President Donald Trump's administration is preparing to dismantle the quality standards that have defined Head Start for decades, replacing more than 100 pages of regulations with roughly a dozen pages that would leave critical decisions about early childhood education to state and local governments. Two people familiar with the deliberations confirmed the sweeping overhaul, speaking anonymously because they feared reprisal and the information wasn't yet public.
The proposed changes would eliminate federal requirements on child-to-teacher ratios, health screenings, and family engagement programs that have made Head Start a gold standard for early education since the 1960s. The Department of Health and Human Services announced on X that a rule would be published this week. Spokesperson Emily Hilliard said Monday the administration "remains committed to strengthening Head Start by preserving federal investment in the program while advancing reforms that expand access, increase local flexibility, reduce unnecessary administrative burden, and ensure services are delivered effectively to children and families in need."
Who Bears the Cost
Head Start serves more than half a million low-income babies, toddlers, and preschoolers nationwide. The program offers free preschool and developmental screenings to families that qualify, along with supports that address the interconnected challenges of poverty. Draft rules would require additional documentation from homeless or unemployed parents, the sources told The Associated Press. An early version would've barred children of undocumented immigrants from enrolling, even if the children themselves are U.S. citizens. It's unclear whether that provision survived in the final draft.
Jody Smith, a lead Head Start teacher south of Seattle, was a high school dropout when she enrolled her first child in the program. Staff encouraged her to return to school. She became a teacher. Later, Head Start diagnosed her youngest child with autism. "Without Head Start, I would have probably stayed as a poverty line," Smith said. "And I don't know that we would have gotten as far in life as we have."
What's Being Stripped Away
The Trump administration's proposal would eliminate requirements around staff-to-student ratios and safety standards, instructing operators to follow state and local laws instead. Those laws are often more permissive. The new proposal says nothing about suspensions and expulsions, according to the sources, making it easier for programs to remove children with disabilities who require intensive support.
Curriculum frameworks and prohibitions on physical and emotional abuse of children are spelled out in the current 122 pages of performance standards. The proposal would toss most of that rulebook. It'd also require all instruction in English, a new mandate.
Khari Garvin, who ran the Office of Head Start under President Joe Biden, said the changes would leave only a shell. "We'd have the carcass of Head Start," Garvin said. "You might have a program that's called Head Start, but in substance it will not be." Tommy Sheridan, deputy director of the National Head Start Association, said the organization hasn't seen the proposed rules yet. "When it does come out," Sheridan said, "we'll be ready to fight back where we need to fight back."
A Program Under Siege
Head Start has faced multiple threats since Trump took office last year. Project 2025, a conservative policy blueprint authored by the official who's now Trump's budget chief, called for eliminating the program entirely. Last year's draft budget proposed exactly that, declaring: "The federal government should not be in the business of mandating curriculum, locations, and performance standards for any form of education." After public outcry, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told Congress the program's funding was safe.
Funding disruptions have already forced temporary closures. Some programs shuttered briefly after Trump took office. A government shutdown in October led more centers to close their doors temporarily. The administration let go scores of federal workers who supported the program and closed half its regional offices. Officials also discouraged grant applicants from using words like "woman" or "race," part of an effort to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. They set out to bar undocumented immigrants from the program. Courts halted both efforts after lawsuits.
Earlier this year, Trump officials erased a Biden-era rule that mandated raises and greater benefits for Head Start employees. When that rule went into effect in the second year, Head Start teachers earned less than $40,000 annually on average. The majority hold bachelor's degrees.
Ruth Friedman, who helped the Obama administration draft the regulations now in jeopardy, said the standards are essential for preparing children for kindergarten. "If the administration strikes down those standards, it would set back our nation's educational goals and our efforts to reduce poverty, and it is explicitly prohibited by the Head Start law itself," Friedman said.
Federal law requires at least a month for public comment once the proposal is published. If new rules are finalized, implementation could be delayed, and lawsuits may halt enforcement altogether.
Why This Matters:
Head Start was created as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's War on Poverty, targeting the interconnected challenges low-income households face. It serves children and adults alike, coaching parents on reaching their goals and connecting them with services. The program's comprehensive approach—medical, dental, and vision screenings, developmental monitoring, family engagement, and employment opportunities—addresses poverty as a structural problem requiring coordinated support. Gutting federal standards would shift responsibility to states and localities with widely varying resources and priorities, likely widening existing inequalities in early education access and quality. For families like Smith's, who relied on Head Start's wraparound services to escape poverty and identify disabilities early, the loss of federal protections could mean the difference between opportunity and stagnation. The proposed changes would fundamentally alter a program that's enjoyed bipartisan support for decades, transforming it from a comprehensive anti-poverty initiative into a patchwork system with minimal federal oversight and accountability.