Child care centers would shut down, their employees would be laid off and working parents would lose critical daycare services if the administration carries through with its announced intention to illegally withhold $10 billion in federal aid to five Democratic-led states, according to declarations filed by several AFSCME members in support of AFSCME’s lawsuit challenging the freeze.
AFSCME and its co-plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction against the freeze, supported by AFSCME members’ declarations. The freeze was temporarily halted in late January by a federal judge in a different case brought by the five targeted states, and while the states’ preliminary injunction remains in place for now, it is not a final judgment, so AFSCME’s action remains of critical importance.
“If my clients can no longer afford child care, they will have to make hard decisions about leaving the workforce, which in turn has cascading effects on their well-being, our community, and the country at large,” said Janna Rodriguez, a member of CSEA and a child care provider in New York. “Paying child care providers on time is not optional. It is the foundation that allows working families, children, and the broader economy to function.”
The challenge to the unlawful funding freeze, filed by AFSCME and several AFSCME affiliates, together with SEIU and the Main Street Alliance, states that the Trump administration is ignoring the legally-required process for halting such funding, targeting the affected states for improper partisan reasons and violating the First Amendment rights of the residents of those states. In addition to AFSCME, the AFSCME affiliate plaintiffs include United Domestic Workers (UDW/AFSCME Local 3930), AFSCME Council 31 and AFSCME Council 57. The plaintiffs are represented by lawyers from the pro-democracy organization Democracy Forward, as well as in-house counsel for AFSCME and SEIU.
“Child care providers ensure that parents can go to work and kids can thrive,” AFSCME President Lee Saunders said in a press statement. “These services form the backbone of our economy, but instead of strengthening them, this administration is cruelly and illegally targeting child care providers, children and working parents to settle a political score.”
AFSCME is not only representing the interests of its child care provider members, but also AFSCME members who themselves benefit from these subsidies, as well as AFSCME members whose state and local government jobs involve administering the funds at issue.
Courtney Benton, of AFSCME Council 31 in Illinois, is a public health care worker and mother of two. She told the court that without the federal subsidy, her son’s preschool would be too expensive and she’d have to quit her job to stay home with him.
“I simply cannot afford both my mortgage and the full cost of preschool,” Benton said. “The child care subsidy that I receive has enabled me to have a career, to contribute to my community by caring for others, and to maintain a home for my children.”
The voices of these child care professionals and union members are critical in challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s plan to cut child care and other family assistance programs. The unlawful funding freeze endangers children and families in California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, especially those from low-income and single-parent households.
“Losing that subsidy would mean losing nearly my entire enrollment and being unable to cover expenses like rent, payroll, food, or utilities,” said Juana Cortez, a member of UDW and child care provider in California. Of the 10 children in her care, eight are from families who qualify for the aid.
Erika Prado predicts that her California child care program would close after two months if the subsidies are cut, since seven of the 12 children enrolled in her program are fully funded by the subsidies at issue and could be forced to leave.
"I cannot run my business for long with tuition money from only five children," said Prado, a member of UDW. "I would be forced to lay off my two assistant teachers and consider closing my business altogether."
In addition to the economic harm, AFSCME members also worried about the impact on the children they have dedicated their lives to care for, some of whom have special needs, and all of whom would lose access to important developmental and enrichment programs.
Said Benton: “I feel confident sending (my son) to preschool where I know he is fed quality food, he is learning to read, he has good friends he enjoys playing with every day, and he has caregivers who love him. Nobody in my family is equipped to replace, for free, the professional care and education that he receives.”
Read more about the lawsuit, AFSCME v. HHS, here.