Overview of Current Issues Negatively Impacting Individuals with Disabilities—Both Students and Adults.

1. Budget Cuts to Disability Programs *

2. Restructuring of the Social Security Administration (SSA) *

3. Expansion of the "Public Charge" Rule *

4. Rollback of DEIA Initiatives *

5. Rhetoric Diminishing Disability Rights *

6. Delegating IDEA Management to Individual States *

7. Meals on Wheels Funding Cuts *

8. Assistive Technology (AT) Act Funding Concerns *

9. Voucher Programs *

10. Charter, Private, and Religious Schools and Disability Legislation *

11. Shortage of Special Education Teachers *

14. Project 2025: *

The administration is making substantial cuts to critical programs that support individuals with disabilities, most notably a projected reduction of approximately $72 billion over ten years specifically targeting Social Security disability benefits. Such deep financial cuts directly threaten the economic stability and independence of millions of people who rely on these benefits to afford basic necessities such as housing, medical care, assistive technology, and personal support services. Additionally, the proposed budget would significantly diminish Medicaid funding, further limiting access to essential healthcare and long-term support services for individuals with disabilities and their families.

In a parallel move that could deeply affect students with disabilities, the administration is significantly reducing staffing at the Office of Civil Rights. This cut threatens the office’s capacity to enforce key protections for students in educational settings. With fewer personnel, the agency’s ability to investigate complaints, monitor compliance with federal civil rights laws, and ensure that schools provide necessary accommodations is severely diminished.

Without adequate oversight, instances of discrimination and neglect of proper support for students with disabilities may go unaddressed. This reduction in resources could lead to an environment where vulnerable students face increased barriers to accessing quality education and the essential services they require for academic success and well-being. In effect, just as financial cuts to disability programs undermine economic stability and access to basic necessities, trimming the staff at the Office of Civil Rights jeopardizes the enforcement of policies designed to ensure an inclusive, equitable educational experience for all students.

Efforts by the administration aimed at significantly reducing the federal workforce directly impacted the Social Security Administration. This restructuring included plans to cut thousands of SSA jobs, thereby severely limiting the agency’s capacity to serve the growing population of individuals dependent on disability benefits. These reductions have resulted in increased wait times, delays in processing claims and appeals, and greater difficulty accessing critical services and resources. As a consequence, individuals with disabilities—who often rely on timely SSA assistance for survival—have faced considerable hardship, economic insecurity, and uncertainty about their benefits and future support.

Under this administration, significant expansions to the "public charge" rule created major barriers for immigrants with disabilities seeking permanent residency in the United States. The expanded rule allowed immigration officials to deny green cards and visas to individuals deemed likely to become dependent on public assistance programs, including Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and housing assistance. This policy had a chilling effect, causing many immigrants with disabilities and their families to avoid seeking crucial medical care, therapeutic support, and disability services for fear of jeopardizing their immigration status. As a result, individuals with disabilities experienced worsened health outcomes, heightened economic vulnerability, and increased isolation from community-based resources and supports.

The administration’s efforts to remove references to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) from federal programs have sparked significant concern among disability rights advocates. DEIA initiatives are crucial for ensuring equal opportunities, fair treatment, and necessary accommodations for people with disabilities. Particularly affected have been university-based Offices of Disability Services (ODS), which often operate within broader DEI departments. The rollback and defunding of these initiatives have led to the widespread elimination of ODS staff, severely diminishing universities’ ability to adequately support students with disabilities. This weakening of institutional support structures compromises the effectiveness of academic accommodations, assistive technology provision, and overall inclusion in higher education.

Throughout the Trump administration, certain officials’ public statements, derogatory language, and policy positions have drawn sharp criticism from disability rights advocates. Such rhetoric has been viewed as reinforcing negative stereotypes, perpetuating harmful stigmas, and diminishing the public perception of the rights, dignity, and worth of individuals with disabilities. Instances of insensitive or dismissive language used by prominent administration figures not only undermined the social progress toward disability inclusion but also emboldened discriminatory attitudes and behaviors, weakening the overall societal commitment to protecting and advancing disability rights.

