On July 3 in Washington, DC, the House narrowly voted to accept the Senate’s version of HR 1. While many advocates spoke out and explained how cutting Medicaid would negatively impact the lives of families and individuals with disabilities, the legislation ultimately passed.
On the one hand, work requirements and six-month renewals for Medicaid included specific language to exempt families with children and individuals with disabilities. The legislation also includes $6.8 billion for a new HCBS waiver to help individuals access Medicaid, although there is little information on what that entails.
On the other hand, some of the biggest cost savings in the bill — provider tax limits and managed care provider tax limits — are designed to save money by making it harder for state governments to offer services funded by Medicaid matching funds. Because these provider taxes are being limited, states will inevitably have to cut their services. In California, the state will only be able to cut services like Regional Center (HCBS) and IHSS (Community Access), which are “optional” in the Medicaid program, i.e. not every state provides them, because they will not be able to cut mandatory programs that all Medicaid programs must offer.
The biggest impact so far on the education budget is the limitations on SNAP eligibility, which is often used for federal free lunch status, in school nutrition programs, and also in Head Start, a federal preschool program, making fewer low-income families eligible for these important programs.
HR 1 is just the start of the process. When these cuts take effect, states will be forced to make more cuts in services.
In addition, many of the proposals for spending shifts from federal government departments such as the Department of Education (ED) and Health and Human Services (HHS) were not in this reconciliation bill and will come later in a different legislative format, known as Appropriation Bills. For example, the White House proposes to cut $12 billion from discretionary spending under the Department of Education.
Medicaid is a federal program that subsidizes each state’s program. At a state level, Medicaid dollars are used to fund health insurance (including expanded services), some state disability agencies, and IDEA related services in schools. These cuts will go into effect in 2026 or later and are intended to save $880 billion over 10 years. This would represent a 12% reduction in federal Medicaid spending, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
The biggest changes affect the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The federal government will no longer give states an incentive to cover a wider population. Seven states offer their Medicaid expansion to residents who do not have citizenship or legal status. However, states do not currently get any federal Medicaid dollars to cover these enrollees. Under the proposals, these states will suffer a 10% penalty in their reimbursement rates (from 90% to 80%) for all expansion enrollees if they continue to offer affordable healthcare to undocumented residents, starting in October 2027. The Medicaid expansion enrollees will also have a $35 cost-sharing (co-pay) for each service.
In addition, under HR 1:
States will be required to enter each enrollee’s address into a federal database in order to save money by eliminating the possibility that some may be claiming Medicaid in more than one state. It’s estimated that building the system will cost $10-$30 million.
Biden Administration changes to Medicaid called the Eligibility and Enrollment final rule will not be implemented until 2035. These rules sought to streamline the application and renewal process, increase retention and reduce administrative burdens.
New enrollees will be eligible for retroactive coverage for only one month prior to application rather than 90 days.
Some “able-bodied” adults will have to satisfy community involvement (work) requirements; this excludes children and disabled adults (defined by the Social Security Act), and adults with dependent children under 14.
Some enrollees will have to establish eligibility every six months instead of annually; this also excludes children and disabled adults.
States are prohibited from establishing any new provider taxes or increasing the rates of existing taxes. Provider taxes that are reimbursed from the federal government help states pay for the implementation of Medicaid programs. The Senate amended the House bill making deeper cuts, reducing provider tax from 6% to 3.5% by 2031. The federal government will reimburse less, and the states will have to find more money to provide the same level of service.
Enrollment in long-term care excludes enrollees with a home worth over $1 million (the current limit is $1,097,000). Families can still use special needs trusts when recipients inherit their home.
Medicaid cannot be used to reimburse a nonprofit provider that provides access to pregnancy termination; for example, Medicaid can’t be used to pay for any Planned Parenthood service.
Changes are made to the way Medicaid reimburses for prescription drugs.
How it affects families
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the effect of the changes to Medicaid will be a decrease of $723 billion in federal funding as well an increase of 10.9 million people without health insurance under the bill by 2034 (including 1.4 million who are in the country without legal status in state-funded programs).
The cuts might save taxpayer money at the federal level but really just shift the cost onto the states. Likely, the cuts are going to be spun as “closing loopholes” and giving states more control. The states, especially those that made the most out of expanded coverage under the ACA, are going to be facing a huge reduction in the share paid for by the federal government. We will be told that the federal government isn't cutting services, but a year from now, the state might have no choice but to cut services because they do not have the revenue to make up the difference. States must balance their budget, so their choice is to increase taxes, divert funds from other priorities, or cut Medicaid services. The federal government cuts could likely force the state into making their own cuts. Furthermore, there are many Medicaid services that are mandatory, so states will be forced to look for savings in their optional Medicaid programs, such as Regional Center and IHSS in California.
