthy child development and school readiness, and ensuring families receive comprehensive services and are equipped to build nurturing and responsive relationships with their children. Research has proven that developmental and mental health screenings, nutrition counseling, oral health programs, and parent education and support services enhance children's outcomes and prevent long-term health issues, and Head Start has a long history of successfully providing these services for families. For example, during the 2025 program year, Head Start grantees across the country provided nearly 373,000 families (52 percent) with education on preventative medical and oral health, over 102,000 families (14 percent) with mental health services, and over 347,000 families (48 percent) with nutrition education. We oppose the proposal to roll back decades of progress and remove provisions that are central to the quality, frequency, and coordination of comprehensive services that are important for children's development and learning and family economic stability and well-being.

Health Services for Children

"The proposed elimination of 45 C.F.R. §1302.42 will result in fewer available physical, dental, and mental health services for children. Under the proposed rule, Head Start programs would no longer have to ensure children receive developmental, vision, and hearing screenings; check for a source of health insurance; and check the status of age-appropriate medical, mental health, and dental care. Current standards not only require these services but also establish timelines for doing so to ensure children receive medical and dental care without delay and requirements to refer children to follow up services and track progress to ensure children receive intervention or treatment for any identified issues. Further, the proposed rule strikes standards for family collaboration and education about their child's healthy development (45 C.F.R.§1302.41 and §1302.46) and the frequency and coordination of mental health services (45 C.F.R.§1302.45)

"The law requires HHS to have standards for health services (section 641A(a)(1)) and for Head Start grantees to have goals and measurable objectives for health services (section 642(f)). Notably, section 657C of the Head Start Act defines the term "health" to include services or care provided to enrolled children, their parents, or their siblings for both physical and mental health. However, the plan to eliminate almost all health, dental, and mental health standards, in addition to health and developmental screenings, service timelines, and ongoing care obligations will serve to deteriorate preventative and continuous health services for young children.

"Early screenings and services are fundamental to the mission of Head Start which recognizes children's learning, health, and development are inextricably linked, and your proposed changes will have long-term consequences for children. Head Start plays a critical role in ensuring that children with disabilities and their families are connected with providers of early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Without these screenings, children who are at-risk for, or are suspected of having, a disability could be diagnosed later and miss the opportunity to receive early intervention services, increasing their risk of falling behind in elementary school and force their families to pay out-of-pocket for screenings and services traditionally offered by Head Start.

"Additionally, we object to the removal of 45 C.F.R. §1302.42(e), which explicitly requires Early Head Start programs to use funds to provide diapers and formula during the program day, as well as the provision that allows Head Start programs to use program funds to pay for professional medical and oral health services if no other funding source is available. These guidance and authorities are crucial to ensuring every Head Start child receives early, preventative, and ongoing care - regardless of their family's ability to pay for and access these services on their own.

Services for Expecting Families

"We also oppose the proposal to eliminate most of the dedicated services for more than 10,000 expecting Head Start families. Currently 45 C.F.R. §1302.80-82 of the rule requires grantees to check enrolled pregnant women's prenatal care or insurance within 30 days, facilitate access to comprehensive services, and provide prenatal services to reduce barriers to healthy maternal and birthing outcomes. Prenatal and postpartum referrals and education are critical to the healthy development of infants, maternal health, and fostering nurturing and responsive caregiving environments.

"The culmination of striking these research-based regulations will undermine Head Start's current, proactive scope and the comprehensiveness of health, nutrition, and early intervention screenings and services for hundreds of thousands of Head Start children and families.

3. Restrict access for children and working families

"The proposed rule makes it harder for children and families to qualify for and be served by Head Start in a manner that meets their needs. We strongly object to the plans to shorten Head Start's hours of operation, remove enrollment requirements for children with disabilities, require English-only instruction, and remove self-attestation and excessive housing costs considerations for eligibility, particularly for families experiencing homelessness.

