

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Rather than an isolated decision, this is part of a clear and dangerous pattern" in which the Trump administration has attacked working families, said one advocate.
The Trump administration is portraying its decision to slash $10 billion in funding to five Democrat-led states as a response to a scandal in Minnesota, where dozens of people have been convicted of stealing public money through the state's social services system—but advocates and Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday condemned what they called an act of "political retribution" that will punish working families who have nothing to do with the recent fraud cases.
"Rather than an isolated decision, this is part of a clear and dangerous pattern," said Kristen Crowell, executive director of the advocacy group Fair Share America.
Crowell pointed to Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that was passed by Republicans last year, and said that along with the cuts announced Monday, "these policies amount to a coordinated attack on working families."
The US Health and Human Services Department (HHS) said the cuts would impact New York, California, Colorado, Minnesota, and Illinois.
About $7 billion in funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program will be impacted, reducing cash assistance that is provided to low-income families with children. The five states will also collectively lose nearly $2.4 billion in assistance for working parents through the Child Care and Development Fund and $870 million for social services grants.
The funding freeze follows the administration's suspension of $185 million in annual aid to childcare centers in Minnesota and a pause it announced on childcare funding for all states until officials could prove verification data about how the money was being spent—a response to what Deputy HHS Secretary Jim O'Neill called "blatant fraud that appears to be rampant in Minnesota and across the country."
A spokesperson for HHS, Andrew Nixon, told CNN Tuesday that the new funding cuts for the five states were moving forward because "for too long, Democrat-led states and governors have been complicit in allowing massive amounts of fraud to occur under their watch. Under the Trump administration, we are ensuring that federal taxpayer dollars are being used for legitimate purposes. We will ensure these states are following the law and protecting hard-earned taxpayer money.”
The administration did not point to any evidence that the five states have used taxpayer money fraudulently in their social services programs.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) accused President Donald Trump of "playing politics with our children's lives," while Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.) posited that Colorado was being targeted once again in retaliation for the state's prosecution of a former county clerk over her involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
In addition to responding to Minnesota's fraud scandal by cutting funding for millions of families in four other states, Trump has cited the controversy as a reason to further ramp up immigration enforcement as he's placed blame on Minnesota's entire Somali community of about 80,000 people for the fraud. Members of the Somali diaspora have been charged with defrauding the state government.
Trump said Sunday that "every one of them should be forced to leave this country," referring to all Somalis, and is deploying thousands of federal agents to Minnesota to intensify anti-immigration operations there.
In the case of the childcare funding cuts, the administration's decision will mean "higher costs, fewer slots, and more families forced into impossible choices between caring for their children and keeping a job," said Crowell.
"Beyond the immediate human harm, this agenda undermines foundational elements of our economy: the care infrastructure that makes work possible and the purchasing power of the working class," she added. "When parents can’t afford childcare, when families lose health coverage, when hunger rises, our workforce shrinks, productivity falls, families are forced to go without. This is not fiscal responsibility—it’s economic sabotage, paid for by America’s kids.”
On social media, one commentator pointed to the right-wing policy blueprint Project 2025 as evidence that the administration ultimately aims to gut the childcare industry altogether—ending federal funding for large-scale childcare programs and supporting parents "directly" instead so they can stay home with their children.
"It’s not about fraud. It’s about defunding childcare," they wrote. "While not offering a real financial alternative. While cutting programs like Head Start. While rolling back access to birth control and abortion. That’s not support. That’s coercion."
"This ill-considered decision will sow further chaos and confusion and erode confidence in immunizations," warned the American Academy of Pediatrics president.
Leading US medical groups were among the critics who forcefully condemned the Trump administration's Monday overhaul of federal vaccine recommendations for every child in the country.
Doctors and public health advocates have been warning of such changes since the US Senate confirmed President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), vaccine conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., nearly a year ago.
Last month, in a presidential memorandum, Trump directed Kennedy and Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services Jim O'Neill, who is also acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "to review best practices from peer, developed countries for core childhood vaccination recommendations."
HHS said in a Monday statement that "after consulting with health ministries of peer nations, considering the assessment's findings, and reviewing the decision memo" presented by National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Food and Drug Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, O'Neill "formally accepted the recommendations and directed the CDC to move forward with implementation."
O'Neill claimed that "the data support a more focused schedule" and the HHS secretary said that "after an exhaustive review of the evidence, we are aligning the US childhood vaccine schedule with international consensus while strengthening transparency and informed consent," but leading experts pushed back against their framing.
“Changes of this magnitude require careful review, expert and public input, and clear scientific justification. That level of rigor and transparency was not part of this decision."
Dr. Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, an American Medical Association trustee, said in a statement that the AMA "is deeply concerned by recent changes to the childhood immunization schedule that affects the health and safety of millions of children. Vaccination policy has long been guided by a rigorous, transparent scientific process grounded in decades of evidence showing that vaccines are safe, effective, and lifesaving."
“Changes of this magnitude require careful review, expert and public input, and clear scientific justification. That level of rigor and transparency was not part of this decision," she continued. "When long-standing recommendations are altered without a robust, evidence-based process, it undermines public trust and puts children at unnecessary risk of preventable disease."
"The scientific evidence remains unchanged, and the AMA supports continued access to childhood immunizations recommended by national medical specialty societies," the doctor added. "We urge federal health leaders to recommit to a transparent, evidence-based process that puts children's health and safety first and reflects the realities of our nation's disease burden."
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) President Dr. Andrew D. Racine was similarly critical of the "dangerous and unnecessary" move, stressing that "the long-standing, evidence-based approach that has guided the US immunization review and recommendation process remains the best way to keep children healthy and protect against health complications and hospitalizations."
