By Erica Phillips and Eboni Delaney, National Association for Family Child Care (NAFCC)
Recent comments from the President have suggested that child care is simply too large and too complex for the United States to take on, but the reality tells a different story.
When the 2027 federal budget was released earlier this month, one thing stood out: child care funding was largely kept flat.
At a time when families are struggling to find affordable, reliable care and educators are leaving the field, flat funding does little to stabilize or strengthen the system. With inflation driving up the cost of care and demand continuing to grow, holding funding steady effectively results in cuts.
Budgets reflect priorities. And this one sends a clear signal.
Over the past several years, federal investments have shown what is possible. Pandemic-era relief included nearly $50 billion in federal child care funding through the American Rescue Plan and related COVID-era legislation, helping providers stay open and preventing widespread closures.
Those funds have now expired.
In their absence, many states are facing steep funding cliffs, with fewer resources to support families and sustain providers. The current proposal not only falls short of replacing those investments but moves further away from the level of support that once kept the system from collapsing.
Without sustained federal investment, the burden shifts to states, many of which are already stretched thin. That means fewer resources to support families, fewer options for care, and more pressure on a system that is already fragile.
We often say that raising a child takes a village. For millions of working families, child care is that village.
It is what allows parents to go to work, keep their jobs, and support their households. It is where young children build the foundations for lifelong learning. And it is what enables businesses and local economies to function.
The connection is simple: without child care, work does not work.
These challenges are not theoretical. They are already playing out across the country.
When funding stagnates or programs are cut, family child care educators, who make up a critical portion of the workforce, are often the first to feel the impact. As small business owners, they operate on thin margins while covering the rising costs of food, utilities, and supplies. Many report working more than 60 hours a week, often without benefits or financial stability.
As conditions worsen, educators leave the field. When they do, families lose care. When families lose care, they leave jobs or reduce hours. And when that happens at scale, entire local economies feel the strain.
This is how a lack of investment becomes a workforce and economic issue.
Family child care educators can meet needs that other settings cannot. They serve families working nontraditional hours, families in rural communities, and families seeking culturally and linguistically responsive care. For many, family child care is not just an option. It is the only option that works.
Weakening investment in child care does not reduce the need for care. It reduces the supply.
Child care is not a luxury. It is core infrastructure that supports every other sector of our economy.
We have already seen what is possible when child care is treated as essential. The question now is whether we are willing to match that recognition with the investment needed to sustain it.
Because the United States can take care of child care.
The question is whether we will.
