Raphael Warnock

Staying in power matters more to Donald Trump than anything else.

These extreme views have no place in the Pentagon. https://t.co/Jke1SN7ela

Heartbreaking news. My thoughts are with his loved ones, the Wesley International Academy community, and all those mourning his loss. https://t.co/63N6aWmqeU

Join us to kick off the start of early vote tomorrow!

This Indigenous Peoples day, we celebrate the heritage and lasting contributions of Indigenous communities across the country. It's an honor to support the Indigenous communities who call Georgia home.

Whenever I'm feeling demoralized, I think of my parishioner John Lewis. He had no reason to think that he would win when he was crossing the Edmund Pettus bridge. But he just kept walking. We MUST keep walking.

"No new wars" turned out to be one of the most egregious lies ever told by a presidential candidate.

Proud to endorse this incredible slate of candidates running for State Senate. If we raise our voices together, we can flip this chamber and finally build a majority that puts working people first.

I'm carefully monitoring Hurricane Isaias. Stay safe and listen to local warnings. My office remains ready to assist those in need.

There's a reason why Donald Trump won't stop talking about 2020. He wants to create the pretense to interfere in 2026. We won't let him.

Rick Jackson is running to become Trump’s favorite governor.

Three years ago, Israeli fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters were brutally attacked, kidnapped, and killed by Hamas terrorists. As we remember the victims lost that day and in the aftermath, I pray for a lasting peace that ensures the humanity and security of all God’s children.

Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock and 38 Congressional colleagues are calling on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to rescind its proposed overhaul of the Head Start program The administration’s proposal jeopardizes access to quality early learning and child care services for more than 700,000 children across the country Head Start provides comprehensive early learning and family support services across the country, particularly in rural and low-income communities Senator Warnock is a proud Head Start alumni and founding member of the Head Start to Congress Caucus Senators Reverend Warnock, colleagues: “Let us be very clear: what you are proposing seriously weakens the high-quality, comprehensive research-backed services required by law, undermines access to critical services, restricts access for children and families, and creates uncertainty for Head Start programs across the nation” Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock (D-GA) led a bicameral group of lawmakers in opposing the Trump Administration’s proposed overhaul of Head Start, a federal program dedicated to improving academic and health outcomes for children by providing comprehensive early learning and family support services across the country, particularly in rural and low-income communities. “Let us be very clear: what you are proposing seriously weakens the high-quality, comprehensive research-backed services required by law, undermines access to critical services, restricts access for children and families, and creates uncertainty for Head Start programs across the nation,” wrote Senator Warnock and his colleagues. “This proposed rule is a brazen attempt to dismantle Head Start without regard for the hundreds of thousands of young children and working-class families who depend on these programs and services every year.” In August, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced changes to the Head Start Program Performance Standards that effectively eliminate the central mechanism for evaluating and ensuring the quality of early childhood education services provided through Head Start. The administration’s proposal jeopardizes access to quality early learning and child care services for more than 700,000 children across the country. As a proud Head Start alum and founding member of the Head Start to Congress Caucus, Senator Warnock has long championed the program and its mission. Earlier this year, he joined a bicameral coalition in opposing a similar HHS proposal that would eliminate salary increases and improvements to employment benefits for full-time Head Start staff. In 2025, Senator Warnock introduced the bipartisan Head Start Education and Development Workforce Advancement and Yield (HEADWAY) Act to address early childhood workforce shortages by allowing Early Head Start classroom teachers to continue teaching while earning their Child Development Associate (CDA) credential. Alongside Senator Warnock, the letter is led by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), and cosigned by Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Richard Durbin (D-IL), John Fetterman (D-PA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Angus King (I-ME), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jack Reed (D-RI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-CT), Ron Wyden (D-OR), and 152 Members of Congress. A copy of the letter can be found HERE and text is below: “Dear Secretary Kennedy, “We write to express our strong opposition to the proposed rule, ‘Reducing Federal Burden for Head Start Programs,’ which seeks to illegally dismantle Head Start by removing over 90 percent of standards that ensure children receive high-quality early education and comprehensive services. This proposal is a blatant effort to gut core aspects of this longstanding, anti-poverty program and is in direct conflict with the Head Start Act. “Let us be very clear: what you are proposing seriously weakens the high-quality, comprehensive research-backed services required by law, undermines access to critical services, restricts access for children and families, and creates uncertainty for Head Start programs across the nation. Under your proposal, 80% of children in Head Start will face worse staff-to-child ratios. Nearly 1 in 10 children currently served in Head Start could become ineligible for services overnight. Key Head Start health, dental, mental health, and developmental services will be reduced nationwide. And the duration of the Head Start school day could be cut in half in many communities, leaving working families stranded and without child care. That is unacceptable. “Since 1965, Head Start has served more than 40 million young children with age-appropriate education, health care, dental care, and healthy meals. The program has also provided working-class parents with connections to job training, adult education, nutrition services, housing assistance, and other support services that strengthen families. Research shows that children who attend Head Start are more likely to be ready for kindergarten, graduate from high school, attend college, and are less likely to have adverse health outcomes than non-participants. Every year, roughly 1,600 Head Start grantees serve over 700,000 young children and their families through a unique, multi-generational and holistic approach. The scope and quality of these programs have changed the lives of millions. “Despite Head Start’s essential role, you have led the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to repeatedly undermine and disrupt Head Start services. Since the very start of this Administration, Head Start programs have had their funding illegally withheld and delayed, lost federal staff who were essential to their community-driven successes, and faced new requirements that create constant confusion. Last year, a leaked version of the fiscal year 2026 budget proposal indicated the Administration’s plan to eliminate the Head Start program. You made a commitment to Congress to ‘preserve’ Head Start, yet this proposed rule is the latest attempt by the Administration to deteriorate and ultimately eliminate the program by gutting the core standards and services that have long-defined and ensured its success. “This proposal strikes nearly all of the Head Start Program Performance Standards (‘Performance Standards’) in defiance of statutory requirements and is antithetical to the mission of Head Start, which is to provide quality early learning and comprehensive services for children and families with the highest needs. Head Start’s unique federal-to-local model relies on the Performance Standards to provide clarity to grantees, while considering evolving research, science, and community needs. “Under section 641A(a)(2)(C)(ii) of the Head Start Act, HHS cannot modify the Performance Standards in a way that will ‘result in the elimination of or any reduction in quality, scope, or types of health, educational, parental involvement, nutritional, social, or other services required to be provided under such standards as in effect on the date of enactment of the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007.’ Yet, this proposed rule does exactly that: it illegally eliminates and reduces the core components of Head Start as they currently exist. 1. Undermine quality early childhood education and services “We oppose your proposed elimination of federal standards for staff-to-child ratios, class sizes, safety practices; proposed removal of limits on suspensions and expulsions; and proposed removal of Head Start staff professional development, training, and wellness breaks. This overhaul of the Performance Standards will diminish the quality of services and jeopardize the safety and well-being of children. Staff-to-Child Ratios and Group Sizes “Removing staff-to-child ratios and group size limits in 45 C.F.R. §1302.21(b) and deferring instead to state policies will diminish program quality and threaten children’s safety. State and local policies for child care ratios and group sizes vary widely, which is why the Performance Standards include research-informed, national baselines for high-quality settings that support child development, health, and safety. For example, in Idaho, state law and regulations allow a single educator to care for up to six infants, while in 35 other states, the required ratio is 1:4 and is aligned with the current Performance Standards. According to the Children’s Equity Project, your proposal to replace these federal regulations with state child care standards is estimated to worsen staff-to-child ratios for 80 percent of children enrolled in Early Head Start or Head Start Preschool. HHS’s own analysis of the rule expects a 16 to 32 percent increase in the average number of children per Head Start educator. These changes will make it harder for staff to provide adequate supervision of children, result in poorer quality interactions with children, increase staff burnout, hinder accommodations for children with disabilities, and diminish the delivery of complex early learning science. Child Safety “We also oppose the proposed changes to essential safety standards that protect young children and give families peace of mind that their children will be well cared for in Head Start. Many of these changes are unconscionable, such as removing the prohibition on leaving children unsupervised and reducing protections against the maltreatment or endangerment of children, including restraint and seclusion practices. Disparities in discipline—including the use of restraint and seclusion—begin as early as preschool, with particularly concerning disparities involving children of color with disabilities. The elimination of these provisions would mean that young children could be subject to a higher risk of corporal punishment, abuse, neglect, shaming, and humiliation, or being left alone while enrolled in Head Start. Suspensions and Expulsions “The proposal to remove federal disciplinary standards in 45 C.F.R. §1302.17 that prohibit or severely limit the uses of suspensions, expulsions, or unenrollment of children will push children out of programs and disrupt their social and emotional development. According to a 2016 study, as many as 250 preschoolers are suspended or expelled every day. Research has found that boys of color, children with disabilities, and children who are English language learners are disproportionately more likely to experience suspensions or other disciplinary practices in preschool. Further, these disciplinary practices have negative consequences on children and families’ mental health and children’s development, education, and health. Standards for Teaching and Learning, Staff Qualifications, Trainings, and Wellness “The proposed rule eliminates standards for best practices for teaching and learning (currently regulated in 45 C.F.R. §1302.30-1302.36), erodes staff qualifications, limits access to training and professional development, and reduces wellness services (required under 45 C.F.R. §1302.90-93), which will worsen conditions for the Head Start workforce and their capacity to provide children with high-quality early learning. The proposed rule removes clear guidelines on individualizing instruction that integrates early learning standards into curriculum and teacher training. The proposed rule effectively prohibits postsecondary education credentials—which runs counter to section 648A of the law that outlines Head Start staff qualifications. At a time when 59 percent of the Head Start programs report challenging classroom conditions as among the top reasons for staff vacancies, the proposed rule also seek to remove coaching, some teacher training, developmental screenings for children, wellness breaks, and mental health information for Head Start staff. This elimination of professional and supportive services will worsen environments for the Head Start workforce, who are already underpaid and turning over at a rate that limits the capacity to serve more eligible children and families. Even worse, this comes at a time when HHS is in the process of finalizing another rule, ‘Restoring Flexibility to Support Head Start Program Access,’ that rolls back provisions that would have increased wages and required benefits for Head Start staff. Together, these changes will exacerbate staff stress and burnout and compound recruitment and retention challenges, making it harder to serve more children and disrupting the continuity of care. 2. Deteriorates critical comprehensive services for children and families “Under section 636 of the Head Start Act, one of the stated purposes of Head Start is to provide ‘health, educational, nutritional, social, and other services’ to low-income children and their families across the country. The proposal guts regulatory provisions (45 C.F.R. §§ 1302.40-46) that are critical to promoting healthy child development and school readiness, and ensuring families receive comprehensive services and are equipped to build nurturing and responsive relationships with their children. Research has proven that developmental and mental health screenings, nutrition counseling, oral health programs, and parent education and support services enhance children’s outcomes and prevent long-term health issues, and Head Start has a long history of successfully providing these services for families. For example, during the 2025 program year, Head Start grantees across the country provided nearly 373,000 families (52 percent) with education on preventative medical and oral health, over 102,000 families (14 percent) with mental health services, and over 347,000 families (48 percent) with nutrition education. We oppose the proposal to roll back decades of progress and remove provisions that are central to the quality, frequency, and coordination of comprehensive services that are important for children’s development and learning and family economic stability and well-being. Health Services for Children “The proposed elimination of 45 C.F.R. §1302.42 will result in fewer available physical, dental, and mental health services for children. Under the proposed rule, Head Start programs would no longer have to ensure children receive developmental, vision, and hearing screenings; check for a source of health insurance; and check the status of age-appropriate medical, mental health, and dental care. Current standards not only require these services but also establish timelines for doing so to ensure children receive medical and dental care without delay and requirements to refer children to follow up services and track progress to ensure children receive intervention or treatment for any identified issues. Further, the proposed rule strikes standards for family collaboration and education about their child’s healthy development (45 C.F.R.