The Trump administration pursued proposals aimed at decentralizing the administration of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by transferring primary responsibility from federal oversight to individual states. Advocates expressed strong concerns regarding this potential shift, emphasizing that moving IDEA management entirely to state-level control could create significant disparities in special education services across the country. Given that states vary considerably in their commitment, resources, and expertise related to special education, such decentralization risked deepening inequities. It could result in inconsistent enforcement of IDEA's legal mandates, reduced accountability, diluted parental protections, and diminished quality and availability of educational accommodations and supports. Ultimately, critics warned that delegating IDEA management entirely to states would erode uniform standards and protections intended by federal law, negatively impacting students with disabilities and their families nationwide.

Meals on Wheels, a critical national program delivering nutritious meals and essential wellness checks primarily to seniors and individuals with disabilities, faced substantial funding challenges due to specific administrative actions:

Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Cuts:
In 2025, the Trump administration's newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, implemented significant budget cuts directly impacting the Administration for Community Living (ACL). Approximately 40% of ACL staff received layoff notices, severely impairing the agency’s capacity to administer programs essential for vulnerable populations. These cuts threatened the uninterrupted delivery of more than 216 million meals annually, jeopardizing food security, health, and quality of life for millions of older adults and individuals with disabilities. Such deep reductions intensified existing resource constraints, further limiting the availability of daily meals, social interactions, and essential safety checks, all of which are crucial to preventing institutionalization and promoting independent living.

Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Reductions:
The final federal funding bill for Fiscal Year 2024 exacerbated these difficulties by including an $8 million cut to the Older Americans Act Nutrition Program, the primary federal funding stream supporting Meals on Wheels. These reductions were particularly harmful as they occurred amidst already strained local budgets and heightened demand, with many community-based programs struggling to meet the growing needs of older and disabled populations. Advocates emphasized that such cuts disproportionately impacted low-income and isolated individuals, potentially increasing their risk of malnutrition, declining health, social isolation, and loss of independence.

The Assistive Technology (AT) Act funds comprehensive programs across all U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and several U.S. territories, designed specifically to enhance access to assistive technology for people with disabilities of all ages. These state programs deliver critical services including device demonstrations, loans, reutilization, financing assistance, and training.

Proposed Budget Cuts:
Current budget proposals consistently recommended funding reductions to multiple disability-related programs, including the state Assistive Technology initiatives supported by the AT Act. Advocates warned that these proposed budgetary cuts threatened to significantly limit access to essential assistive technology devices and services—tools fundamental for enabling individuals with disabilities to participate fully in education, employment, community activities, and daily life tasks. By jeopardizing these critical supports, the administration's proposed cuts would reduce independence, economic stability, and overall quality of life, creating greater barriers for individuals already facing systemic inequalities.

The Trump administration actively promoted the expansion of school voucher programs, advocating for greater "school choice" by redirecting public education funds toward private and charter schools. Although framed as empowering families with more educational options, voucher programs have disproportionately harmed students with disabilities. Private and charter schools receiving voucher funding are often not required to comply with federal disability laws such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Consequently, many private schools do not provide the same level of specialized instructional support, accommodations, therapies, or procedural protections guaranteed by public education systems.

Furthermore, voucher programs have led to decreased funding for public schools, which are legally obligated to serve students with disabilities comprehensively. As resources are diverted away from public education, schools experience growing financial strain, increased class sizes, and diminished availability of qualified special education teachers and related service providers. This reduction in resources exacerbates educational inequalities, limiting access to appropriate instructional methods, assistive technology, inclusive environments, and critical support services.

Advocates stress that while vouchers may appear beneficial to some families, their broader impact significantly disadvantages students with disabilities—especially those from lower-income families—by effectively weakening the capacity of public education systems to fulfill their federally mandated responsibilities. Ultimately, the expansion of voucher programs under the Trump administration has intensified educational disparities, reduced accountability, and undermined the legal protections intended to ensure equitable educational outcomes for students with disabilities.

There is significant advocacy and support for funding and expansion of charter, private, and religious schools through voucher programs and other financial incentives. However, these schools typically do not fall under the strict regulatory framework of federal disability legislation—including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act—which mandate public schools to provide comprehensive special education services, accommodations, and inclusive educational practices.

As a result, charter, private, and religious schools are often exempt from critical legal obligations, such as developing Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), providing specialized instruction, ensuring appropriate evaluations, offering accessible infrastructure, and making necessary accommodations and modifications for students with disabilities. This exemption allows these schools to selectively admit students, frequently excluding or inadequately supporting students with more intensive disabilities or those requiring more extensive supports.

