The Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) is a nonpartisan nonprofit whose mission is to build trust and effectiveness in Congress. We do this by enhancing the performance of the institution, legislators and their staffs through research-based education and training, and by strengthening the bridge and understanding between Congress and the People it serves. CMF also is the leading researcher and trainer on citizen engagement, educating thousands of individuals and facilitating better understanding, relationships, and communications with Congress.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Latest news
Read More
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifies in front of Congress, defending HHS FY26 budget. May 14, 2025.
Annabelle Gordon/UPI/REX/Shutterstock
Kennedy Confirms Intent To Fund Head Start for FY26, but Illinois Providers Remain Concerned
Jun 05, 2025
Testifying in front of Congress this May, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. assured lawmakers funding would not be cut for Head Start, a child care program that serves nearly 28,000 low-income children and families across Illinois.
Kennedy said during the meeting that he “fought very, very hard” to ensure Head Start would not be cut from next year’s budget. The Trump administration is committed to “preserving legacy programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Head Start as the foundation of the MAGA agenda,” he said. DHHS will work to ensure Head Start “continues to serve its 750,000 children and parents effectively.”
Head Start providers across the country have been deeply concerned about the future of the 60-year-old program in recent months after widespread funding freezes and regional Head Start office closures have left many grantees without federal support or direction.
Despite Kennedy’s assurance of the program’s sustained funding, many Illinois Head Start providers remain wary about receiving the equivalent in grant funds as in previous years.
The Illinois Head Start Association (IHSA) receives over $478 million in federal funding for its Head Start and Early Head Start programs each year. According to internal grant data, the state has received $59 million less in federal funds than this time last year.
IHSA Executive Director Lauri Morrison-Frichtl said that while it’s a “really good win” for the organization to avoid elimination, any pattern of continued funding delays could have devastating impacts on local providers.
“When it takes so long to draw down funds, and we can only hold on to those funds for three days, it puts the program in a bind because some of them don't have reserves that they can lean through,” said Morrison-Frichtl.
Federal regulations require that state-based agencies can only hold onto their grant funding for three days before it’s rescinded.
“What we're anticipating is that we're going to find more and more examples of programs waiting too long to receive their funding and they have no other option but to close their doors,” she said.
Morrison-Frichtl said she expects delays will continue to get worse as the Trump administration requires increased justifications for federal grant allocations, as in the case of the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) “defend the spend” initiative.
When grantees attempt to draw down their funds, they are required to enter a detailed description of what the money is being used for. Requests found “unsatisfactory” will be denied and have its funding stalled, according to DOGE.
Head Start offers numerous diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives built to assist children with severe disabilities, like language learning curriculum. These, Morrison-Frichtl said, are at risk. “We are so embedded in that work and we’re worried.”
In April, Illinois joined several other state Head Start organizations, including Wisconsin, Washington, and Pennsylvania, along with two other parent-led organizations in Oregon and California, in an ACLU lawsuit challenging the administration’s efforts to dismantle the organization without Congressional approval.
The lawsuit also alleges that federal efforts to remove programs geared towards DEI are “unconstitutionally vague” and violate the free speech of Head Start teachers and staff.
Providers remain unclear on how to avoid losing this funding, and this has caused internal disarray, the suit argues.
“This lawsuit was necessary to prevent the administration from attempting to illegally dismantle a program that is authorized by Congress and that does such crucial work in communities across the country,” said Allison Siebeneck, a senior supervising attorney at ACLU. “I think the administration underestimated just how popular [this program is] and just how many people have been personally impacted by Head Start,” she said.
Over the past 60 years, Head Start has served nearly 40 million children nationwide and more than 790,000 in the last year alone.
A majority of children who utilize Head Start services come from households where income is at or below the poverty level. These families frequently qualify for additional government aid programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.
For a family of four, an income of $32,150 or less is considered below the poverty level, according to DHHS guidelines. The reconciliation budget proposal passed in the House would strip close to $300 billion through 2034 from SNAP, adding to uncertainty.
