������Ƶ

The last three months have seen no shortage of federal action related to federal early care and education policy. Below is a roundup of events over the past three months that have a direct impact on early education.

Budget and Appropriations

On April 3, the White House released its Fiscal Year (FY) 2027 . While it’s ultimately up to Congress to decide on funding levels, the president’s budget request is significant because it highlights the administration’s priorities. The president’s budget calls for level funding for both the Child Care and Development Block Grant ($8.8 billion) and Head Start ($12.4 billion). As in the past, the budget proposes eliminating the Preschool Development Block Grant Birth through Five (PDG B-5) program. It’s worth noting that the PDG B-5 program was level-funded at $315 million for FY 2026 despite being slated for elimination in President ������Ƶ budget request that year.

On June 4, the House Appropriations Committee released for the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. The bill proposes a $10 million increase for CCDBG along with a $10 million increase for Head Start. The bill parallels the president’s budget request in its proposed elimination of the PDG B-5 program. On June 5, the House Appropriations Committee , advancing it out of committee. The Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee is now expected to release its own FY27 funding proposal.

Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Final Rule

On May 11, the Trump administration released related to the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). The rule, which will go into effect on July 13, rescinds several requirements enacted during the Biden administration, including capping CCDF family co-payments at seven percent of income, paying providers prospectively, paying providers based on enrollment rather than attendance, and providing some services via grants or contracts. As I wrote in October, the Biden-era rule sparked many of the positive changes in child care policy in states across the country. States will still have the option of pursuing these policies but they will no longer be required by the federal government.

Head Start NPRMs

Also on May 11, the administration announced a proposed rule from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services titled If enacted, the rule would remove requirements established during the Biden administration related to staff wages and benefits. Under the , Head Start programs were required to make significant improvements to staff benefits by August 2028 and to wages by August 2031. In , the National Head Start Association (NHSA) highlighted the fiscal pressures facing Head Start programs and noted that, “simply repealing the workforce compensation provisions of the 2024 final rule, which are not scheduled to take effect until 2028 or 2031, will not change these underlying fiscal pressures.” 

While this NPRM is narrowly focused on wages and benefits, there is reason to believe that this summer the administration will release a much broader NPRM focused on Head Start. The exact contents of the upcoming NPRM are still unclear, but the administration hinted at the possibility of large-scale changes to the program in their . That document proposes “to allow individual state standards to apply to programs, including licensing and monitoring standards, health and safety requirements, child-to-staff ratios, and definitions of quality.” 

Currently, Head Start programs across the country are governed by that set uniform requirements in terms of curriculum, staff qualifications, health and safety, child-to-staff ratios, family engagement, and comprehensive services. Potentially allowing individual state standards to substitute for the federal standards could compromise the program in multiple ways. State licensing and monitoring standards for child care vary enormously across states and, in many cases, are far weaker than Head Start’s requirements. Several states have child-to-staff ratios that are significantly higher than what Head Start allows. The Head Start rule is expected to be released in July or August and we’ll then have a much clearer idea of what exactly is being proposed.

Child Care Fraud Legislation

As I mentioned in my March update, on March 5 the House Education and Workforce Committee aimed at cracking down on alleged fraud and strengthening oversight of federal child care assistance programs. Generally, these bills would create additional requirements for states and give the HHS Secretary added authority to withhold child care funds. While six of the bills passed along party lines, two bills received unanimous approval from both parties.

Those eight bills were put into a package and introduced on the House floor as , the Stop Child Care Scams Act of 2026. On June 3, the House of Representatives voted in support of the bill, with four Democrats joining all Republicans in support. First Five Years Fund raised about the bill, noting that improper CCDF payments are not fraud and most often result from paperwork errors and administrative mistakes rather than intentional misconduct. The bill now moves to the Senate for action, but it’s unclear if and when the Senate will take up the legislation.

Dismantling of the Department of Education

Finally, on June 17, the Trump administration announced significant actions in its ongoing effort to dismantle the Department of Education. The department announced with the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Justice (DOJ). Specifically, the administration plans to move programs for disabled students into HHS and the enforcement of civil rights laws in schools to DOJ. Many that moving the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) to the Department of Health and Human Services will reinforce stigma by associating disability with an agency dealing largely in health care and medical issues. In responding to the news, Carrie Gillispie, ������Ƶ’s Early Development and Disability Project Director, noted that, “Separating programs for students with disabilities from all other education programs harkens back to our nation’s ugly past of othering, institutionalizing, isolating, and segregating the more than 15 percent of youth with disabilities.”