§1302.41 and §1302.46) and the frequency and coordination of mental health services (45 C.F.R.§1302.45) “The law requires HHS to have standards for health services (section 641A(a)(1)) and for Head Start grantees to have goals and measurable objectives for health services (section 642(f)). Notably, section 657C of the Head Start Act defines the term “health” to include services or care provided to enrolled children, their parents, or their siblings for both physical and mental health. However, the plan to eliminate almost all health, dental, and mental health standards, in addition to health and developmental screenings, service timelines, and ongoing care obligations will serve to deteriorate preventative and continuous health services for young children. “Early screenings and services are fundamental to the mission of Head Start which recognizes children’s learning, health, and development are inextricably linked, and your proposed changes will have long-term consequences for children. Head Start plays a critical role in ensuring that children with disabilities and their families are connected with providers of early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Without these screenings, children who are at-risk for, or are suspected of having, a disability could be diagnosed later and miss the opportunity to receive early intervention services, increasing their risk of falling behind in elementary school and force their families to pay out-of-pocket for screenings and services traditionally offered by Head Start. “Additionally, we object to the removal of 45 C.F.R. §1302.42(e), which explicitly requires Early Head Start programs to use funds to provide diapers and formula during the program day, as well as the provision that allows Head Start programs to use program funds to pay for professional medical and oral health services if no other funding source is available. These guidance and authorities are crucial to ensuring every Head Start child receives early, preventative, and ongoing care – regardless of their family’s ability to pay for and access these services on their own. Services for Expecting Families “We also oppose the proposal to eliminate most of the dedicated services for more than 10,000 expecting Head Start families. Currently 45 C.F.R. §1302.80-82 of the rule requires grantees to check enrolled pregnant women’s prenatal care or insurance within 30 days, facilitate access to comprehensive services, and provide prenatal services to reduce barriers to healthy maternal and birthing outcomes. Prenatal and postpartum referrals and education are critical to the healthy development of infants, maternal health, and fostering nurturing and responsive caregiving environments. “The culmination of striking these research-based regulations will undermine Head Start’s current, proactive scope and the comprehensiveness of health, nutrition, and early intervention screenings and services for hundreds of thousands of Head Start children and families. 3. Restrict access for children and working families “The proposed rule makes it harder for children and families to qualify for and be served by Head Start in a manner that meets their needs. We strongly object to the plans to shorten Head Start’s hours of operation, remove enrollment requirements for children with disabilities, require English-only instruction, and remove self-attestation and excessive housing costs considerations for eligibility, particularly for families experiencing homelessness. Program Duration “The proposal to shorten the Head Start day is taking the program in exactly the wrong direction and is out of step with research on early childhood education. The proposed rule reverts Head Start centers program operations to the statutory minimum of 3 hours a day. To be clear, the current duration minimums that you seek to eliminate were designed to align Head Start with state pre-kindergarten successes in making gains in language, literacy, math, and social skills. The proposal also “acknowledges that families may need to secure alternative child care arrangements or may miss work time” in response to this new rule. Head Start is often the only licensed child care option in rural communities, and an estimated 4.2 million children lack access to a formal child care slot in their local community. In many states, depending on the age of the child and child care setting, the cost of child care exceeds annual, average in-state cost of college tuition, rent payments, or even mortgage payments. It is simply unrealistic and shameful to diminish Head Start services at a time when high-quality child care is unaffordable for working families and hard to find. We urge you to abandon this provision. Income Eligibility Barriers “We oppose the prohibition on self-attestation in the proposed §1301.02(c)(4). This prohibition will exclude families with extremely low incomes, those who are self-employed, or those experiencing homelessness from Head Start programs. These are individuals who do not have the same access to tax documents, pay stubs, and proof of income from employers as individuals with more financial stability. HHS’s own analysis of the rule estimates that this change alone will make 8 percent of Head Start children, about 54,000 children, ineligible. It is abhorrent to remove some of the children and families with the greatest needs from Head Start. “Current Performance Standards in §1301.12(i)(1)(ii) allow Head Start programs to adjust for excessive housing expenses when verifying income eligibility. As wages increase to respond to rising costs of living, many families earning low wages have seen their incomes rise above Head Start’s federal poverty level eligibility threshold but still struggle to make ends meet and afford the high costs of necessities like housing, food, utilities, and child care. Striking this consideration will make it harder for families who face high costs of living and would benefit from Head Start’s services to qualify for the program. Children Experiencing Homelessness “We are greatly concerned about the undue burden for children and families experiencing homelessness to be served by Head Start programs under your proposal. Section 640(m) of the Head Start Act requires the HHS Secretary to issue rules to ‘remove barriers to the enrollment and participation of homeless children in Head Start programs’, including ensuring children experiencing homelessness are identified and prioritized for enrollment, allowing their families to provide required documents within a reasonable time frame, offering continuity of services when housing is unstable, and coordinating with McKinney-Vento liaisons in local school districts. These legally required policies and procedures and the self-attestation pathway are critical for Head Start to carry out eligibility verification for children experiencing homelessness, allow enrollment of these children