Why it Matters

The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies held a child welfare permanency hearing last week examining how federal dollars flow to adoption programs — even as the Trump administration's workforce cuts have left the very agency responsible for administering those funds nearly halved. The tension between the administration's pro-adoption rhetoric and its simultaneous dismantling of the federal child welfare bureaucracy hung over the proceedings.

The Big Picture

More than 325,000 children are currently in U.S. foster care, according to opening remarks from Subcommittee Chair Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL-4). The hearing on federal adoption funding arrives at a precarious moment for child welfare Congress watchers: the Administration for Children and Families — which administers Title IV-E foster care and adoption assistance — has seen its workforce slashed through DOGE-related cuts. Meanwhile, the HHS policy office responsible for child welfare research posted an extraordinary notice that its website "is not being updated currently" due to HHS restructuring.

President Trump signed the "Fostering the Future for American Children and Families" Executive Order in November 2025, directing HHS to expand faith-based foster care partnerships and protect religious adoption agencies from exclusion. And the administration's FY2026 budget, while proposing a 26.2 percent overall cut to HHS discretionary spending, largely preserved adoption-specific programs. Federal support for Title IV-E is estimated at $10.1 billion for FY2026 on a mandatory basis, per the Congressional Research Service.

The hearing feeds directly into FY2027 appropriations deliberations. A Family First Prevention Services Act reimbursement rate change takes effect October 1, 2026, creating a hard deadline for congressional action.

Child Welfare Permanency Hearing: The Witnesses

The five-witness panel brought practitioner, academic, tribal, and nonprofit perspectives to the table — a breadth that guaranteed the hearing would surface competing visions of what "permanency" means.

Lee Marshall, CEO of Kids to Love, a Huntsville, Alabama-based nonprofit, brought the most personal testimony: she was born into foster care and adopted at age 2. She urged Congress to find new ways to monitor and improve foster care systems across the country, calling for stronger federal oversight of state-level accountability structures.

Kate McLean, Executive Director of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, appeared before a subcommittee whose chair co-leads the Congressional Coalition on Adoption — giving her testimony unusual institutional weight with the majority.

Debbie Riley, CEO of the Center for Adoption Support and Education, leads the Children's Bureau-funded National Adoption Competency Mental Health Training Initiative. Her testimony addressed the post-adoption support gap — the structural reality that federal funding largely ends at adoption finalization, leaving families without sustained mental health services.

Sarah Font, a professor at the Brown School at Washington University in St. Louis, provided the hearing's empirical grounding, examining the impacts of the child welfare and juvenile legal systems on children and families.

Aurene M. Martin, Board Secretary of the National Indian Child Welfare Association, carried the hearing's highest-stakes argument. In prior testimony before the same committee, Martin stated that tribes are using Indian Child Welfare Act funds to support "culturally based prevention services, services that strengthen families and reduce the need for foster care."

Political Stakes

Aderholt has the most to gain and lose from this hearing. As a senior Alabama Republican with a long record on adoption issues — and a co-sponsor of the Adoption Tax Credit Refundability Act of 2025 — he has staked his subcommittee chairmanship on demonstrating that the Labor-HHS panel exercises real oversight. Just weeks before the hearing, he tweeted that the Working Families Tax Cuts made "up to $5,000 of the Adoption Tax Credit now refundable," framing the hearing as a victory lap.

For the administration, the political calculation is more fraught. The executive order on foster care signals rhetorical commitment to adoption programs federal legislation. But the near-halving of ACF staff and a projected 19.7 percent decrease in Title IV-E funding compared to FY2024 levels undercut that message.

Child Welfare Permanency Hearing: The Counterpoint

The other side: Martin's presence on the panel is the most direct challenge to the majority's framing. The National Indian Child Welfare Association has consistently argued that adoption is not a universal permanency solution — particularly for Native children, for whom ICWA prioritizes tribal placement and family preservation. Tribal lobbying on ICWA has been among the highest-dollar child welfare advocacy activity in recent quarters, with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community spending a combined estimated $945,000 on ICWA preservation advocacy. Just 48 hours before the hearing, Senators Murkowski and Warren reintroduced the American Indian and Alaska Native Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, providing a live legislative hook for tribal child welfare questions.

What's Next

The hearing record will inform the FY2027 Labor-HHS appropriations bill. The Family First reimbursement rate change deadline of October 1, 2026, gives the subcommittee a hard legislative target. The Supporting Adopted Children and Families Act (S.600), which proposes a federal grant program for post-adoption mental health services, is a likely vehicle for follow-on action.

The Bottom Line

Congress is holding a hearing on how to better fund adoption programs at the precise moment the administration has diminished the federal workforce responsible for administering them — a contradiction the subcommittee will need to resolve in its FY2027 bill.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article