FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TOPEKA –  Senator Roger Marshall visited Topeka’s Boys and Girls Club on Friday, April 24, posting “great to be there” on social media. But as federal education funding faces cuts and freezes, Kansans are asking: Will Marshall protect these programs or slash the very funding that keeps them open? As This is Topeka reports, funding for after-school programs like the Boys and Girls Club is included in appropriations packages that Marshall has voted against several times in recent years.

“Senator Marshall wants the photo op without the responsibility,” Lauren Fitzgerald, spokesperson for Kansas Coalition for Common Sense, said. “Kansans work hard to give their kids better opportunities. After-school programs like the Boys and Girls Club help make that possible. But Marshall’s voting record shows consistent cuts to these programs. You can’t claim to support kids while voting to defund the programs they depend on.”

Marshall touts Boys & Girls Club visit as questions linger over federal funding stance
This is Topeka
Jeffery W. Fogg II, 4.25.26

• U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall smiled for the camera Friday outside the Boys & Girls Clubs of America site in Topeka, kneeling beside a young student flashing a peace sign. “Happy Friday … great to be here!” he wrote in a social media post, offering a familiar image of a lawmaker connecting with a cornerstone of local youth programming.

• Across the country, Boys & Girls Clubs and similar after-school providers rely in part on federal programs such as the 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative, a longstanding funding source for after-school and summer programming. Those funds are typically embedded in large appropriations packages — the same sweeping federal spending bills that have increasingly drawn opposition from fiscal conservatives, including Marshall, who has voted against several such measures in recent years.

• Critics argue that those votes — and the broader policy direction aligned with efforts to shrink or restructure federal education spending — place lawmakers in a contradictory position: publicly embracing the visibility and community goodwill of youth organizations while supporting policies that could constrain their funding.

• But for organizations on the ground, the distinction between funding philosophy and funding reality can be consequential. Federal grants often serve as a stabilizing base, especially in lower-income communities where local funding options are limited. Even temporary disruptions — such as delays, reductions or uncertainty tied to federal policy decisions — can translate into staffing cuts, reduced programming or, in some cases, the threat of closure.
• That tension remains largely unaddressed in Marshall’s public messaging.

###