before records arrive, and hold slots for them if families relocate during the program year. In the 2024-2025 program year, Head Start served more than 60,000 children experiencing homelessness – the highest number on record. We urge you to follow the law to ensure Head Start identifies, enrolls, and coordinates services for children and families experiencing homelessness. Children with Disabilities “Under the proposed rule, requirements pertaining to services for children with disabilities are eliminated, exposing children and their families to increased discrimination and greater barriers to necessary supports and services. While the underlying statutory requirements remain in place, the proposal no longer mandates that children receive services while they await an IDEA evaluation, and it removes the explicit directive that programs cannot reject a child based on disability-status. We oppose the proposed rule’s removal of standards that require Head Start programs to provide early intervention or special education services consistent with IDEA, support parent participation in this process, and prohibit denying enrollment or services based on disability status. While federal disability civil rights laws remain in effect, removing the detailed Performance Standards removes the mechanism that makes those legal rights operational day to day. Without clear federal requirements, whether a child with a disability receives an assessment, an accommodation, or coordinated services would depend far more on what an individual local program happens to know about disability, what resources it has, and how effectively a family can navigate complex systems on its own. That is likely to produce significant disparities across states and communities — the opposite of the consistency Head Start’s standards were designed to guarantee. If finalized, this proposal threatens to unravel decades of progress toward inclusion for more than 100,000 children with disabilities currently served by Head Start. Dual Language Learners “The proposed extreme provision to impose English-only instruction in Head Start is a drastic shift from current learning and teaching science and practices to create educational access to all children. In 2024, nearly 30 percent of Head Start children’s primary, home language was not English, and nearly 10 percent of children whose families primarily speak English were acquiring or learning another language. Head Start supports dual language learner children in the acquisition of the English language and provides educational services and parent engagement in home languages. For example, programs are directed statutorily to use funds on literacy training ‘in a developmentally, culturally, and linguistically appropriate manner and support children’s development in their native language’ and include ‘specific methods to best address the needs of children who are limited English proficient’ in section 648(d)(2) of the Head Start Act. While section 641A(a)(1)(B)(x) of the law requires the Secretary to issue standards to ensure ‘progress toward acquisition of the English language’, your proposal to require English-only instruction may conflict with the statutory requirement that ‘progress [be] made through the use of culturally and linguistically appropriate instructional services.’ We ask that you withdraw this provision and maintain inclusive instruction for Head Start children, particularly dual language learners. Research is clear that your provision will slow English acquisition and can be harmful to child development and academic achievement. 4. Intentional ambiguity and misleading promises “We are concerned that removing nearly all the Performance Standards will create a great deal of ambiguity for Head Start grantees to implement the law with fidelity. The removal of regulatory details and reduction in administrative spending places greater burdens and uncertainties for community-driven programs in fulfilling their statutory obligations. For over six decades, Head Start has been a successful federal-to-local program, but this proposal to defer to state administration will undermine the consistency and quality of the program. Monitoring “The intentional lack of clarity for administering a complex, high-quality early childhood education and comprehensive services leaves every Head Start program susceptible to being out of compliance and possibly losing their grants. Section 641A(c) of the Head Start Act requires the Secretary to monitor programs, and HHS holds the authority to issue deficiencies when the monitoring process identifies a systematic or substantial failure to meet program requirements. The proposed rule strikes some details under §1304.11 related to the conditions that result in a grant being designated for competition and adds a vague provision for HHS to determine and re-compete a grant if the grantee is ‘determined not to be delivering classroom quality’. The proposal puts all Head Start grantees in a vulnerable position to face arbitrary monitoring processes without adequate guidance. Administrative Capacity “The proposal in §1301.14 to reduce maximum administrative spending from 15 percent to 5 percent for Head Start grantees expressly contradicts section 644(b) of the Head Start Act, which allows a cap of 15 percent with the option of a waiver. Funds set aside for administrative spending allow grantees to develop and operate Head Start programs, including fiscal management, human resources, information technology, data systems, and facilities management. To continue these required functions under a 5 percent limit is untenable and many programs will be forced to have staff share functions or eliminate functions or reduce operations. Some grantees have suggested they will have to relinquish their grants altogether because they will be unable to maintain operations. HHS’s own analysis of this rule estimates that only 3.7 percent of Head Start grantees operate at or below this 5 percent threshold. To put it simply, this reduction will pose greater challenges for Head Start programs to deliver high-quality services or to expand services to serve more children, particularly for smaller and rural programs that already face limited administrative capacity. Conclusion “This proposed rule is a brazen attempt to dismantle Head Start without regard for the hundreds of thousands of young children and working-class families who depend on these programs and services every year. Under your proposal, Head Start children could be subject to corporal punishment; left unsupervised; have larger class sizes; have less qualified teachers; and no longer receive preventative and continuous health services, including oral health and mental health services. Families might have to find alternative child care options and struggle to meet eligibility requirements, particularly for those with little to no incomes, those experiencing homelessness, and those already facing high costs of living. The Head Start workforce will lose professional development, training, and be expected to teach and supervise more children without any additional pay or support. “We strongly urge you to withdraw the proposed rule, obey the law, and protect the legacy of Head Start. Sincerely,” ###

