The Trump administration is seeking to prohibit undocumented students from federally funded early childhood and postsecondary career and technical education as part of a multi-agency effort to bar undocumented immigrants from accessing services it says are similar to welfare.
The U.S. departments of Education and Health and Human Services were among several federal agencies to submit official notices Thursday arguing that undocumented immigrants were ineligible for a wide range of the programs they oversee.
The notices take aim at Head Start, the preschool program for children from families living in poverty, and federally funded, postsecondary CTE programs and adult education. The restrictions on undocumented students benefiting from programs that receive federal funding under the Perkins program, which funds CTE, generally wouldn’t affect services in K-12 schools but would affect dual enrollment and early college programs that allow high school students to earn college credit, the Trump administration said.
Trump administration officials said their moves are aimed at reducing incentives for illegal immigration and directing taxpayer dollars to citizens.
“The department will ensure that taxpayer funds are reserved for citizens and individuals who have entered our country through legal means who meet federal eligibility criteria,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a prepared statement.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said the change “restores integrity to federal social programs, enforces the rule of law, and protects vital resources for the American people.”
The notices, which go back on decades of precedent, are another way President Donald Trump’s administration has stepped up immigration enforcement.
A 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision protects undocumented students’ right to a free, public education. And by barring undocumented students from only early childhood and postsecondary programs funded by the federal government, the administration argues it’s respecting that legal precedent by not interfering with students’ access to a basic public education. But some see the move as potentially narrowing the definition of a basic education and, thus, what undocumented students have a right to receive in school.
“I don’t think that they are doing this because the cost savings are so critical to their mission,” said Julie Sugarman, associate director at the Migration Policy Institute’s National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy. “The main implication that they’re looking for—and that is very likely what we’ve seen from other kinds of actions like this—is that it does have a chilling effect. It does affect people’s thoughts about whether the United States would be a welcoming place to come.”
The departments are accepting comments for 30 days. The Education Department said it won’t begin enforcement until Aug. 9. The Health and Human Services Department said the changes to the programs it runs take effect immediately.
‘This is a pretty big deal’ for Head Start
The notices take aim at decisions made during Democratic President Bill Clinton’s administration, under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which overhauled the nation’s welfare system. The law restricted eligibility for immigrants to receive some public benefits, though with some exceptions.
The Trump administration is arguing that a wider range of federal programs than initially designated fall under that law’s definition of “federal public benefits” and can thus be conditioned on whether recipients have legal immigration status.
The Health and Human Services Department argues that Medicaid, child care subsidies for low-income families, Head Start, heating assistance, and more now fall under the definition of “federal public benefits.” The agency argues that Head Start is similar to a welfare benefit and, as a result, an undocumented parent can’t apply to participate and an undocumented student can’t enroll.
“This is a pretty big deal. For 60 years, Head Start has opened its doors to any child who needs the program and who meets the federal requirements to receive services,” said Katie Hamm, the former acting deputy assistant secretary for early childhood development in the Administration for Children and Families at HHS. “To characterize this as a public benefit and a welfare program is a change, because Head Start has long been considered a school readiness program, an education program that is really focused on … preparing the child comprehensively for school.”
There is some nuance, said Hamm, who served in HHS during the Biden administration. Nonprofit organizations, which operate about 70% of Head Start programs, are not required to verify immigration status.
And in the Head Start Act, there’s a provision that states that, once a child is enrolled, they’re eligible until the end of the program—typically, until they go to kindergarten.
“I think there’s a lot of nuance and questions to be figured out here,” Hamm said. “At the same time, there’s no denying that this will have a chilling effect on families’ willingness to access Head Start, and that is a loss for communities across the country.”
Education Department changes could affect dual enrollment, early college
Meanwhile, the Education Department also argues that many of its programs are “public benefits” subject to the immigration status verification requirements. They include adult education and postsecondary career and technical education programs under the Perkins program—the primary federal funding source for CTE.
The Trump administration argues those changes affect post-secondary education only and not the basic K-12 public education undocumented students have a right to receive.
The administration’s notice says that federally funded dual enrollment and early college programs—which have been growing in high schools across the country and let high school students receive college credit—are public benefits for which undocumented students aren’t eligible because they’re postsecondary rather than basic K-12 programs.
The Education Department says undocumented students don’t have a right to postsecondary programs
McMahon has previously skirted questions about whether she thinks undocumented students should receive a free, public education, as dictated under the 1982 Plyler v. Doe case.
Conservative politicians in recent years have complained of the cost of educating undocumented students and have discussed policies that would go against Plyler—including a proposal in Oklahoma earlier this year that would require schools to collect students’ immigration status.
The conservative Heritage Foundation last year urged states to pass policies that go against Plyler to set up an eventual challenge that reaches the Supreme Court.
While Plyler is settled law, it leaves some questions unanswered, said Rachel Moran, professor of law and director of the education law program at Texas A&M University.
“The only thing that the court said was Texas cannot completely exclude these children from the public schools, and it didn’t say that there are ancillary areas where they have to be included,” Moran said.
“Could you argue that Head Start is ancillary to access to education, so long as you can go to kindergarten or 1st grade? Is career education, vocational education, technical education one path, but you still have other paths open, so you’re still getting minimum access to the educational program? I think that’s a really difficult question.”
In its reasoning, the Education Department tried to narrow Plyler’s application to its programs.
“The department does not interpret the holding in Plyler as conferring any rights to adults,” agency lawyers wrote in the department’s Federal Register notice. “Nor does the holding in Plyler reach the question as to whether a minor has the right to postsecondary education (such as a 17-year-old individual who may wish to enroll in postsecondary programs, like dual enrollment) or adult training programs that are not included within a ‘basic public education.’”
By restricting what’s considered “basic education,” it creates a “slippery slope” among education programs that receive federal funding—and the narrow reading could eventually trickle down to K-12, said Amanda Miller, the former deputy assistant secretary for higher education programs, who served in the Education Department during the Biden administration.
“While the focus of the interpretive rule is on Workforce, WIOA, and Perkins programs, it points out what it calls ‘flawed reasoning’ from the earlier guidance, which determined that preschool, elementary, and secondary education programs weren’t included in the 1996 law, so we are likely to see limitations on a broader set of federal programs,” Miller said.
