We “Can’t Afford” Child Care…But Can Fund a War?

Why Early Childhood Programs Are Being Asked to Do More While Being Given Less

In a time of shifting federal oversight, funding disruptions, and evolving compliance expectations, one thing has become increasingly clear: programs with strong internal systems have the foundation to remain standing.

But there is a growing tension that cannot be ignored.

Even as early childhood programs are expected to strengthen compliance, improve data systems, and meet increasing monitoring demands, they are also being positioned, both politically and financially, as expendable.

Recent comments by former President Donald Trump reflect this position explicitly. According to reporting by the Los Angeles Times, Trump stated that the federal government “can’t take care of day care” and that responsibility should shift to states, even if that requires tax increases at the state level. These remarks align with broader proposals to reduce federal investment in child care and social services while expanding military and law enforcement funding.

“We can’t take care of day care. You got to let a state take care of day care. And they should pay for it, too. They should pay. They have to raise their taxes, but they should pay for it.”

Pres. Donald Trump 4/1/26

These statements, as reported in the LA Times, are not occurring in isolation; with our military engaged in an undeclared war against Iran they reflect a broader and ongoing shift toward diverting public resources away from social and health infrastructure and toward expanded military engagement and law enforcement systems.

For early childhood leaders, families, and communities, this raises an urgent question: How do programs maintain stability when the systems they rely on are being actively undermined?

A System Under Pressure

Over the past year, Head Start programs across the country have already faced significant disruption.

Federal funding for FY2026 remains at $12.357 billion, but access to those funds has been inconsistent. In 2025, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that Head Start funds were withheld by the Department of Health and Human Services in violation of federal law, contributing to instability across programs nationwide.

More than 140 programs across 41 states experienced funding interruptions during the 2025 federal shutdown, temporarily closing classrooms and disrupting services for thousands of children.

At the same time, the federal Office of Head Start reduced its regional structure from 10 offices to 5, eliminating experienced staff and slowing response times for programs seeking guidance. These are not isolated administrative changes. They represent a pattern: reduced support and increased expectations.

The Narrative of “We Can’t Afford It”

The argument that the United States “cannot afford” child care, early education, or public health programs is not new, but it is increasingly being used to justify structural cuts. What makes this moment different is the scale of competing funding priorities.

At the same time, federal leaders argue that programs like Head Start, child care subsidies, and health services must be constrained; at the time of writing, there are active requests to allocate up to $200 billion or more for expanded military operations, including potential prolonged engagement in Iran, with no defined timeline or scope.

The president is currently proposing a total FY2027 defense budget of $1.5 trillion, which represents the largest military budget in U.S. history and includes major increases in weapons systems and unregulated AI, as well as expanded operations in Iran. To pay for the increase, the President’s FY27 budget proposes an additional $73 Billion in cuts to health and social service programs, including education, public health, housing, and healthcare. This would result in the complete elimination of countless critical services that support the most vulnerable in our communities.

Waste, Fraud, Abuse, and Lobster

The President launched his second term by inviting Elon Musk, the world’s wealthiest man, to take a chainsaw to “waste, fraud, and abuse” in federal spending in the guise of DOGE. These cuts targeted education, public health, and social services spending, in addition to regulatory and administrative agencies tasked with ethics and regulatory oversight. 

In the absence of oversight, it has been reported that the Pentagon, under the leadership of Pete Hegseth, engaged in a $93 Billion spending spree to use unspent funds in September 2025 to avoid federal clawback regulations. This “use it or lose it” spending is common in federal and grant-funded agencies to maintain continued annual funding levels when projections are off; however, a budget surplus of $93 billion is a clear sign of poor fiscal planning, oversight, and management.

The President told his applauding donors that investment in early childhood is too expensive for our country, and his focus is on increased defense spending. It is notable that the FY25 Pentagon surplus, which was spent, according to reports, on lobster and Alaskan king crab ($9 mil.), furniture ($200 mil.), and Apple products ($5.3 mil.), among other luxuries, could fully fund the entire Head Start program for seven and a half years. In an administration where dedicated Federal employees have been labeled as wasteful, lazy and unqualified it is concerning that this fiscal mismanagement has escaped scrutiny. Instead of reigning in the actual waste, fraud and abuse of federal dollars identified at the Pentagon, we are told that “we can’t take care of child care,” and asked to support increased defense spending.

The current leadership is clearly demonstrating that the education, health, and safety of our children and families is an investment they see no value in.

What $200 Billion Actually Represents

To understand the implications, it is important to ground these numbers in relatable terms. While the president tells wealthy donors that our nation is too broke to support our youngest and most vulnerable residents, let’s take a look at what the $200 billion in Iran military funding could support if spent elsewhere.

