For over 60 years, and under bipartisan leadership, Head Start has served as a comprehensive child development program, boosting school readiness and well-being for low-income families. It has always been about giving children the best start in life. It has never limited access to children based on immigration status. But on July 10th, the federal government issued a policy change limiting Head Start by doing just that.
The action is based on a re-interpretation of a 30-year-old law (the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act), and it reclassifies Head Start as a “federal public benefit” instead of the hallmark early education program it has been since its inception. Typically, federal public benefits are assistance programs designed to meet an immediate need, such as health care or nutrition. This shift effectively ignores Head Start’s commitment and makes certain children ineligible for the first time in the program’s history.
Head Start provides early education that all who live, work, play, and serve in our community deserve.
We urge you to join us in opposition to the reinterpretation of “federal public benefit” as applied to Head Start and other programs serving our community.
Here’s What to Do:
1. Copy the below comment template
2. Click “COMMENT” on this regulations.gov webpage
3. Paste the template in the comment section
4. Click SUBMIT COMMENT
5. Comments are due 8/13 by 8:59pm PT
Comment Template:
Source: This template was developed by the National Immigration Law Center, National Health Law Program, and National Women’s Law Center. (This is a shortened version. For the full version, please click here.)
The Honorable Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Secretary
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Ave SW
Washington, DC 20201
Re: Notice: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA); Interpretation of “Federal Public Benefit”
I am writing in opposition to the harmful new interpretation the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is taking in regard to the definition of a “Federal public benefit” under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.
Background
The Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) is adopting a change in nearly 30 years of legal interpretation that will affect millions of immigrants and their families’ ability to access critical health and other safety-net programs funded by HHS, and potentially will impose burdensome new requirements on state and local governments. Enacted in 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) made a range of federal public benefit programs available only to “qualified immigrants,” subject to certain exceptions. The law defines qualified immigrants as a defined list of immigrants, including those with Lawful Permanent Resident Status, refugees, persons granted asylum, certain immigrants from Cuba, Haiti and Pacific Island nations, certain survivors of domestic violence and trafficking, and other specific categories. This excluded some people who are lawfully present, including individuals with Temporary Protected Status, people with nonimmigrant visas, and individuals granted deferred action, including Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Thus, these restrictions harm not only undocumented immigrants, but also some lawfully present individuals.
Immigrants and Their Families Already Face Burdens Under the Existing Structure
HHS’ unnecessary reinterpretation of the definition of “Federal public benefit” in PRWORA of 1996, contravening nearly three decades of established policy, will cause further harm to the health and well-being of immigrant families who already have limited access to essential programs and services. Indeed, the barriers that immigrant families have faced in securing services that are essential to health, safety, and economic security and mobility have harmed not only persons directly barred from these programs but also mixed-status families and broader communities.
With one in four children in the U.S. living with at least one immigrant parent, including those with qualified and nonqualified statuses, its impact will reach beyond those newly excluded from specific programs. Under PRWORA, millions of non-qualified immigrants are already excluded from federal public benefits, including full scope Medicaid, Medicare, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and a host of other anti-poverty and social welfare programs. Even qualified immigrants, such as green card holders who are just one-step removed from U.S. citizenship, often face a five-year bar before they can access federal benefits. This structure has made it difficult if not impossible for many immigrant families to pull themselves out of poverty, access higher education, access affordable health care, and to thrive in the U.S.
Existing restrictions in PRWORA and accompanying regulations create a chilling effect that deters eligible immigrants and citizen family members from seeking essential programs. This new rule reinterpreting the definition of federal health benefits will only exacerbate these chilling effects, causing harm to families across this country.
Redefining Head Start as a Federal Public Benefit
According to the notice, Head Start, which was previously excluded given their focus on helping entire communities, will be newly considered a Federal public benefit. Its addition would be harmful if they are not determined to be exempt. Head Start provides high quality and comprehensive services for families in need and has transformed the lives of countless families by providing free early childhood education to 40 million children in every community in every state across the country. The effects of Head Start are well-documented; Head Start significantly improves the health, educational outcomes, and financial prospects of participating families. The Head Start program should not be defined as a public benefit and remain statutorily exempt. Head Start ensures that children are prepared for K-12 education, and the sudden recategorization would plunge millions of families and children into uncertainty.
Conclusion
I ask you to withdraw this notice and not proceed with any further guidance, regulations or other changes in interpreting PRWORA. Further, I would like my comment, including any articles, studies, or other supporting materials that I have included in my comment as an active link in the text, to be included as part of the formal administrative record for the proposed rule for the purposes of the federal Administrative Procedure Act.
Copy the Above Comment and Submit Here by 8/13/25