Shauntay Gregg has worked at the Loop Learning Center in Chicago—a Head Start grantee—for nearly 25 years. Gregg said the services do much more than just provide an early childhood education to at-risk children.
Roughly 15% of children enrolled at the Loop Learning Center are Head Start children. The center provides year-round child care to families in the South Loop neighborhood. (Credit: Loop Learning Center).
“What a lot of people don’t know is that Head Start covers the entire family,” said Gregg, who serves as the program administrator and Head Start coordinator for the Learning Center.
“We help [parents] re-enroll in school, budget, help with nutritional needs for their families. We try to offset any problems with transportation issues or medical issues,” she said.
Gregg said she has personally reviewed the resumes of parents and conducted mock interviews to help them feel comfortable in a formal setting. “I’ve seen [our services] help families move from literally being homeless to having a stable career [with] their children doing great in school. That was all because of Head Start,” said Gregg.
National evaluations of the program support the conclusion that a Head Start education offers numerous long-term benefits for children, including improved social and emotional development.
Without the support of these services, thousands of families across Illinois, and the country, would be left without sufficient child care.
“We're just thankful that we weren't eliminated, [but] we are concerned about the other programs,” said Morrison-Frichtl. “The ACLU lawsuit is really the protection around that until we can figure out where this administration is going to go with that work,” she said.
Claire Murphy is a master’s student in the investigative specialization at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism. She is also a freelance journalist based in Chicago, IL.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Written in the sand the date of the landing of Normandy on the same beach where the troops landed on D-day.
Getty Images, Carmen Martínez Torrón
D-Day Proclamation Day: Honoring Sacrifice, Reflecting on History
Jun 05, 2025
June 6 marks D-Day Proclamation Day, a time to solemnly commemorate the historic landings in Normandy, France, on June 6, 1944. On this day, we honor the extraordinary bravery and sacrifices of the Allied forces, whose decisive actions helped liberate Europe and turn the tide of World War II.
D-Day was a pivotal moment in history—the beginning of the Allied effort to reclaim Western Europe from Nazi control. Over 156,000 troops from the United States, Britain, Canada, and other nations stormed the beaches of Normandy in Operation Overlord, an unprecedented amphibious assault that ultimately shaped the course of the war. Though the battle came at a great cost, it remains a lasting symbol of courage, resilience, and the fight for freedom.
In 2019, the 75th anniversary of D-Day was officially recognized with a National Day of Remembrance, reinforcing the enduring significance of this historic operation. More than 80 years later, we continue to reflect on its lessons—particularly the power of strong alliances in confronting threats to democracy.
Echoes of History: Global Challenges Then and Now
As we remember D-Day, we must also recognize its relevance to the present. In 1941, America was still recovering from the Great Depression, and many questioned whether the war in Europe was our fight. Yet as Nazi Germany expanded its reach and Japan launched its infamous attack on Pearl Harbor, public sentiment shifted, and the U.S. entered World War II—a decision that changed the trajectory of history.
Today, historians and analysts draw comparisons between the geopolitical tensions of WWII and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Some view Putin’s annexation of Ukrainian territories as an unsettling echo of Hitler’s expansionist moves in Czechoslovakia and Poland, while others warn of the dangers of appeasement. The lesson remains clear: failing to confront aggression early on can lead to larger conflicts with devastating consequences.
The role of the United States is again being scrutinized, just as it was in the years leading up to WWII. While early hesitation characterized U.S. involvement, history proves that American leadership was decisive in securing victory. Many argue that America’s support for Ukraine is similarly vital—both to safeguard European stability and to deter future aggression.
A Reflection on Leadership and Isolationism
Throughout history, political leaders have grappled with the balance between global engagement and national interests. In today’s America, this debate continues as discussions about U.S. involvement in Ukraine remain divisive. While some advocate for increased military and economic support, others echo the isolationist stance that was prevalent before WWII, prioritizing domestic concerns over foreign intervention.