Program Duration

"The proposal to shorten the Head Start day is taking the program in exactly the wrong direction and is out of step with research on early childhood education. The proposed rule reverts Head Start centers program operations to the statutory minimum of 3 hours a day. To be clear, the current duration minimums that you seek to eliminate were designed to align Head Start with state pre-kindergarten successes in making gains in language, literacy, math, and social skills. The proposal also "acknowledges that families may need to secure alternative child care arrangements or may miss work time" in response to this new rule. Head Start is often the only licensed child care option in rural communities, and an estimated 4.2 million children lack access to a formal child care slot in their local community. In many states, depending on the age of the child and child care setting, the cost of child care exceeds annual, average in-state cost of college tuition, rent payments, or even mortgage payments. It is simply unrealistic and shameful to diminish Head Start services at a time when high-quality child care is unaffordable for working families and hard to find. We urge you to abandon this provision.

Income Eligibility Barriers

"We oppose the prohibition on self-attestation in the proposed §1301.02(c)(4). This prohibition will exclude families with extremely low incomes, those who are self-employed, or those experiencing homelessness from Head Start programs. These are individuals who do not have the same access to tax documents, pay stubs, and proof of income from employers as individuals with more financial stability. HHS's own analysis of the rule estimates that this change alone will make 8 percent of Head Start children, about 54,000 children, ineligible. It is abhorrent to remove some of the children and families with the greatest needs from Head Start.

"Current Performance Standards in §1301.12(i)(1)(ii) allow Head Start programs to adjust for excessive housing expenses when verifying income eligibility. As wages increase to respond to rising costs of living, many families earning low wages have seen their incomes rise above Head Start's federal poverty level eligibility threshold but still struggle to make ends meet and afford the high costs of necessities like housing, food, utilities, and child care. Striking this consideration will make it harder for families who face high costs of living and would benefit from Head Start's services to qualify for the program.

Children Experiencing Homelessness

"We are greatly concerned about the undue burden for children and families experiencing homelessness to be served by Head Start programs under your proposal. Section 640(m) of the Head Start Act requires the HHS Secretary to issue rules to 'remove barriers to the enrollment and participation of homeless children in Head Start programs', including ensuring children experiencing homelessness are identified and prioritized for enrollment, allowing their families to provide required documents within a reasonable time frame, offering continuity of services when housing is unstable, and coordinating with McKinney-Vento liaisons in local school districts. These legally required policies and procedures and the self-attestation pathway are critical for Head Start to carry out eligibility verification for children experiencing homelessness, allow enrollment of these children before records arrive, and hold slots for them if families relocate during the program year. In the 2024-2025 program year, Head Start served more than 60,000 children experiencing homelessness - the highest number on record. We urge you to follow the law to ensure Head Start identifies, enrolls, and coordinates services for children and families experiencing homelessness.

Children with Disabilities

"Under the proposed rule, requirements pertaining to services for children with disabilities are eliminated, exposing children and their families to increased discrimination and greater barriers to necessary supports and services. While the underlying statutory requirements remain in place, the proposal no longer mandates that children receive services while they await an IDEA evaluation, and it removes the explicit directive that programs cannot reject a child based on disability-status. We oppose the proposed rule's removal of standards that require Head Start programs to provide early intervention or special education services consistent with IDEA, support parent participation in this process, and prohibit denying enrollment or services based on disability status. While federal disability civil rights laws remain in effect, removing the detailed Performance Standards removes the mechanism that makes those legal rights operational day to day. Without clear federal requirements, whether a child with a disability receives an assessment, an accommodation, or coordinated services would depend far more on what an individual local program happens to know about disability, what resources it has, and how effectively a family can navigate complex systems on its own. That is likely to produce significant disparities across states and communities - the opposite of the consistency Head Start's standards were designed to guarantee. If finalized, this proposal threatens to unravel decades of progress toward inclusion for more than 100,000 children with disabilities currently served by Head Start.

