Children playing with colorful wooden building blocks. (Getty Images) 

WASHINGTON — Funding for scores of Head Start programs hung in the balance as the government shutdown continued Monday without an end in sight. 

Unless a deal is reached to end the ongoing funding lapse that began Oct. 1, more than 65,000 children in 140 local Head Start programs across 41 states and Puerto Rico will not get their federal grant funding come Nov. 1, according to the National Head Start Association. The federal government spent about $12.3 billion on the program in fiscal 2025.

Community programs that receive Head Start funding have different start dates for when their grants are available. 

Head Start helps fund roughly 1,600 community programs that served more than 790,000 children during the 2023-2024 program year. 

The program is managed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the employees in that agency who would disburse those awards are currently furloughed because of the shutdown.

Six programs serving 6,525 children did not receive a grant award Oct. 1 and are already tapping into outside resources and local funds to stay afloat. If the shutdown continues past Friday, another 134 programs that serve 58,627 children will lose federal grant funding. 

Head Start provides early childhood education, nutritious meals, health screenings and other support services to low-income families. 

It is a discretionary program and subject to congressional approval each year, making it particularly vulnerable to the government shutdown. 

“There’s just so much instability … that this is causing,” Tommy Sheridan, deputy director of the advocacy group the National Head Start Association, told States Newsroom. “And while we’re hopeful and we’re going to be doing everything we possibly can to try to minimize the impact directly on children and families, there is going to be a long-term impact, no matter what, that is felt.” 

Shutdown standoff

The shutdown began Oct. 1, the start of the fiscal year, when Congress failed to appropriate money for federal programs. 

Democrats have voted against bills that would temporarily reopen the government as they ask Republicans to negotiate a fix to expiring tax credits for health insurance premiums purchased on the Affordable Care Act marketplace. Republicans have refused to negotiate while the government is shut down, leading to an ongoing stalemate.

In a statement Monday, Emily Hilliard, a spokesperson for HHS, blamed the impending lack of funds on Democrats. 

“More than 58,000 children are on course to lose access to Head Start funding and programs on November 1 due solely to the Democrat-led government shutdown,” she wrote.

Hilliard added that “the Trump Administration is committed to reopening the government for the American people.”

‘Collateral damage’ 

Sheridan criticized the political landscape that will likely lead to a lack of funding.

“I can’t stress enough — this is purely due to politics,” Sheridan said. “This has nothing to do with Head Start not being an effective program or people in Congress and the administration not supporting Head Start.” 

He pointed to the “strong bipartisan support” the program has received since its launch in 1965. 

“This is just us being collateral damage in a bigger fight that is going to be hurting working families and children,” Sheridan added. 

Sheridan noted that “when programs don’t have access to federal resources, generally speaking, they can try, depending on the size of the program, to stay open for a certain period of time, but they’re going to be basically using other funds, and then would be reimbursing those costs down the road, kind of like an accounting maneuver, to be able to keep their programs running.” 

He added: “That’s why we’re seeing so many programs either close or have to consider closures or things of that kind and why … we are just urging Congress and the administration to stop having children and families be the collateral damage of a political fight.”

Consequences for local Head Start programs

For programs that have to shut down because of the loss of federal funding, Sheridan pointed to several impacts.

Children would lose access to healthy meals and other resources. Families would be without affordable child care options, forcing some to quit their jobs or reduce their work hours. Community members could see economic ripple effects if staff who work in Head Start programs lose their paychecks or their jobs. 

“We also have community partners that we rely on for services, and they rely on us for business — small businesses, contractors, vendors, other small businesses, things like that — but they rely on their Head Start contracts, and if we can’t pay the bills, they’re not going to be able to count on us for what they need as well,” he said. 

Program already reeling

Under President Donald Trump’s administration, the program was already experiencing chaos prior to the government shutdown, including reports of delays in accessing approved grant funding, regional office closures and firings at HHS’ Office of Head Start.

That office also told grant recipients in March that it “will not approve the use of federal funding for any training and technical assistance (TTA) or other program expenditures that promote or take part in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.” 

A federal judge in September temporarily blocked the administration’s directive that aimed to prevent immigrants living in the United States illegally from accessing Head Start programs. 

