Why Trump’s plan to cut Head Start regulations could undermine services for the country’s poorest fa
There is research showing that there are numerous benefits for a low-income child to attend a Head Start program, though these effects are less clear as the child ages.

For over 60 years, the federal program Head Start has helped children from low-income families get ready for elementary school through early childhood education and related support services, like speech therapy and developmental screenings.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced on Aug. 6, 2026, proposed changes that would cut the majority of the rules that guide Head Start programs and would also give states more authority over how the federal program is run.
This proposal comes after the Trump administration tried unsuccessfully to defund Head Start in 2025. Funding freezes and the government shutdown in 2025 also caused many Head Start centers to temporarily close. These closures caused some staff to resign and compelled some Head Start families to withdraw their children from the program.
The latest proposed changes could alter the program’s day-to-day operations in various ways – whether that means no longer giving children free daily meals or relaxing the program’s student-to-teacher ratio requirements.
The new rules would also mandate that all classes be taught in English, regardless of the language children and their families speak at home.
Not the same program
Some Head Start participants, workers and advocates have expressed concern that these changes would transform Head Start into a different program – from one that alleviates the effects of poverty to one that has a more generic emphasis on early childhood education.
As a doctoral candidate in economics, I’ve spent the past six years studying Head Start and its impact on local communities.
Head Start is a vital provider of childcare and other services for the poorest children and their families in rural, urban and suburban communities across the U.S. Reducing the number of federal rules governing Head Start will likely not enhance the quality or broaden the availability of the program to the children and families who need it most.
Understanding Head Start’s launch
Head Start is a free, nationwide year-round preschool program that serves more than 700,000 low-income children ages 3-5 and their families. It operates with a US$12.3 billion annual budget. Head Start providers are typically run by nonprofits or local schools.
Eligibility for the program is generally determined based on household income, though there are some categories of children who are automatically eligible, such those who are unhoused or in foster care.
The majority of Head Start participants attend preschools run by one of the 17,000 Head Start centers across the country. Some home-based services are also offered to support families.
Head Start is notable among early childhood education programs because it provides more than just free childcare and education. Head Start is required to serve at least two meals per day to the young children who attend these schools, as well as offer speech therapy and other kinds of developmental support and health services when needed.
In some rural communities, Head Start’s ability to bring dentists and doctors to centers has dramatically expanded healthcare access for entire towns or school districts.
Many states and cities have introduced or expanded their own free public preschool options in recent years. But Head Start continues to be an essential early childcare program for low-income children and their families across the country.
Head Start takes off
President Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration launched Head Start in 1965 as an eight-week summer preschool program.
Over 500,000 low-income children participated in Head Start during this first summer. The program quickly proved popular and effective. The government then expanded the program to cover the entire school year, starting in the fall of 1965.
The early childhood experts who designed Head Start understood that simply offering free education to low-income children was not enough to offset the impacts of growing up in poverty. They recognized the necessity of a comprehensive, whole-child approach, a philosophy that continues to define the program today.
So while Head Start primarily provides education and childcare services, the program also requires parents to participate in parent-child activities and other activities that engage families across their broader communities.
Since 1965, other programs have been introduced under the Head Start umbrella, including Early Head Start, which provides Head Start services to children from birth to 3 years old, as well as pregnant women.
Overall, more than 40 million children have participated in Head Start since its launch.
Head Start’s impact on children
Numerous studies have analyzed how Head Start affects children who participate in the program, as well as their families.
Much of the research has found that Head Start’s positive effects on its participants are sustained through the end of third grade. These effects include significantly improved educational and health outcomes.
Researchers have also found that participating in Head Start lowered the likelihood of being placed in special education or committing a crime, and it lowered child mortality rates, among other positive results.
Head Start’s longer-term impacts, meaning those measured over the course of a child’s lifetime, are less clear.
Some studies have found impacts that last well into adulthood, though some have not. These studies contribute to the debate over the benefits of Head Start “fading out” over time, though the causes and significance of this phenomenon are disputed.
One notable study that Congress commissioned in 2010 found positive effects for Head Start participants in cognitive, social-emotional and health outcomes, though few of these impacts lasted through the end of first grade.
Both the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and the Trump administration have cited this report to argue that Head Start is ineffective. However, it is important to note that many scholars have pointed to significant problems with the methodology of the study.
What’s next?
The Trump administration suggests that these changes will cut costs by $1.5 billion to $3 billion by 2031. Those savings would account for roughly 0.04% of any given year’s typical total federal budget.
I believe that these proposed changes fly in the face of Head Start’s goals, and changes to Head Start’s rules and standards will likely contribute to the existing issues of inconsistent access to Head Start across the country.
The Administration for Children and Families, an office within the Department of Health and Human Services, is accepting public comments on the changes, as required by federal law. It will review the comments after the Oct. 6, 2026, deadline.
As of late September, there were over 18,465 comments, most expressing serious concern about these changes.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Read These Next
Oil and gas industry expected surplus – but war brought shortage instead
Any work to ease current shortages and price hikes while the Strait of Hormuz remains closed will take…
Arctic infrastructure was built on frozen ground – drones and digital twins can help spot the permaf
A regional permafrost map can’t tell a builder if a particular foundation or road will survive as…
Are religious charter schools constitutional? After deadlocked SCOTUS decision, another Oklahoma cas
A new application for a religious charter school is stirring up far-reaching questions about the constitutionality…


