Parents fear a ‘dangerous shift’ as Trump administration rewrites disability policy

Parents fear a ‘dangerous shift’ as Trump administration rewrites disability policy For decades, disabled people have fought for their rights to go to school and live alongside peers without disabilities — rights that some fear could be losing ground under the Trump administration - Bookmark - CommentsGo to comments Decades of hard-won disability rights, ensuring access to education and community living, are now perceived to be under threat from actions taken by the Trump administration. Advocates warn that recent policy shifts by the Education Department and the Department of Justice signal a worrying regression towards a past where individuals with disabilities were marginalized and confined. "It’s a direct, frontal assault on the rights of people with disabilities to live their lives the way that people who are nondisabled live their lives," stated Selene Almazan, legal director for the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates. "I can't imagine that as a country, that would be something that we would agree we should go back to." Historically, legislation and court decisions since the 1960s have progressively expanded protections, allowing people with disabilities to attend school alongside non-disabled peers and to live and work within their communities. This marked a significant departure from earlier eras when individuals with mental illnesses or developmental disabilities were largely institutionalized. Advocates have championed a "social model" of disability, which accommodates differences and fosters integration, over the "medical model" that views disability as a defect to be cured. Last month, the Education Department announced it would transfer oversight of special education to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which is led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. This move has sparked considerable concern among families and advocates, who fear it signals a return to the medical model. Kennedy’s past comments, including attempts to link vaccines to autism despite scientific consensus to the contrary, and his characterization of autism as a debilitating disease, have drawn sharp criticism. His remarks last year, suggesting children with autism would never achieve milestones like writing a poem or holding a job, raised questions about his capacity to oversee an agency dedicated to helping students develop such skills. Zoe Gross, director of advocacy at the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, questioned Kennedy’s commitment. "Many of the things he said autistic people will never do, (special education) is in charge of making sure students with disabilities have the opportunity to do," Gross said. "Will he execute that faithfully, or does he consider disabled students a lost cause until we find some medical cure?" Further compounding these concerns, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued guidance that reinterpreted a landmark Supreme Court ruling. In 1999, the Supreme Court’s Olmstead v. L.C. decision affirmed that segregating disabled individuals capable of living in their communities with proper support constituted discrimination, mandating government agencies to provide services in the most integrated settings possible. However, a June memo from the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel argued that neither the Americans with Disabilities Act nor Section 504 requires states to provide services in mainstream environments. While this memo does not alter existing law, it indicates how federal agencies might interpret and enforce civil rights, potentially emboldening states to reduce support for integrated settings. This shift aligns with a broader philosophy from the White House. Last year, an executive order on homelessness endorsed civil commitment, allowing courts to mandate involuntary hospitalization or treatment, and directed HHS to ease barriers to institutionalizing individuals with mental illnesses. The DOJ acknowledged its interpretation of Olmstead is "out of step" with common understanding, noting that legal challenges would likely follow if states began providing services in institutional settings. Claudia Center, legal director at the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, described the administration’s actions as fitting a worldview where the government has no obligation to support people with disabilities. "It's dark, and it's awful," Center said. "And I think it's contrary to the majority view in our country. ... It's out of touch with where our society is." These developments have created profound uncertainty for students with disabilities and their families. Lindsey Althaus, a disability rights advocate, relies on home and community-based services in northwest Ohio for her 12-year-old son, Whitman, who has autism and apraxia. With appropriate support, Whitman has thrived in mainstream classrooms. A Medicaid waiver program allows Althaus’s mother to care for Whitman, enabling him to engage in community activities. Under the DOJ’s new interpretation, states could face fewer obligations to fund such vital programs, while Kennedy has criticized similar initiatives as susceptible to fraud. "We want to be able to have him in the community," Althaus said. "It's just starting to feel like Whitman's not going to be welcome anymore. We're going back to this: You're either perfect, or you're not in the light." For many students, schools are crucial hubs for support services and integration. Magda Nakassis’s 8-year-old autistic and nonverbal son found a supportive environment in public school in Maryland after a challenging preschool experience. His school’s "Fantastic Friends" program educates mainstream fifth graders about autism, fostering inclusive interactions during recess. Nakassis expressed concern over the politicization of autism, emphasizing that every child deserves a public education, and special education addresses differences requiring additional support. "There are lots of kids like him out there, and I sometimes wonder, ‘what did we use to do?’" Nakassis reflected. "I can't believe it was better." She stressed that her son’s right to education is an issue of equity and access, not a medical one, in a society that too often pushes disabled people to the margins. Join our commenting forum Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies Comments