Dual Language Learners

"The proposed extreme provision to impose English-only instruction in Head Start is a drastic shift from current learning and teaching science and practices to create educational access to all children. In 2024, nearly 30 percent of Head Start children's primary, home language was not English, and nearly 10 percent of children whose families primarily speak English were acquiring or learning another language. Head Start supports dual language learner children in the acquisition of the English language and provides educational services and parent engagement in home languages. For example, programs are directed statutorily to use funds on literacy training 'in a developmentally, culturally, and linguistically appropriate manner and support children's development in their native language' and include 'specific methods to best address the needs of children who are limited English proficient' in section 648(d)(2) of the Head Start Act. While section 641A(a)(1)(B)(x) of the law requires the Secretary to issue standards to ensure 'progress toward acquisition of the English language', your proposal to require English-only instruction may conflict with the statutory requirement that 'progress [be] made through the use of culturally and linguistically appropriate instructional services.' We ask that you withdraw this provision and maintain inclusive instruction for Head Start children, particularly dual language learners. Research is clear that your provision will slow English acquisition and can be harmful to child development and academic achievement.

4. Intentional ambiguity and misleading promises

"We are concerned that removing nearly all the Performance Standards will create a great deal of ambiguity for Head Start grantees to implement the law with fidelity. The removal of regulatory details and reduction in administrative spending places greater burdens and uncertainties for community-driven programs in fulfilling their statutory obligations. For over six decades, Head Start has been a successful federal-to-local program, but this proposal to defer to state administration will undermine the consistency and quality of the program.

Monitoring

"The intentional lack of clarity for administering a complex, high-quality early childhood education and comprehensive services leaves every Head Start program susceptible to being out of compliance and possibly losing their grants. Section 641A(c) of the Head Start Act requires the Secretary to monitor programs, and HHS holds the authority to issue deficiencies when the monitoring process identifies a systematic or substantial failure to meet program requirements. The proposed rule strikes some details under §1304.11 related to the conditions that result in a grant being designated for competition and adds a vague provision for HHS to determine and re-compete a grant if the grantee is 'determined not to be delivering classroom quality'. The proposal puts all Head Start grantees in a vulnerable position to face arbitrary monitoring processes without adequate guidance.

Administrative Capacity

"The proposal in §1301.14 to reduce maximum administrative spending from 15 percent to 5 percent for Head Start grantees expressly contradicts section 644(b) of the Head Start Act, which allows a cap of 15 percent with the option of a waiver. Funds set aside for administrative spending allow grantees to develop and operate Head Start programs, including fiscal management, human resources, information technology, data systems, and facilities management. To continue these required functions under a 5 percent limit is untenable and many programs will be forced to have staff share functions or eliminate functions or reduce operations. Some grantees have suggested they will have to relinquish their grants altogether because they will be unable to maintain operations. HHS's own analysis of this rule estimates that only 3.7 percent of Head Start grantees operate at or below this 5 percent threshold. To put it simply, this reduction will pose greater challenges for Head Start programs to deliver high-quality services or to expand services to serve more children, particularly for smaller and rural programs that already face limited administrative capacity.

Conclusion

"This proposed rule is a brazen attempt to dismantle Head Start without regard for the hundreds of thousands of young children and working-class families who depend on these programs and services every year. Under your proposal, Head Start children could be subject to corporal punishment; left unsupervised; have larger class sizes; have less qualified teachers; and no longer receive preventative and continuous health services, including oral health and mental health services. Families might have to find alternative child care options and struggle to meet eligibility requirements, particularly for those with little to no incomes, those experiencing homelessness, and those already facing high costs of living. The Head Start workforce will lose professional development, training, and be expected to teach and supervise more children without any additional pay or support.

"We strongly urge you to withdraw the proposed rule, obey the law, and protect the legacy of Head Start.

Sincerely,"

###