Based on recent federal funding levels:

• Head Start ($12.3 billion annually)
  • $200 billion could fund Head Start for approximately 16 years, serving millions of children and families.
• Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) (~$8 billion annually)
  • $200 billion could fund child care subsidies for 25 years, dramatically expanding access for working families.
• WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) (~$7 billion annually)
  • $200 billion could fully fund WIC for nearly 30 years, ensuring nutrition support for pregnant people, infants, and young children.
• USDA School Meals Programs (~$30 billion annually)
  • $200 billion could provide school meals for children nationwide for approximately 6–7 years.
• CACFP (Child and Adult Care Food Program) (~$3.5 billion annually)
  • $200 billion could fund CACFP for over 50 years, supporting meals in child care settings, adult care facilities, Head Start programs, and family child care homes.

These are not abstract comparisons. They represent meals for children, safe early learning environments, workforce stability for families, and return on investment in the form of time-tested programs with long-term educational and socio-economic benefits. 

The Proven Return on Investment

Early childhood programs are not just social services; they are among the highest return-on-investment (ROI) public expenditures available. Decades of research have shown that programs like Head Start and high-quality early education:

• Reduce long-term public spending on remedial education and incarceration
• Increase lifetime earnings and workforce participation
• Improve health outcomes
• Strengthen communities across generations

In economic terms, early childhood investment yields returns of $7–$13 for every $1 spent. By comparison, military expenditures, while sometimes necessary, do not produce comparable long-term domestic economic returns or community-level stability. Yet, early childhood funding continues to be framed as wasteful entitlement, while federal law enforcement is flooded with funding amidst ongoing bribery, nepotism, and leadership scandals. 

What This Means for Program Leaders

While federal priorities shift, program leaders are left to navigate a complex and often contradictory reality that includes increased monitoring expectations, stricter reporting timelines, reduced federal support infrastructure, and uncertainty about access to funding.

In this environment, strong internal systems are not just best practice; they are a survival strategy.

Programs must continue to maintain clear policies and procedures, strengthen documentation systems, implement consistent data tracking, and train staff on compliance expectations. Because when external systems become unreliable, internal clarity becomes the only stable ground.

Systems Alone Are Not Enough

There is an important truth that must be acknowledged: no amount of internal efficiency can fully compensate for federal disinvestment.

You can have the best policies, the strongest data systems, and the most highly trained staff; however, if funding is delayed, reduced, or eliminated, you are still vulnerable. This is why this moment requires more than operational excellence.  In an environment growing increasingly hostile to early childhood education, family service providers’ advocacy and collaboration will be increasingly valuable.

A Field That Continues to Be Targeted

Early childhood education and care has long been treated as politically negotiable, despite overwhelming evidence of its short and long-term benefits.

Programs serving low-income families, Tribal communities, rural populations, immigrant and multilingual communities are often the first to feel the effects of funding cuts and policy shifts. At the same time, disinformation campaigns have targeted programs serving diverse populations, often without understanding how licensing, monitoring, and program oversight actually function.

It is important to note that federal guidance, including the Office of Head Start Information Memorandum: Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunities for Families in Head Start Programs ACF-OHS-IM-25-04 affirms families’ rights to choose programs that align with their culture, language, and values. Depending on the program model, licensors and program specialists work in tandem with programs to ensure that standards are being met, regardless of language or cultural differences. 

These programs fill critical gaps in communities with diverse populations and play an essential role in supporting a thriving workforce. These programs are not exceptions to the system; they are an essential part of it.

Final Thought

Programs should absolutely invest in strong internal systems. Policies, procedures, and data are the foundation of stability, especially in uncertain times, but it’s important to be honest about the broader landscape we are operating within.

When decisions are made to divert hundreds of billions of dollars away from children, families, and communities, and toward undefined military engagements, early childhood programs are not failing to meet standards. They are being asked to operate within a system that is increasingly misaligned with their mission and does not place value on early childhood education or quality care.

Regardless, the important work continues. And for the children, families, and communities who rely on these programs, that work remains not only necessary but invaluable.

Sources & References

• Government Accountability Office (GAO), 2025 decision on Head Start funding disbursement
• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, FY2026 Budget Justification
• Office of Head Start, ACF-OHS-IM-24-06 (Nov. 7, 2024)
• Office of Head Start, ACF-OHS-IM-25-04 (2025)
• Los Angeles Times, Trump speech on Iran war, recent remarks on oil, NATO, daycare costs land with a thud
• CNN, ‘Use it or lose it’: Pentagon spending binge set record in final days of fiscal year
• Detroit Free Press, ‘We can’t take care of day care’: Trump’s remarks rile advocates
• First Five Years Fund, Federal Early Childhood Funding Analysis (2024–2026)
• Heckman, J. (2011–2020), Lifecycle Benefit of an Influential Early Childhood Program (13% ROI)