I can’t speak for everyone else, but after Donald Trump and JD Vance were declared the winners of the 2024 presidential election, I went into panic mode. Many of my questions centered on my future and the future of the U.S., specifically America’s children and their education. Will Trump enact some of the Project 2025 policies that have been floating around the internet, even though he denied knowledge of the plan on the campaign trail? Does he have the power to eliminate federal agencies like the U.S. Department of Education (DOEd)? What does this mean for federally funded programs like childcare, K-12 public schools, and special education?
These questions aren’t rhetorical. Rather, they strike at the heart of the programs the Department of Education supports. Through the Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the DOEd provides funding to public school districts that are considered to be high-poverty areas. Additionally, it funds the federal Head Start and Early Head Start programs, which provide accessible childcare and early learning to babies and toddlers from low-income families nationwide. Pell Grants and federal student loans are also processed at DOEd. With Trump returning to office, the public needs to be aware that all of these programs are now at risk.
Fortunately, President Trump does not have the power to dismantle the DOEd by himself. He would need congressional approval to accomplish this, most likely a supermajority of 60 Senators. Achieving this number is highly unlikely, even with Republicans controlling both the House and Senate for at least the next two years.
However, Trump can encourage his supporters in Congress to divert funding for specific programs. In his last term as president, Trump “repeatedly pushed for budget cuts to federal programs including Head Start and the Child Care and Development Block Grant, which help subsidize childcare costs for low-income families.” Cutting funding from childcare programs nationwide will plunge the United States further into a childcare crisis that has already been raging for years.
This crisis can be traced back to President Richard Nixon’s veto of the Child Development Act (CDA) of 1971, which would have provided federally funded universal childcare. With the CDA, the government had the power to completely transform the landscape of childcare and early childhood education (ECE) for the better. But by vetoing this bipartisan act, Nixon helped lay the groundwork for the systemic disaster Americans are facing today.
For context, the childcare industry in the U.S. has been critically underfunded and understaffed for decades. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average childcare provider in America makes just $14.60 an hour, with an average yearly salary of $30,360. This means that many of the people caring for and supporting our youngest children are making, on average, less per hour than those working in food service or retail—or even dog walkers.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the childcare industry has faced even more dire staffing shortages. Because babies and toddlers require more attention in the classroom, the ideal teacher-to-student ratio is 1:4. This can be extremely hard to reach when programs don’t have enough funding to retain qualified teachers and staff—a problem that results in overworked and underpaid educators. Unfortunately, “with limited public funding for child care, costs are balanced on the backs of families and underpaid providers.” Consequently, childcare programs are forced to raise their tuition rates, causing incredible amounts of stress for families nationwide. In many disheartening instances, these price hikes make childcare inaccessible to those with lower incomes.
Some states have taken action to help reverse this crisis. The Rhode Island Association for the Education of Young Children (RIAEYC) has been piloting a program called WAGE$, which is funded through a federal Preschool Development Grant administered via the Department of Education. This program creates wage supplements for early childhood education professionals on a sliding scale based on education levels. In doing this, WAGE$ hopes to retain skilled educators by increasing benefits and providing incentives to increase educational levels. But with the new administration, grant programs like these are now in jeopardy.
JD Vance’s comments on the childcare industry during the election cycle were especially alienating for voters, his advocacy for reliance on other family members to watch children instead of sending them to childcare particularly so. This is, of course, not a universally realistic option. Most families in the U.S. cannot consistently rely on relatives or community members to watch their children, and as a result are forced to confront the idea of leaving the workforce. For many, this means choosing between a career and a family—a choice that is disproportionately forced onto women.
Both Donald Trump and JD Vance have outlined their objectives in the infamous Project 2025 document. For example, chapter 11 begins by arguing that “Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.” Moreover, both Trump and Vance support the idea of a “Parents Bill of Rights,” or legal standing for parents to be able to dictate what their children learn in school and when. Instead of listening to trained educators who have degrees in teaching and know the best ways to help students learn and develop, Trump and Vance want to give parents the right to essentially sway their children’s education in any direction they see fit.
Project 2025 also discusses the childcare system. It states, “Instead of providing universal daycare, funding should go to parents either to offset the cost of staying home with a child or to pay for familial, in-home childcare.” The writers of Project 2025 imply that the presence of trained professionals in childcare programs is not beneficial. Instead, they want children to stay home with and learn solely from their parents. By eliminating funding for early childhood education, the Trump administration is sending the message that they do not care about educators or the work that they have been trained to do.
I strongly believe that allocating funding for our youngest generation is an investment in the future. Research has consistently shown that early childhood education programs positively impact babies’ and toddlers’ social, emotional, and cognitive development. Children who attend high-quality childcare programs are more likely to graduate from high school and retain jobs, therefore maximizing the long-term economic benefits and growth for society. Zero to Three, a nonprofit dedicated to research and advocacy for young children, reports that high-quality childcare yields a $4 to $9 return per $1 invested. Clearly, childcare is not just a family issue—it’s also an economic one.
By reducing or removing funding from childcare, the government would actively be working against working-class families. Access to quality and affordable childcare in this country is already severely lacking, as parents sometimes have to choose between paying rent or sending their children to childcare while they work. Additionally, there is a reported $122 billion in economic losses due to parents leaving the workforce to care for their children. And currently, almost 52% of mothers must consider leaving their jobs to care for their children due to the financial burden paying for childcare would impose.
Despite a significant amount of President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect Vance’s campaign rhetoric focusing on restoring the traditional nuclear family, there has been little mention of childcare when it comes to their policy plans. It is hypocritical of them to claim to support families and the economy while actively working to eliminate funding for programs that have been proven to help; it is also clear that Trump is not willing to invest money into our youngest generation. He has proven time and time again that, even though he claims to support families and young children, in the end he will do the opposite. Less federal funding means closed programs, which would result in approximately 3.2 million families losing access to childcare. As Trump and Vance prepare to assume office, the work of advocating for our youngest generation cannot stop. We owe it to the children of the future to advocate for adequate public education and childcare funding, such that critical developmental milestones can occur and the right to quality education is preserved.