President Donald Trump has frequently expressed frustration with the ongoing conflict, downplaying Ukraine’s sovereignty in favor of reducing U.S. involvement. His insistence that the war must end quickly—regardless of battlefield conditions—has raised concerns among American allies, who fear that such an approach could undermine Ukraine’s long-term security and embolden Russian aggression. Critics liken this stance to pre-WWII isolationism, when some in the U.S. resisted engagement in global conflicts, failing to recognize the growing threats to democracy and freedom.
Honoring D-Day: A Call for Unity and Reflection
The legacy of D-Day extends beyond the battlefield. It is a powerful reminder that democracy prevails when nations stand together. As we commemorate D-Day Proclamation Day, we honor the thousands who gave their lives to defend freedom, recognizing that their sacrifices shaped the world we live in today.
In a time of deep political and social divisions, reflecting on the bravery and unity of those who fought on June 6, 1944, serves as common ground that transcends differences. Observing D-Day is not just about remembering history—it’s about applying its lessons to the challenges we face now.
Let this solemn day remind us that democracy triumphs over tyranny, that alliances matter, and that securing a just future requires vigilance, sacrifice, and unwavering commitment. As we honor those who gave everything for a better world, may we also reaffirm the values they fought to uphold.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
English as the New Standard: Understanding Language Policies Under Trump
Jun 05, 2025
English as the Official Language of the U.S.
On March 1st, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order declaring English as the official language of the United States. This marks the first time the country has ever designated an official language in its nearly 250-year history. Currently, thirty states have already established English as their official language, with Alaska and Hawaii recognizing several native languages as official state languages in addition to English.
Generally, an official language is the language used by the government to conduct its day-to-day operations. President Trump’s order rescinds a policy established during the Clinton administration that required federal departments and organizations with federal funding to provide “extensive language assistance to non-English speakers.” However, it allows such agencies to keep their current language policies if they choose. In line with the order’s principles, Trump removed the Spanish-language version of the White House website within his first few days in office.
Public Response
The order drew criticism from human rights organizations, who argue that it harms immigrant communities and those seeking to learn English by reducing access to language assistance. Others stress that the order will make it more difficult for non-English speakers to access governmental services such as voting, healthcare, or English as a Second Language (ESL) education programs. Since the executive order could cause a considerable population of U.S. residents to lose access to these government programs, some have labeled it “a thinly veiled attempt to discriminate against immigrants.”
Immigration advocacy organizations have also emphasized the order’s potential impacts on the citizenship application process. Currently, applicants can complete the citizenship test and interview in their native language if they meet certain age and residency criteria. If the Trump administration expands the English-only standard to the citizenship application process, advocates fear several residents who completed a years-long application process would be disqualified from citizenship on the basis of their native language.
On the other hand, some argue the order has more benefits than drawbacks. In the text of his executive order, Trump argues that an official language will “create a more cohesive and efficient society,” suggesting that eliminating ESL requirements will push non-English speakers to improve their English language skills. ProEnglish, an advocacy organization that aims to codify English as the official language of all U.S. states and territories, argues that conducting government business in languages other than English creates “cultural-linguistic segregation” that disrupts “the ideal of the melting pot”.
Other supporters argue that the executive order was the common-sense culmination of a decades-long effort. Vice President J.D. Vance introduced a bill to codify English as the official language of the U.S. in 2023, stating, “This commonsense legislation recognizes an inherent truth: English is the language of this country.”
While the order does not require federal agencies and their beneficiaries to halt ESL programs and accommodations, the impacts of the order on non-English-speaking communities are likely to become clear in the coming months.
English as the New Standard: Understanding Language Policies Under Trump was first published by ACE and was republished with permission.
Vianna Rodgers is a Research Associate with the Alliance for Citizen Engagement.
Keep ReadingShow less
A politician counting money in front of the US Capitol Building.
Getty Images, fStop Images - Antenna
Blank Checks and Empty Promises: The Collapse of Congressional Fiscal Power
Jun 04, 2025
From Governing to Grandstanding
There was a time—believe it or not—when Congress actually passed budgets the old-fashioned way: through debate, compromise, and the occasional all-night session, not theatrics designed to appeal to cable news and social media. The process, while messy, followed a structure: hearings, markups, votes, and compromises. That structure—known as regular order—wasn’t just congressional tradition. It was the scaffolding of democratic accountability. It has also been steadily torn down.
