200 Forbidden Words Put Head Start Programs in Legal Bind

The Department of Health and Human Services issued a directive in November 2025 that places Head Start programs in direct conflict with federal law. A Wisconsin program director submitted a routine funding renewal request on September 30. On November 19, she received two emails from HHS containing a six-page list of nearly 200 prohibited words and phrases.

The forbidden terminology includes "disability," "women," "tribal," "accessible," "belong," "Black," "female," "minority," and "trauma." Programs using these words in grant applications risk funding denial. The directive creates an operational paradox: the federal Head Start Act requires programs to provide culturally and linguistically appropriate services and early intervention for children with disabilities. The Trump administration now prohibits the vocabulary necessary to describe those mandated services.

Mary Roe, identified by pseudonym in court documents filed December 5, directs a Wisconsin Head Start program that has operated for over fifty years. Her declaration articulates the administrative bind with precision. HHS instructed her to describe disability services without using "disability," to detail programs serving women without mentioning "women," and to document tribal community services while avoiding "tribal." Federal statute requires these services. Administrative policy prohibits naming them.

The contradiction extends beyond semantics into statutory compliance. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act allocates federal funding specifically for Head Start programs to identify and support young children with disabilities. Documentation of these services requires explicit terminology. The administration banned that terminology. Jacqueline Rodriguez from the National Center for Learning Disabilities characterized banning the word "disability" from Head Start as morally repugnant and a violation of federal law. No administration can claim to support children with disabilities while banning the very word that protects them.

Head Start programs in Pennsylvania, Washington, Wisconsin, and Illinois filed suit against HHS and Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The litigation challenges the fundamental conflict between administrative directive and congressional mandate. Programs operate under federal law requiring them to serve diverse populations, recruit from diverse communities, and address diverse needs. The language restrictions render describing those legally obligated services grounds for application rejection.

The material consequences affect 750,000 infants, toddlers, and preschoolers nationwide. Head Start provides early education, childcare, free meals, health screenings, dental care, and family support services targeted at low-income families. Programs on Native American reservations received instructions to remove application sections prioritizing tribal members and their descendants. Federal law explicitly permits such prioritization. The word ban prohibits documenting it.

The administration's January executive action characterized DEI policies as violations of civil rights laws that "undermine our national unity" and advance an "unlawful, corrosive, and pernicious identity-based spoils system." By March, the Office of Head Start notified all grant recipients that funding requests for diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives would face rejection. The six-page prohibited word list followed as enforcement mechanism.

Democratic senators Patty Murray, Bernie Sanders, and Tammy Baldwin demanded immediate policy reversal in a letter to Kennedy. The Government Accountability Office determined in July that HHS violated the Impoundment Control Act by withholding over $825 million in Head Start funding between January and April. Programs drafted layoff plans. Facilities closed temporarily. Parents lost childcare access.

The administration eliminated regional office staff positions, leaving 800 Head Start programs across 22 states without dedicated application support. HHS then imposed language requirements those depleted offices cannot clarify. The department publicly claimed no "credible threat of enforcement" existed. The ACLU submitted December court filings documenting active enforcement through application rejections and mandatory modifications based on prohibited terminology.

The federal government has weaponized grammar against its most vulnerable beneficiaries. Children requiring disability services, tribal communities exercising sovereign rights, and families navigating poverty now find their needs deemed linguistically impermissible. This is systematic erasure disguised as administrative housekeeping. The children who vanish from grant applications do not cease to exist. They simply cease to matter.

@Santitos

@salinasmariasantos

Copyright © 2025 Maria Santos Salinas for FRONTeras.

All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Sharing the original posts or links from FRONTeras on social media is allowed and appreciated.