Meanwhile, Trump’s fiscal 2026 budget request calls for maintaining Head Start funding at its prior fiscal year level of roughly $12.3 billion.

The Senate Appropriations Committee passed its annual bill to fund HHS, including Head Start, back in July and provided $12.4 billion for the program, a roughly $85 million increase.

The corresponding panel in the House also approved its bill to fund HHS in September, aligning with the administration’s request of maintaining funding for Head Start at $12.3 billion in fiscal 2026.  

Sheridan pointed out that the program has operated through challenges before, whether natural disasters, the COVID-19 pandemic, or previous government shutdowns. 

“Our programs are absolutely dedicated, hopeful and are working tirelessly to minimize that impact on children and families, but we cannot operate a program on hope and goodwill alone,” he said. “We need Congress and we need the president to come together to keep our classrooms open and also to ensure that Head Start funding can stay in line with the rising costs that we’ve seen over this last year.” 

The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 1, 2025, with a sign advising the Capitol Visitors Center is closed due to the government shutdown.  (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday clarified and broadened a temporary restraining order she issued earlier this week that blocks the Trump administration from laying off federal employees during the ongoing government shutdown. 

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Judge Susan Illston said during an emergency hearing the restraining order affects any agency that has employees who are members of the unions that brought the lawsuit or are in collective bargaining units.

The Trump administration choosing not to recognize those union activities based on an earlier executive order doesn’t mean an agency can issue layoff notices, she said. 

Illston, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, specifically said the departments of Interior and Health and Human Services must comply with the TRO and cannot issue Reductions in Force, or RIFs. 

“It is not complicated,” Illston said. “During this time these agencies should not be doing RIFs of the protected folks that we’re talking about.” 

She also added the National Federation of Federal Employees, Service Employees International Union and National Association of Government Employees, Inc. to the lawsuit and the temporary restraining order. 

Meanwhile, as the shutdown that began Oct. 1 extends with no end in sight, administration officials said they will freeze $11 billion in Army Corps of Engineers projects and furlough Energy Department employees at the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Unions argue administration ignoring part of judge’s order

The California case was originally brought by the American Federation of Government Employees, the AFL-CIO and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Danielle Leonard, an attorney representing those unions, said during the hearing the Trump administration had been “overly narrowly interpreting the scope of the TRO and ignoring some of the language in the TRO.”

Leonard pointed to a brief filed by the Department of Health and Human Services that said the agency hadn’t issued any layoff notices to workers covered by the TRO, even though an earlier filing to the court said HHS had sent notices to 982 employees.

That department, Leonard said, appeared to take the position that an earlier executive order ended all union representation at HHS. 

“The government is well aware that is a disputed issue,” Leonard said. 

Elizabeth Hedges, counsel for the Trump administration, said after considerable back and forth that she didn’t agree with Leonard and the judge’s interpretation of the temporary restraining order’s impact. 

“I would submit that’s not what the TRO says,” Hedges said, though she later told the judge she would make sure the administration complied with the updated explanation of the restraining order.  

Hedges also told the judge the Interior Department didn’t previously disclose it was contemplating layoffs because officials began considering those RIFs before the shutdown and were only going to implement them during the shutdown because it’s gone on so long. 

The judge ordered the Trump administration to tell the court by 9 a.m. Pacific on Monday about any actual or imminent layoff notices under the full scope of the restraining order. 

Army Corps to pause billions in big-city projects 

White House budget director Russ Vought announced hours before the emergency court hearing the administration plans to freeze and may unilaterally cancel billions more in funding approved by Congress. 

“The Democrat shutdown has drained the Army Corps of Engineers’ ability to manage billions of dollars in projects,” Vought wrote in a social media post. “The Corps will be immediately pausing over $11 billion in lower-priority projects & considering them for cancellation, including projects in New York, San Francisco, Boston, and Baltimore. More information to come from the Army Corps of Engineers.”

The Trump administration has been cited several times by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office for not spending money approved by Congress as lawmakers intended. 

Generally, after Congress approves a spending bill and it becomes law, the president is supposed to faithfully implement its provisions. 

Any president that wants to cancel funding lawmakers already approved is supposed to send Congress a rescissions request, which starts a 45-day clock for members to approve, modify, or ignore the request. 