Deadlines and dysfunction better define today’s Congress. Instead of the back-and-forth of healthy deliberation, Congress relies on continuing resolutions and last-minute omnibus bills. Budget gimmicks that were once used only during fiscal emergencies—backloaded cuts, timing shifts, reconciliation sleight-of-hand—are now the rule, not the exception. Congress has shifted from prioritizing policy to prioritizing the message and crafting political narratives.
Driving this breakdown is a Republican Party shaped not by governing principles but by its loyalty to President Trump. House Speaker Mike Johnson’s caucus should be asserting its constitutional power of the purse. Instead, it has abandoned regular order in favor of placating a base animated more by grievance than governance. The result is a budget process that functions like performance art—and legislators that no longer legislate. This development spells long-term trouble for American democracy.
Into this legislative breakdown walks Donald Trump. Again. The void left by a Congress that no longer governs is exactly the kind of chaos he thrives in. And one cannot help but wonder: was this the plan all along?
Project 2025: The Blueprint Behind the Breakdown
This is nothing short of a fundamental reshaping of political control that mirrors the blueprint set forth in Project 2025. The plan calls for a significant expansion of executive power, aiming to centralize control over the federal government and diminish the role of Congress in policymaking. By abandoning regular order and enabling executive overreach, Congress is following Project 2025 more than the Constitution.
The GOP, having discovered that theatrics keep the base agitated and Fox News profitable, has largely abandoned the tedious business of actual governance. Why slog through negotiation or accountability when it’s easier to grab headlines by railing against wokeness or staging floor votes with the flair of a reality show challenge? This is no longer the party of policy memos and fiscal restraint—where Paul Ryan once diagrammed tax reform on a whiteboard, it’s the party where Marjorie Taylor Greene now delivers performance art in committee hearings.
A Budget That Punishes the Poor and Rewards the Rich
While spectacle plays well on right-wing media, the real-world consequences are disastrous. Government agencies—those actually tasked with carrying out the laws Congress no longer bothers to pass—are forced to run under stopgap funding or arbitrary cuts. Programs with broad public support, from food assistance to medical research, are being defunded. And long-term planning? Forget it. Agencies can’t hire, invest, or innovate when they don’t know if they’ll have money in six weeks.
When a continuing resolution expires and families lose access to childcare subsidies or small businesses cannot get SBA loans, there’s no hearing, no apology—just another round of blame roulette. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) can release projections showing millions will lose Medicaid or food assistance, and the House majority’s response is a shrug and a recycled talking point about "wasteful spending."
In May, the nonpartisan CBO issued a stark analysis of the House’s budget proposal, projecting that the lowest-income households would see their household budgets shrink by up to 4% by 2033, due to cuts to Medicaid and SNAP. Meanwhile, the wealthiest Americans would see their household resources rise by a similar margin, thanks to tax cuts. It's not just a lopsided budget—it’s a stealthy act of redistribution, carried out behind the curtain, without hearings, debate, or even much public notice. What looks like dysfunction is a calculated method of governing without accountability.
The Way Back: Deliberation, Not Drama
The consequences stretch far beyond the spreadsheet. It seeps into public trust. When people see that Congress can’t—or won’t—do its most basic job of funding the government responsibly, they naturally tune out. That vacuum becomes fertile ground for executive overreach and cynicism about democratic institutions.
Right now, we’re speeding in the wrong direction—with no one at the wheel.
So how do we turn things around?
Restoring regular order in budgeting may not produce headlines, but it’s essential. Even Republicans like Senator John Thune agree. That means rejecting manufactured crises and recommitting to the slow, steady work of debate, deliberation, and compromise.
It also means reclaiming Congress’s constitutional duty to manage the nation’s finances—not perform in a never-ending political reality show.
Democrats may not have the votes to fix this alone. But they can still lead by example—and remind voters what responsible governing actually looks like.
.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More