Keisha is a fighter who will stand up to Donald Trump. Rick Jackson wants to be Donald Trump. It’s a simple choice.

In a letter to the Georgia Department of Community Health, Senator Reverend Warnock pressed the state to preserve and expand access to health care coverage for low-income Georgians Senator Warnock slammed the Kemp administration’s threat to eliminate Georgia Pathways unless the state receives a 90 percent federal match Senator Warnock is a leading proponent of Medicaid expansion and has long championed efforts to expand Georgians’ access to affordable health care Senator Reverend Warnock: “I urge the State to do everything in its power to keep as many people enrolled in affordable coverage” Atlanta, GA – Last month, Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock (D-GA) pressed the Georgia Department of Community Health over the state’s threat to shut down its health care coverage program for low-income Georgians, which would strip some of the state’s lowest-income residents of their health care coverage. Under Governor Brian Kemp’s direction, the state is demanding a 90 percent federal match to bankroll Georgia Pathways, Governor Kemp’s own deeply flawed health care coverage program, or threatening to suspend coverage for all enrollees. “I urge the State to do everything in its power to keep as many people enrolled in affordable coverage,” wrote Senator Warnock in a letter to the Georgia Department of Community Health. “If it does not, make no mistake: it is the State’s mismanagement of funds and poor construction of its ‘innovative program’ that will continue to doom the lowest-income Georgians to a life without health care.” Georgia has so far declined to fully expand Medicaid, rejecting federal incentives that at one point estimated to be nearly $2 billion in funding to support program expansion. Instead, Governor Kemp pursued Georgia Pathways to Coverage, a state-run program rife with bureaucratic red tape and arbitrary coverage restrictions. Despite hailing Pathways as a success after its launch, the Kemp administration now claims it cannot afford to provide health care coverage to the nearly 100,000 hardworking Georgians estimated to gain eligibility in 2027. Senator Warnock is a leading proponent of Medicaid expansion and has long championed efforts to expand Georgians’ access to affordable health care. Last year, he released a report titled “Healthy People, Healthy Economy,” which found that investing in Medicaid stimulates economic growth and promotes access to employment. In the report, Senator Warnock warned that if other states adopt Georgia’s flawed Pathways to Coverage model, millions of Americans could lose access to health care, government bureaucracy could grow, hospitals could close, jobs could be lost, and the economy could slow. Since then, Congressional Republicans have used Georgia’s Pathways to Coverage program as a model for the health care cuts and changes included in their July 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill, set to take effect in 2027. A copy of the letter can be found HERE and text is below: “Ms. Hicks, “I respectfully submit my written comments regarding Georgia’s Department of Community Health’s (DCH) proposed State Plan Amendment (SPA) implementing the Medicaid community engagement requirement under H.R. 1 and the CMS Interim Final Rule (CMS-2454-IFC). “While I have concerns with the deeply flawed Georgia Pathways to Coverage (“Pathways”) program, I am alarmed by insinuations that the State of Georgia (“the State”) will simply end the program without a 90 percent federal match. Such an abrupt termination would pull the rug out from the few Georgians currently covered by the program and cause even more Georgians to lose access to health care. I take issue with the State’s embrace of work reporting requirements, which have been shown to wrongfully prevent working adults from accessing care. However, it has always been my core belief that we must expand health coverage to as many Georgians as possible until we fully expand Medicaid and close the coverage gap. That is why the State must do whatever it can to protect and expand Medicaid coverage for Georgians. “When the State launched Pathways in 2023, it limited coverage to individuals who reported completing 80 hours of work, job training, education, or community service each month. At the time of its initial launch, Georgia was the only state in the country with active work reporting requirements in its Medicaid program. The State estimated that as many as 100,000 people would sign up and that up to 345,000 people could be eligible. “In January 2025, the State modestly increased eligibility and exempted parents and guardians of children up to age 6 from the work reporting requirements. Even with this change, the most recent estimate of enrollment in Pathways was just over 19,000 people — well short of the 100,000 enrollees predicted. “In July 2025, Congressional Republicans passed H.R. 1 to implement new federal work reporting requirements for the Medicaid expansion population starting after December 31, 2026, pointing to the ‘success’ of Georgia’s Pathways.4 The new federal reporting requirements, however, are more generous than Georgia’s current program. According to the SPA, the State is now being ‘forced to expand the program to 100,000 new individuals in order to maintain the coverage of approximately 20,000 hard- working Georgians.’ ‘Forced’ to provide healthcare to Georgians. That is quite the sentiment, especially when these new individuals are veterans, parents of school-aged children, children formerly in foster care, and other individuals classified as medicinally frail. These are the people the State does not want to be ‘forced’ to cover. “In 2022, the State initially predicted its program could cover as many as 100,000 people. Now, the State claims it cannot possibly cover this amount—at least, not without a substantially more generous federal match of 90 percent. Had the State simply expanded Medicaid in 2022, they would have received an automatic 90 percent federal match for over a decade. Congressional Democrats even enacted an additional federal incentive for states that newly adopted expansion, which was at one point was estimated to bring in nearly $2 billion in additional federal funding for Georgia. “Instead, the State spent tens of millions of dollars to launch a bureaucratic program that covered a fraction of the expected population. A report based on Pathways data through June 2025 found that Georgia spent about $13,597 per active enrollee on program costs.6 A U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report from September 2025 found that the State spent over $54 million on administrative costs for the program. And now, the State is claiming it cannot afford to provide health coverage to as many as 100,000 working Georgia families, despite touting its ability to do just that 4 years ago. “I urge the State to do everything in its power to keep as many people enrolled in affordable coverage. If it does not, make no mistake: it is the State’s mismanagement of funds and poor construction of its ‘innovative program’ that will continue to doom the lowest-income Georgians to a life without health care. Sincerely,” ###