The consequence of this exemption is twofold: first, students with disabilities enrolled in such schools risk receiving insufficient or inappropriate educational services, potentially leading to lower academic performance, social isolation, and diminished opportunities for long-term educational and employment success. Second, by diverting funding and resources away from public education—which remains legally required to serve all students—the administration's policies weakened public schools' capacities to meet the increasingly diverse and complex needs of their students with disabilities.

Disability advocates have highlighted that this shift undermines decades of progress toward educational equity and inclusion, intensifies segregation and discrimination, and creates a two-tiered educational system, further disadvantaging some of the most vulnerable students.

There is a significant nationwide shortage of special education teachers. Funding reductions, decreased support for teacher training programs, and diminished incentives for recruiting and retaining qualified special education professionals led to chronic understaffing in public school special education departments.

The shortage of special education teachers significantly impacted students with disabilities, affecting both the quality and availability of necessary educational services. With fewer trained specialists available, existing special education teachers faced overwhelming workloads, larger caseloads, and increased administrative responsibilities related to Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). As a result, students frequently experienced delays or denials in obtaining legally mandated assessments, personalized instruction, and vital support services such as speech therapy, occupational therapy, and behavioral interventions.

Moreover, this shortage forced schools to place students with disabilities into mainstream classrooms without adequate supports, where general education teachers—often lacking specialized training—struggled to effectively meet students' diverse learning needs. Consequently, students with disabilities frequently received inadequate educational accommodations, experienced reduced academic progress, faced greater behavioral challenges, and had increased rates of isolation and exclusion from meaningful classroom participation.

The cumulative effects of teacher shortages directly threatened compliance with federal disability education laws, compromising students' right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Advocates emphasized that without immediate measures to address teacher shortages, such as increased federal support for teacher training, competitive compensation, improved working conditions, and targeted recruitment initiatives, long-term educational outcomes for students with disabilities would continue to deteriorate, deepening systemic inequities and adversely affecting their lifelong opportunities and success.

The move to declaring English as the official language of the United States, is a move aimed at reducing multilingual support in public institutions, including schools. While framed as a measure for national unity, this policy had significant negative implications, particularly for essential speakers—individuals who rely on languages other than English to effectively communicate and access critical services—and for students with disabilities who are English language learners (ELLs).

By imposing an "English-only" mandate, essential speakers, including parents of students with disabilities who primarily speak languages other than English, faced substantial barriers when interacting with schools, healthcare providers, and government agencies. Such a declaration effectively restricted the availability of multilingual translation and interpretation services, limiting families' ability to fully participate in their children's education, particularly when navigating complex special education procedures, Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), and disability-related services.

In public education, declaring English as the official language disproportionately impacted students with disabilities who were also English learners. This policy discouraged the provision of culturally responsive and linguistically appropriate educational supports, thereby hindering students' abilities to access essential special education services. Schools, constrained by reduced resources for bilingual educators, interpreters, and translated instructional materials, found it increasingly difficult to meet their legal obligations under federal disability education laws, including IDEA and Section 504.

Consequently, students with disabilities from non-English-speaking backgrounds faced significant setbacks academically, socially, and emotionally. These students risked falling behind due to language barriers compounded by their disabilities, exacerbating educational inequities and limiting their access to meaningful inclusion, appropriate instruction, and community participation. Advocates stressed that such policies undermined the principles of equity and inclusivity, marginalizing already vulnerable populations and weakening educational outcomes and opportunities for essential speakers and multilingual students with disabilities nationwide.

Under the Trump administration, several policy decisions and administrative actions significantly impacted veterans with disabilities, creating barriers to obtaining timely and effective care, benefits, and support services. Despite public declarations of support for veterans, budgetary and administrative priorities led to substantial challenges for disabled veterans reliant on federal assistance.

Reductions in Funding and Resources:
Proposed federal budgets during the Trump administration included funding cuts or freezes affecting programs essential for veterans, particularly in healthcare services provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Reductions in funding created additional hurdles for veterans seeking timely access to critical medical care, including specialized treatment, mental health services, prosthetics, rehabilitation therapies, and assistive technologies.

Staffing and Resource Shortages within the VA:
Administrative decisions aimed at reducing the federal workforce contributed to chronic staffing shortages within the VA system, exacerbating existing delays in processing veterans’ disability claims and appeals. Disabled veterans frequently experienced prolonged wait times, delayed approvals, and bureaucratic hurdles that impeded access to critical medical and financial assistance. These systemic inefficiencies increased the risk of deteriorating physical and mental health outcomes, poverty, and social isolation among disabled veterans.