As Racine explained:
Said to be modeled in part after Denmark's approach, the new recommendations issued today by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention no longer recommend routine immunization for many diseases with known impacts on America's children, such as hepatitis A and B, rotavirus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), flu, and meningococcal disease. AAP continues to recommend that children be immunized against these diseases, and for good reason; thanks to widespread childhood immunizations, the United States has fewer pediatric hospitalizations and fewer children facing serious health challenges than we would without this community protection.
The United States is not Denmark, and there is no reason to impose the Danish immunization schedule on America's families. America is a unique country, and Denmark's population, public health infrastructure, and disease-risk differ greatly from our own.
At a time when parents, pediatricians, and the public are looking for clear guidance and accurate information, this ill-considered decision will sow further chaos and confusion and erode confidence in immunizations. This is no way to make our country healthier.
The doctor urged parents who "have questions about vaccines or anything else" to speak with their pediatricians and pledged that the AAP "will continue to stand up for children, just as we have done for the past 95 years."
Dr. Robert Steinbrook, Health Research Group director at the consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen, also slammed Kennedy and his deputies for starting out "2026 by escalating and accelerating their mindless assault on the childhood and adolescent immunization schedule."
"Extreme and arbitrary changes to the childhood vaccination schedule without full public discussion and scientific and evidence-based vetting put children and families at risk and undermine public health," Steinbrook said. "The uncalled-for changes are likely to further erode trust in vaccines and decrease immunization rates, rather than increase confidence or boost vaccine uptake, as federal health officials assert. Once again, medical professional societies and states must act to prevent suffering and death from preventable diseases."
As the Associated Press noted Monday: "States, not the federal government, have the authority to require vaccinations for schoolchildren. While CDC requirements often influence those state regulations, some states have begun creating their own alliances to counter the Trump administration's guidance on vaccines."
Lawrence Gostin, founding chair of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law Georgetown University, predicted that "red states will mostly follow HHS guidance. Blue states will certainly keep the current schedule. We'll see a checkerboard of different rules across America. Infectious diseases will surge as pathogens don't respect state borders."
Ripping the CDC's move as "reckless and lawless," Gostin added that "RFK Jr. is plunging the nation into uncertainty and confusion. Will pharmacies and pediatricians offer vaccines without clear recommendations? Will insurers cover vaccines? Will school boards worry about liability? Needless hospitalizations and deaths are all but certain to occur."
If you care about children; if you say you’re “pro-life;” if you consider yourself a good or moral person, you should care about how the US treats all children.
“Ms. Rachel, can ICE take me?”
“What about my dad? Can they take my dad away?”
“I feel so angry about how ICE is grabbing people out of my neighborhood.”
“I feel traumatized ever since ICE stole my sister.”
“I’m afraid to walk to school. I’m afraid to leave my house.”
“I want my mom back.”

These are real questions and comments I’ve heard from the kids I work with at Project Libertad in recent days, as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) terrorizes their communities daily. While newcomers have always faced higher rates of anxiety, depression, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and other mental health challenges than their US-born peers, the divide is becoming more apparent each day. These conversations with my kids represent a stark increase in fear and anxiety among immigrant children—and it’s not just an anecdotal shift. The data are clear: The Trump administration’s increasingly hostile immigration policies are irreversibly harming children.
Pediatricians Susan Kressly and Michelle Barnes warn of the lifelong impact these policies have on children’s development and health into adulthood:
Witnessing harm to others and living in constant fear is traumatic to all children in the community. These stressors disrupt brain development and have long-term negative effects on the health and well-being of impacted children. Ultimately, the cumulative effects make these communities less healthy.
Similarly, nonprofit newsroom CalMatters documents strained mental health among schoolchildren across California after a summer of widespread, aggressive ICE raids and warns of the long-term harm to children:
Experts say these raids and their aftermath may also have long-term consequences. Constant vigilance and worry puts children at greater risk of developing chronic anxiety and depression. Those who are separated from a parent face a host of social and emotional challenges.
A 2025 study in the Children and Youth Services Review showed that childhood exposure to “severe immigration enforcement”—which includes not just deportation, but also things like fear or arrest—is “significantly associated” with having anxiety as a young adult. The study’s authors call for “reforming immigration policies that unnecessarily harm members of families… and encourages social workers and allied professionals to recognize exposure to enforcement as a traumatic experience...”
A new report in Psychiatry Online highlights the long-term, generational trauma caused by immigration enforcement and calls for the mental health community to not only improve treatment for immigrant youth and families, but also to join advocacy efforts in support of their immigrant patients.
Another recent study out of Florida from the from the National Bureau of Economic Research shows a 22% increase in student absences since January, a direct result of the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement there. The study blames fears of deportation and family separation for the decrease in school attendance. That same study showed a decrease in students’ test scores linked to immigration enforcement.
The trauma of mass deportation also impacts US-born children of immigrant parents, who live in constant fear of being separated from their parents. For many, that nightmare has now become a reality. CNN identified over 100 US citizen children who were left behind after a parent was deported, ranging in age from babies to teens.
The research is clear; there is no debate to be had: US immigration policy is hurting children. All that’s left to do is decide what type of society we want to be. Are we a society that cares about the well-being of children? It’s a yes or no question. There’s no “but” or “if” or “only certain children” or “they should’ve come here legally” (don’t even get me started—you can read more on that faulty argument here). We either care about human rights—or we don’t.
James Baldwin wrote in The Nation in a 1980 essay:
The children are always ours, every single one of them, all over the globe; and I am beginning to suspect that whoever is incapable of recognizing this may be incapable of morality.
His words ring truer today than ever before. If you care about children; if you say you’re “pro-life;” if you consider yourself a good or moral person: The children are ours. They are yours. And history will hold you responsible for how you did (or did not) protect them.