The Trump administration followed that legal pathway earlier this year when it asked Congress to cancel billions in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and foreign aid. 

The House and Senate, both controlled by Republicans, approved the request after senators preserved full funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.

The White House budget office sent up another rescissions request in late August, asking lawmakers to cancel billions of additional spending on foreign aid programs. 

Neither chamber has taken action to approve that request, but Vought believes that since it was sent up within the last 45 days of the fiscal year, he is allowed to cancel that funding without congressional action. 

The GAO and Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, have both called the maneuver, known as a pocket rescission, unlawful. 

Nuclear security workers to be furloughed

The Trump administration also announced Friday that it would have more than 1,000 employees at the National Nuclear Security Administration stop working for the remainder of the shutdown, joining hundreds of thousands of others on furlough. According to its website, the NNSA’s job “is to ensure the United States maintains a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear stockpile through the application of unparalleled science, technology, engineering, and manufacturing.”

An Energy Department spokesperson wrote in an email to States Newsroom that “approximately 1,400 NNSA federal employees will be furloughed as of Monday, October 20th and nearly 400 NNSA federal employees will continue to work to support the protection of property and the safety of human life. NNSA’s Office of Secure Transportation remains funded through October 27, 2025.”

Energy Secretary Chris Wright, the spokesperson said, “will be in Las Vegas, Nevada and at the National Nuclear Security Site Monday to further discuss the impacts of the shutdown on America’s nuclear deterrent.”

During past shutdowns federal employees that must keep working as well as those placed on furlough have received back pay. But Trump and administration officials have signaled they may try to reinterpret a 2019 law that authorized back pay for all federal workers once Congress passes a funding bill and the government reopens. 

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., joined by President Donald Trump, delivers an announcement on “significant medical and scientific findings for America’s children” in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Sept. 22, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Federal health officials suggested a link between the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy as a risk for autism, although many health agencies have noted inconclusive results in the research. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans disapprove of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s job performance and the federal government’s evolving vaccine policy, according to a poll released Thursday by the nonpartisan health organization KFF.

In addition, the vast majority of those surveyed have heard the unproven claims made by President Donald Trump, Kennedy and others in late September that taking acetaminophen, also known as Tylenol, during pregnancy could be one possible environmental factor in a child later being diagnosed with autism.

A total of 77% of the people KFF polled said they knew of the statements, though whether people believe the claims, which have yet to be established by the medical community, varied.

Only 4% of those surveyed said it is “definitely true” that taking Tylenol during pregnancy increases the risk of the child developing autism, and 35% said the claim is “definitely false.” Thirty percent said it is “probably true” and 30% said it is “probably false.”

Combined, 65% said it’s either probably or definitely false to say that taking acetaminophen during pregnancy increases the chance of a child developing autism, a complex disorder that experts believe is the result of both genetic and environmental factors.

When broken down by political party, 86% of Democrats, 67% of independents and 43% of Republicans said the claims were either probably or definitely false.

The survey shows 59% somewhat or strongly disapprove of how Kennedy is handling his new role at the top of the country’s public health infrastructure.

The level of support changes considerably depending on political party affiliation, with 86% of Democrats, 64% of independents and 26% of Republicans disapproving.

A slightly higher number, 62%, either somewhat or strongly disapprove of the United States’ vaccine policy.A similar trend emerged when those polled were broken up by political parties. Eighty-eight percent of Democrats, 67% of independents and 31% of Republicans somewhat or strongly disapproved of vaccine policy.

The survey shows a declining share of Americans have faith in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide trusted information about vaccines, compared with previous KFF polls in September 2023 and earlier this year.

A total of 63% of respondents two years ago trusted the CDC on vaccines, but that has declined to 50%.

Democrats’ faith in the CDC’s vaccine recommendations has dropped from 88% two years ago to 64%, independents have gone from 61% to 47% and Republicans have remained relatively steady, only going from 40% to 39%.

Across political parties, a person’s own doctor as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association remain broadly trusted for vaccine information.Eighty-three percent said they trust their doctor or health care provider, 69% believed information from the American Academy of Pediatrics and 64% had faith in the AMA.

The poll of 1,334 adults took place from Sept. 23 to Sept. 29 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full survey. Questions broken down by a person’s political ideology had a margin of error of plus or minus 6 percentage points.