​In September 2024, a coalition of 17 states, led by Texas, filed a lawsuit known as Texas v. Becerra against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The participating states are:

• Alaska​

• Alabama​

• Arkansas

• Florida​

• Georgia​

• Indiana

• Iowa​

• Kansas​

• Louisiana​

• Missouri​

• Montana​

• Nebraska​

• South Carolina

• South Dakota

• Texas

• Utah​

• West Virginia

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a pivotal federal law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in programs receiving federal funding. This legal action was initiated in response to a 2024 rule update by the Biden administration, which included gender dysphoria as a condition protected under Section 504. ​

The plaintiffs argue that the inclusion of gender dysphoria imposes undue regulatory and financial burdens on states, contending that Section 504's broad scope coerces states into compliance by threatening the withdrawal of federal funds. They assert that this dynamic renders the statute unconstitutionally coercive. ​

Disability rights organizations have expressed profound concern over the potential ramifications of this lawsuit. They warn that if the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it could lead to the dismantling of Section 504, thereby stripping away essential protections for individuals with disabilities. This could adversely affect access to education, healthcare, and other critical services. ​

In response to public backlash, some state attorneys general involved in the lawsuit have clarified their intentions. For instance, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin stated that the lawsuit does not seek to repeal Section 504 in its entirety but aims to challenge the specific 2024 rule regarding gender dysphoria. ​

As of March 2025, the lawsuit is pending in the courts. Advocacy groups continue to monitor the situation closely, emphasizing the importance of maintaining robust protections for all individuals with disabilities. ​

This legal challenge underscores the ongoing debates surrounding the scope of disability rights and the interpretation of federal anti-discrimination laws.

14. Project 2025:
https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

J.D. Vance, the current Vice President of the United States and former Senator from Ohio, has been closely associated with Project 2025, a comprehensive conservative initiative developed by The Heritage Foundation. This project aims to significantly restructure the federal government by consolidating executive power and implementing right-wing policies.​

• Foreword Contribution: In August 2024, Vance authored the foreword for a book by Kevin Roberts, President of The Heritage Foundation and a key leader of Project 2025. In this foreword, Vance praised Roberts' vision, aligning himself with the project's objectives. ​AP News

• Policy Advocacy: During the 2024 vice-presidential debate, Vance faced scrutiny over his ties to Project 2025. His associations with the initiative were highlighted as indicative of his commitment to its policy agenda. ​Forbes

1. Document Excerpt: "Effective January 18 2017 the department issued final regulations under Part B of IDEA that require states to consider race and ethnicity in the identification placement and discipline of students with disabilities. The new Administration should rescind this regulation. Page 336
   Issue: Rescinding this regulation could reduce oversight and protection against racial and ethnic disparities in special education potentially leading to minority students not receiving necessary special education services thus exacerbating existing inequities.

2. Document Excerpt: "Eliminate Impact Aid not tied to students. Move student-driven Impact Aid programs to the Department of Defense Education Authority (DoDEA) or the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Education. Page 326
   Issue: Eliminating Impact Aid that is not directly tied to students could reduce funding for schools in areas with significant federal property such as military bases and tribal lands potentially impacting the resources available to students with disabilities in these regions.

3. Document Excerpt: "Federal lawmakers should move IDEA oversight and implementation to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Officials should then consider revising IDEA to require that a child’s portion of the federal taxpayer spending under the law be made available to families so parents can choose how and where a child learns. Page 349
   Issue: Transferring oversight and implementation of IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) to the Department of Health and Human Services might disrupt the current education-focused framework. This shift could reduce the emphasis on educational outcomes and tailored support within school environments potentially diminishing the quality of services for students with disabilities.

4. Document Excerpt: "Issue a general statement of policy announcing that it plans to enforce Section 1557 discrimination bans by refocusing on serious cases of race sex and disability discrimination. In particular OCR should highlight its 2019 investigation and voluntary resolution agreement with Michigan State University based on the sexual abuse of gymnasts by Larry Nassar. OCR should also coordinate with the Department of Education on a public education and civil rights enforcement campaign to ensure that female college athletes who become pregnant are no longer pressured to obtain abortions; pursue race discrimination claims against entities that adopt or impose racially discriminatory policies such as those based on critical race theory; and announce its intention to enforce disability rights laws to protect children born prematurely children with disabilities and children born alive after abortions." Page 495
   Issue: While focusing on serious cases of discrimination is important limiting enforcement to only the most egregious cases could leave many individuals with disabilities without recourse for more subtle but still harmful forms of discrimination.

