What to Know About Head Start, the Early Childhood Education Program the Trump Administration Is Proposing to Eliminate

The Trump Administration, which has promised to dismantle the Department of Education, has come after higher education—freezing funding for elite universities and revoking international student visas. Now, it’s targeting early childhood education.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

As the White House prepares to send Congress its 2026 fiscal year budget request, a 64-page internal preliminary budget proposal obtained by the Washington Post, according to an April 16 report, revealed plans of deep financial cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), accounting for roughly a third of the department’s discretionary budget.

Among the programs targeted for cuts is Head Start, which has for 60 years provided comprehensive early childhood education and care for low-income families. “The federal government should not be in the business of mandating curriculum, locations and performance standards for any form of education,” the document reportedly explains.

The plan to fully eliminate Head Start, which was among Project 2025’s controversial policy blueprint and first reported to be in the Trump Administration’s upcoming budget proposal earlier this month by USA Today, would impact about 750,000 children, according to the nonprofit National Head Start Association (NHSA), and has been met with strong backlash from Democrats.

Here’s what to know about the program.

Head Start’s history and effectiveness

Since the program began in 1965 under President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty,” Head Start has promoted school readiness and development for over 40 million children from birth to age 5. Besides education, its free services also include meals, medical and dental screenings, and social assistance. Families eligible under federal poverty guidelines must apply to the program to receive the benefits.

During its launch, Johnson called the program, which was then under the Office of Economic Opportunity, “one of the most constructive, and one of the most sensible, and also one of the most exciting.”

Throughout the years, the program has increased in scope and funding under both Democratic and Republican administrations, and its budget exceeded $1 billion in 1984. For fiscal year 2025, Congress authorized a budget of about $12 billion for Head Start.

But there’s been debate over how effective the program is at improving learning and health outcomes.

In 1985, HHS conducted a meta-analysis of research on Head Start and concluded: 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,” which critics have long used to claim that the program is ineffective. A 2010 HHS Impact 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,” which has been commonly referred to as a “fade out” effect. Former TIME columnist Joe Klein argued in 2011 for axing the entire program, writing: “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 advocates say Head Start is effective—a range of studies have shown positive long-term results from the program, such as reducing adult poverty and increasing the likelihood of higher educational attainments as well as even improving future parenting practices—but is hampered by underfunding and shortstaffing and needs to be bolstered rather than cut. The Associated Press reported on April 16 that some Head Start-backed preschools across the country have had to close this year due to delays in funding already appropriated by Congress.

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,” adding: “We urge 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, dubbed the Trump budget proposal “Every Child Left Behind,” a play on the name of the George W. Bush Administration’s “No Child Left Behind” education policy, in an April 14 statement. “Head Start has had broad, bipartisan support since it was created—this is not a Republican or Democratic issue,” DeLauro said, 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.) posted on X 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.) posted on X 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 an April 16 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.”