Female, Breastfeed, Black & More: Trump Blocks 200 Words From Head Start Applications

A new directive from the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has instructed Head Start programmes to strip nearly 200 words from funding applications, words that programme leaders say are core to federal mandates on inclusion, equality and support for children with disabilities.

The instruction has triggered lawsuits alleging the administration's stance directly contravenes existing law.

The list, attached to court filings submitted on 5 December 2025, comes in the context of the Trump administration's broader effort to eliminate what it deems unlawful diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives from federal programmes. Programmes now face the stark choice of removing terms critical to describing their services, or risk losing federal funding entirely.

Administrative Directive and Its Contents

Documents filed in federal court show that a Head Start provider in Wisconsin received two emails from HHS on 19 November 2025 informing her that her regular funding renewal application was being returned.

The first email cited a small set of prohibited terms, while a follow-up email from a programme specialist enclosed a comprehensive six-page list of nearly 200 terms labelled 'Words to limit or avoid in government documents.'

The list includes words and phrases such as 'accessible,' 'belong,' 'Black,' 'disability,' 'female,' 'minority,' 'trauma,' 'tribal' and 'women.'

HHS Press Secretary Emily G. Hilliard declined to comment on the list, stating that the department 'does not comment on ongoing litigation.'

The guidance follows other internal policy shifts tied to the Trump administration's January executive actions, which instructed agencies to halt approval of any funding requests that 'promote or take part in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.'

Legal Challenge: Conflict With Federal Law

Several Head Start programmes, including those in Pennsylvania, Washington, Wisconsin and Illinois, have filed suit against HHS and its Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in federal court, arguing that the word restrictions directly contradict the statutory mandates governing Head Start.

Under the Head Start Act, funded programmes must provide 'linguistically and culturally appropriate' services and early intervention services for children with disabilities. Critics argue that excluding words such as 'disability,' 'inclusion,' and similar terms handicaps programme descriptions and interferes with compliance.

In court filings, a Head Start director using the pseudonym Mary Roe stated that the ban placed her in an 'impossible situation' because many of the mandated services require explicit language that the administration now labels problematic.

Disability-rights advocates have condemned the policy. In declarations submitted with the lawsuit, advocates note that many Head Start providers also receive funding through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which obligates identification and support of children with disabilities—duties that explicitly reference terms now on the banned list.

Separate complainants describe how a programme located on a Native American reservation was instructed to remove sections of its application essential for prioritising services for tribal members and descendants, even though federal law allows such prioritisation.

Statutory Mandate Versus Administrative Policy

The Head Start Act requires culturally and linguistically appropriate services and attention to disability needs. Critics argue the current guidance undermines these statutory duties by prohibiting terms that describe the very programmes Congress intended to fund.

Additional context from earlier litigation shows that, in April 2025, HHS amended its Grants Policy Statement to require agencies accepting funds to certify they would not 'operate any programmes that advance or promote DEI, DEIA, or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws.' This broad and vague wording has been challenged for its lack of definition and clarity.

Legal advocacy groups have highlighted that such directives risk substantial harm to Head Start programmes' ability to operate and comply with both new administrative requirements and longstanding statutory obligations.

The word restrictions at Head Start are part of a larger set of federal policy changes under the Trump administration aimed at curbing DEI language and initiatives across federal operations. Similar language reviews and prohibitions have emerged in other departments, such as the Department of Transportation, where internal memos have indicated a sweeping review of grants to strip terms such as 'DEI' and 'climate' language from infrastructure funding.

The lawsuits remain pending in federal courts, with plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctive relief to prevent HHS from conditioning funding on compliance with the word ban. Programme leaders maintain that they cannot both comply with the new language rules and fulfil legally mandated services without facing legal jeopardy or loss of funds.

Trump's word ban could transform how early education providers describe and deliver services nationwide.