5. Document Excerpt: "Members of Congress and the White House should consider a similar update to Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Title I is the largest portion of federal taxpayer spending under this federal education law and the section provides additional taxpayer resources to schools or groups of schools in lower income areas. Page 350
   Issue: Shifting control of significant federal education funds to states could lead to inconsistent support for schools serving low-income and special needs students. States with fewer resources or different priorities might not allocate funds effectively exacerbating inequalities in educational opportunities and outcomes.

6. Document Excerpt: "Most IDEA funding should be converted into a no-strings formula block grant targeted at students with disabilities and distributed directly to local education agencies by Health and Human Service’s Administration for Community Living. Page 326
   Issue: Converting IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) funding into block grants could reduce federal oversight and accountability potentially leading to inconsistent support and services for students with disabilities across different states and localities. This might exacerbate disparities in the quality of education and resources available to these students.

7. Document Excerpt: "OCR should also review all resolution agreements with school districts to conform with this policy. Page 335
   Issue: Eliminating the investigation of Title VI cases based on disparate impact could reduce protections against indirect forms of discrimination potentially allowing discriminatory practices that affect students with disabilities to go unaddressed. These proposed changes could lead to reduced protections funding and oversight for students with disabilities potentially increasing disparities and negatively impacting their educational experiences and outcomes.

8. Document Excerpt: "Phase out earmarks for a variety of special institutions as originally envisioned. Page 327
   Issue: Phasing out earmarks for special institutions such as those serving the deaf and blind could result in reduced funding and support for these specialized programs negatively affecting the quality of education and resources available to students with disabilities.

9. Document Excerpt: "Restore revenue responsibility for Title I funding to the states over a 10-year period. Page 326
   Issue: Shifting revenue responsibility for Title I funding to states could lead to significant disparities in educational resources and support for students with disabilities depending on the financial health and priorities of individual states. This could result in reduced funding and resources for schools serving students with disabilities.

10. Document Excerpt: "Setting education policy on the right track long term would require sunsetting the U.S. Department of Education altogether. Doing so would not result in fewer resources and less assistance for children with special needs or from low-income families. Rather closing the federal behemoth would better target existing taxpayer resources already set aside for these students by shifting oversight responsibilities to federal and state agencies that have more expertise in helping these populations. Page 349
    Issue: Eliminating federal oversight of IDEA could lead to inconsistencies in how states implement and support special education services. This might result in a lack of standardization and accountability making it harder for families to ensure their children receive the necessary services and protections.

11. Document Excerpt: "The next Administration should immediately commence rulemaking to rescind the Equity in IDEA regulation. No replacement regulation is required. Page 336
    Issue: Removing regulations without providing replacements could leave gaps in protections and supports for students with disabilities particularly those from minority backgrounds exacerbating inequities in special education.

12. Document Excerpt: "The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) should prepare a digest of the best research on this subject and share it directly with state superintendents and state special education leaders across the country who have been led by this regulation to believe a false problem diagnosis. Page 336
    Issue: Shifting the responsibility of interpreting and implementing special education policies to states without federal oversight might lead to inconsistencies and a lack of accountability resulting in varied quality of services for students with disabilities.

13. Document Excerpt: "To the extent that OSERS supports federal efforts to enforce our laws against discrimination of individuals with disabilities those assets should be moved to the Department of Justice (DOJ) along with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Page 327
    Issue: Moving these responsibilities to the DOJ could dilute the focus and expertise currently provided by OSERS potentially leading to less effective enforcement of disability rights and protections in educational settings.

14. Document Excerpt: "Transfer all Indian education programs to the Bureau of Indian Education. Page 326
    Issue: While the intent may be to streamline services transferring all Indian education programs to the Bureau of Indian Education could disrupt existing support systems and services for Native American students with disabilities leading to potential gaps in care and educational support.

15. Document Excerpt: "Transfer the Vocational Rehabilitation Grants for Native American students to the Bureau of Indian Education. Page 327
    Issue: Transferring these grants could disrupt existing services and supports provided under the current system potentially leading to gaps in services and support for Native American students with disabilities.