Listen to the article
The Trump administration has instructed Head Start providers to avoid numerous terms in federal grant applications, including “race,” “belonging,” and “pregnant people,” a move that could fundamentally alter the early education program serving vulnerable children across America.
According to court filings from last month, the Department of Health and Human Services directed a Wisconsin Head Start director to eliminate these and over a dozen other terms from her application. She later received an expanded list containing nearly 200 discouraged words, including “Black,” “Native American,” “disability,” and “women.”
This directive stems from the administration’s broader campaign against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which it has pledged to eliminate throughout the federal government. The guidance creates significant complications for program administrators who must balance compliance with new restrictions against fulfilling their legal obligations under the Head Start Act.
“Grantees are sort of self-selecting out of those activities beforehand because of fear and direction they’re getting from the Office of Head Start that they can’t do these important research-based activities anymore that are important for children’s learning and that are actually required by law,” explained Ruth Friedman, who led the Office of Child Care during the Biden administration.
The controversy has escalated into a legal battle. In April, parent groups and Head Start associations from Washington, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin filed a lawsuit against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other officials, alleging the administration is illegally dismantling the program.
The plaintiffs argue that the administration’s restrictions force providers to operate in ways that violate the Head Start Act, which explicitly requires directors to provide demographic information about enrolled families. This task becomes virtually impossible when terms like “Black,” “disability,” and “socioeconomic” are prohibited. When approached for comment, Health and Human Services officials declined to address the pending litigation.
Head Start centers, which primarily rely on federal funding, serve babies, infants, and toddlers from low-income households, foster care, or homeless families. The program has historically enjoyed bipartisan support as a crucial early intervention resource for disadvantaged children.
The situation has created significant confusion within the Head Start community. The unnamed Wisconsin director expressed her predicament in court documents: “This has put me in an impossible situation.” She fears that including the banned terms to comply with the Head Start Act could jeopardize her grant, while following the new guidance might lead to penalties for violating the law in the future.
The impact extends beyond paperwork concerns. A Head Start program on a Native American reservation in Washington state reportedly had to abandon staff training on supporting autistic children and children with trauma after being instructed to eliminate “all Diversity and Inclusion-related activities.” Officials also told the director she could no longer prioritize tribal members for enrollment—despite the Head Start Act explicitly permitting such prioritization. The word “Tribal” appears on the list of disfavored terms.
Critics view these restrictions as part of a broader effort to undermine Head Start’s mission. “They don’t believe these public programs should actually be open to serving all communities,” said Jennesa Calvo-Friedman of the ACLU, representing the plaintiffs. “This is a way to gut the fundamentals of the program.”
This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has created disruptions for Head Start. Early in Trump’s previous term, his budget chief attempted to halt all federal grants for review to eliminate DEI initiatives. Although Head Start was supposedly exempt from this freeze, many grantees experienced funding delays, forcing some centers to temporarily close. The Government Accountability Office later determined these delays violated the Impoundment Control Act, which restricts when a president can interrupt the flow of government funds.
As the legal challenge proceeds, Head Start providers across the country remain caught between competing directives, struggling to fulfill their mission of serving America’s most vulnerable children while navigating an increasingly politicized landscape.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
As someone who has followed the mining and energy sectors for years, I’m curious how this could impact related Head Start programs that serve children in resource extraction communities. Avoiding terms like ‘race’ and ‘women’ seems at odds with ensuring these vital early education initiatives reach all eligible families.
That’s a good point. Head Start providers in mining and energy regions may face unique challenges in serving diverse populations, and limiting their ability to address those needs in grant applications is worrying. This policy could have ripple effects across many industries and communities.
Removing key terms like ‘disability’ and ‘Native American’ from grant applications seems short-sighted and could lead to gaps in services for important demographic groups. Head Start should be focused on providing the best possible support for all children, not limiting how providers can describe their target populations.
Absolutely. This move seems to undermine the core purpose of Head Start, which is to give every child, regardless of background, an equitable start in early education. Eliminating references to diversity and inclusion is deeply problematic.
It’s disheartening to see the federal government taking steps that could undermine educational equity and inclusion, especially in a program as important as Head Start. I hope this directive is reconsidered, as it seems at odds with the principles of providing high-quality early childhood education for all.
I agree, this is a troubling development that deserves close scrutiny. Head Start should be focused on supporting the most vulnerable children, not restricting how providers can describe the populations they serve. Hopefully there is pushback against this policy change.
This seems like a concerning move that could undermine the core mission of Head Start to serve vulnerable children. Limiting the use of terms like ‘race’ and ‘women’ in grant applications is troubling and may make it harder for providers to address the specific needs of the populations they serve.
I agree, this directive appears to be part of a broader effort to roll back diversity and inclusion initiatives. It’s concerning how it could impact the ability of Head Start programs to address equity and serve marginalized communities effectively.