Hundreds of groups push back on Trump denying lawful immigrants access to Head Start, other programs
Source: NBC News
Aug. 13, 2025, 5:03 PM EDT
The Trump administration’s expanded ban on immigrants’ access to social services, such as Head Start and Meals on Wheels, could have a “devastating” impact on children of immigrants, including U.S. citizens, hundreds of opponents told the federal government Wednesday.
A total of 372 organizations have coalesced to oppose the administration’s decision to make more federally funded health and human service programs off-limits to immigrants with some form of permission to be in the country.
The groups say the administration wrongly promotes the expanded restrictions as part of its efforts to target illegal immigration. The policy actually “directly targets lawfully present immigrants” by turning early learning centers, community health centers and mental health and addiction treatment programs “into immigration checkpoints” where providers would have to check a person’s immigration status, according to the groups.
“Undocumented immigrants already are not eligible for most federally funded programs. This is another case where the administration is lying to the public,” said Adriana Cadena, director of the Protecting Immigration Families coalition, which led the organizations’ opposition to restrictions to be implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
As a result, the restrictions will harm millions, the groups stated in official comments filed in response to the administration's expanded restrictions, published in the Federal Register July 14.
Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/hundreds-groups-push-back-trump-denying-lawful-immigrants-access-head-rcna224806
Link to Federal Register ENTRY - 90 FR 31232 - Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA); Interpretation of “Federal Public Benefit”
= new reply since forum marked as read
but when one is a government employee, they drown you in it until it comes out of your pores!!! 
The Administrative Procedure Act requires that when an agency proposes new Rules/Regulations, that they post the drafts on the Federal Register and allow for a "Comment Period" so that the public/interested parties can provide their input, including any issues or impacts that might not have been taken into account, or if they approve of them, they can give the changes a high-five.
The typical time frame for submitting comments is generally 30 - 90 days. In this case, the due date for comments was yesterday (8/13/25).
The agencies are supposed to go through those comments and make adjustments to their drafts as necessary and then re-publish the revised version for comments. In fact, on the more controversial Rules changes, sometimes they get so many comments, they might extend the period beyond 90 days, and even upwards of a year or more... and at that point, may end up temporarily (or permanently) withdrawing the Rule if there is too much blowback.
Meanwhile, 45 has decided to start blowing that process off and there are several lawsuits that have been filed challenging the changes based on violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
So, next question.
Are any of these suits going to do anything? Other than 'look like' someone is doing something?
I don't see how the courts are going to stop them since they have decided again and again not to enforce any verdicts against this administration.
Are they hoping that strong words are going to do the trick? Or what? 
oddly enough, because there are so many suits and not enough actual "interested media" to report on it, from what I have stumbled upon over the past 8 months, they have complied with the lower courts for certain things.
For example, I saw this earlier today -
Published Aug 14, 2025 at 8:36 AM EDT
The Department of Justice said this week it was "expeditiously" making available nearly $95 million in congressionally approved funding for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), following a federal court ruling that the Trump administration's withholding of the money violated federal law.
(snip)
There ARE some subjects that they obsess over though and will fight tooth and nail with every appeal avenue that they can come up with, including going straight to "Daddy Roberts" to get permission to continue until the cases work their way through the snail-slow lower courts.
There have been many fuck-ups with the law (and other things) that they have done and have had to scramble and backtrack on, so it's a coin flip for this particular case. In addition, when it comes to "Rules", Congress can intervene with the Congressional Review Act to repeal a Rule - but that requires the President's signature too so it only rarely goes anywhere UNLESS they are doing it against a previous administration (which they have already done with some of Bidens regs).
Otherwise, you might be wanting them to pick up arms. You either try following the process or find an "alternative".
We'd have a different president.
But, there's no classism in the USA! 
Thanks, BRDS! Your knowledge and ability to interpret things is both precise and very helpful.
(I mean it. 
)
not so much the lower courts. 
although they have surprised every (rare rare rare) once in awhile.
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.