RFK Jr. is a hazard to the health of the American people. He ought to resign. And if he doesn't resign, the president should fire him.

According to reporting by POLITICO, the Trump Administration refused to spend around $232 million in federal funding meant to help low-income families in rural communities The funding officially expired last week The funding was allocated by Congress to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Single Family Housing Direct Home Loans Program In Georgia, rural communities received over $14 million less in mortgage assistance compared to the prior years’ average, a 68% decrease Senator Reverend Warnock: “Time and time again the Trump administration shows its true colors. By denying money to Georgians who need it, the President demonstrates that he doesn’t care about rural and low-income families.” Washington, D.C. – Today, Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock (D-GA) released the following statement after new reporting by POLITICO found that the Trump administration threw away more than $230 million in federal funding Congress already allocated to help low-income families in rural communities. “Time and time again, the Trump administration shows its true colors. By denying money to Georgians who need it, the President demonstrates that he doesn’t care about rural and low-income families, rising housing costs, and the affordability crisis plaguing this country,” Senator Reverend Warnock said. “Housing provides dignity and security, particularly in rural communities. When this administration fails to do its job, it is hardworking Georgians in rural communities across our state who pay the price.” Congress allocated the funding to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Single Family Housing Direct Home Loans Program. As of today, USDA has only used $518 million of the $1 billion in available funding for the program. About $250 million of the unspent money will carry over to the next fiscal year, but roughly $232 million expired last week with the end of the fiscal year, preventing hundreds of families across Georgia and the country from getting the assistance they need. Each year, the program finances roughly 5,500 mortgages. The $230 million in funding could have helped approximately 850 rural households achieve homeownership across the country. This fiscal year, Georgians only received $6.9 million in single-family housing direct home loans, a $14 million, or 68%, decrease from prior years’ average, according to data provided by Senator Patty Murray’s (D-WA) office. ###

The $97.1 million award will support 10 HBCU STEM programs through the Department of Defense, including at Clark Atlanta University Since beginning his full Senate term in 2022, Senator Warnock has secured more than $17 billion for HBCU campuses across the country, including nearly $275 million for HBCUs in Georgia Senator Warnock is a proud graduate of Morehouse College, an HBCU located in Atlanta Senators Reverend Warnock: “These institutions serve as stewards of academic excellence and innovation, and this federal investment specifically in STEM programs honors that legacy of greatness and expands opportunity for the next generation of scientists” Washington, D.C. – Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock (D-GA) is announcing a $97.1 million award in federal funding to support Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) research programs and capabilities at 10 Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Minority-serving Institutions (MSIs) across the country, including nearly $10 million at Clark Atlanta University in Georgia. “For too long, HBCUs have gone unrecognized for their contributions to our nation’s leading STEM industry,” said Senator Warnock. “These institutions serve as stewards of academic excellence and innovation, and this federal investment specifically in STEM programs honors that legacy of greatness and expands opportunity for the next generation of scientists.” Senator Warnock has long been a champion of America’s HBCUs and successfully secured this latest batch of congressionally directed funding through the Department of Defense’s (DOD) HBCU/MSI program. The grant supports 10 HBCU institutions as they seek to achieve Research One (R1) status—the highest research activity classification among colleges and universities in the United States. This effort builds on Senator Warnock’s bipartisan HBCU Research Capacity Act to set up a federally coordinated website that compiles information about HBCU-eligible STEM research and development funding opportunities. In March, Senator Warnock hosted over 30 HBCU presidents in the U.S. Capitol for an event focused on his and Sen. Katie Britt’s (R-AL) landmark legislation. An HBCU graduate who understands firsthand the benefit of a good education, Senator Warnock has routinely emphasized the importance of adequately funding these institutions. To date, Senator Warnock has secured more than $17 billion for HBCU campuses across the country, including nearly $275 million for HBCUs in Georgia. A list of HBCUs receiving the federal grant funding can be found below: ###

Joe Biden has been out of office for nearly two years. The fact that Trump keeps talking about him tells you everything.

Georgia, today is the last day to register to vote before Election Day next month. If you’re not already registered, visit https://t.co/v9yNsmtV9c to ensure your voice is heard. I’ll see you at the polls. https://t.co/2NKL1ppvL0

This President wants you to think that we are at war with one another. Those with no vision traffic in division.

I’m closely following the horrifying news of a shooting in Vienna, Georgia. I’m grateful to law enforcement and first responders who arrived on the scene. May God give peace to the families of the victims and I am praying for the swift recovery of those injured. Keeping the entire community of Vienna in my thoughts.

Donald Trump and his billionaire buddies want to squeeze the people's voices out of their own democracy. Do not let them silence you.

There’s a valuable lesson in Isaiah, but I don’t think Pete Hegseth hears it. He’s focused on wrapping up power in sacred clothes. https://t.co/s0NGWM4EwC

Democracy is the house that we all live in. Donald Trump is setting that house on fire.