These cuts will start to come into effect in July 2026, but many start in 2027 or 2028. For example:
Status
Congress passed HR 1 on July 3, 2025, and the president signed the final bill.
HR 1 contains some changes to tax-free savings. Individuals with ABLE accounts will be able to claim a Saver’s Credit if their income is below the limit. Individuals who are working can save more in their ABLE account, and this limit was increased in line with inflation. HR 1 also permanently continues the ability to roll over a 529 account into an ABLE account without tax penalty. The bill extends the qualified expenses from a 529 account to some federally funded employment training programs. It also introduces a tax credit for some scholarship programs that families can use to fund private school, shifting a small amount of taxpayer money from public schools to private.
Proposed cuts
On May 30, 2025, the White House released a detailed proposal for the budget cuts planned at HHS called Making America Healthy Again. The proposal cuts the HHS’ $127 billion discretionary funding in 2025 to $95 billion in 2026; halves the National Institute of Health’s budget; and consolidates 28 operating divisions into 15, eliminating dozens of federal healthcare and social welfare programs. This follows from the HHS reorganization plan implementing Executive Order 14210, which included a reduction in workforce totaling about 20,000 full-time employees throughout HHS to take place by May 27, 2025, merging and closing down many offices and agencies.
HHS is made up of two sections:
HSS is also responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). This legislation ensures the accountability of healthcare professionals to respect basic human health rights, including rights to medical information.
HHS is led by a cabinet secretary of health and human services who is appointed by the president. The current cabinet secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was appointed by President Trump. Secretary Kennedy said, “Over time, bureaucracies like HHS become wasteful and inefficient even when most of their staff are dedicated and competent civil servants.” Critics worry that the poorly planned consolidation, without public input, will lose expertise and cause disruption at a time when many of the agencies have ongoing health crises to deal with. Five out of ten HHS regional offices are permanently closed, making it more difficult for people with disabilities to access HHS in person.
In the Public Health section, a new, unified entity with $14.0 billion in discretionary funding, called the Administration for a Healthy America (AHA) will be created by combining:
In the Human Services Section, there will be a new entity called Administration for Children, Families, and Communities (ACFC) with $29.3 billion in discretionary funding to cover programs formerly administered by Administration for Community Living (ACL) that address the social service needs of children, families, elders, people with disabilities, and their caregivers.
To understand the impact of these cuts, we have to look at some of the individual offices that have the most impact on our children.
About the agency
The NIH is the leading medical research agency in the United States. It funds and conducts research across a wide range of health-related areas, including diseases, conditions, and overall health and well-being.
Proposed cuts
The National Institutes of Health has already lost 1,200 staff members. Many existing NIH grant holders have been told their grant is ending early because their research is equity oriented, often wasting their existing research work. The White House proposes to cut $18 billion from its budget. Proposals include creating a National Institute of Disability Related Research.
How it affects families
A reduction in the NIH workforce and funding could have several potential impacts:
NIH supports research on developmental disabilities such as autism, ADHD, cerebral palsy, and other conditions. The findings from this research help parents better understand their child's condition, prognosis, and potential treatments.
Private drug companies are unlikely to fund research into conditions with a relatively small population.
Fewer researchers and staff could delay the development of new treatments, interventions, and understanding of developmental disabilities, potentially slowing progress in improving outcomes for affected children.
With fewer staff, the dissemination of educational materials and resources that help parents navigate their child's developmental disability, understand the latest scientific advancements, and connect with healthcare services might become less frequent or comprehensive.
NIH research will have less influence on health policies and funding decisions that improve access to services and support systems for families.
Status
About the agency
CMS administers the nation’s major healthcare programs that serve over 150 million Americans, including Medicare, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the Health Insurance Marketplace (healthcare.gov) implementing the Affordable Care Act (ACA). CMS administers and issues reimbursements for Medicaid.
Proposed cuts
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has lost 300 employees. The White House proposal suggests a cut of $3.9 billion in 2026 compared to 2025. The administration seeks to eliminate “health equity-focused activities and Inflation Reduction Act-related outreach and education activities.”
How it affects families
Since many of our families depend on Medicaid services, this is deeply concerning. CMS plays a crucial role in overseeing and administering funding that provides healthcare coverage and support for many families with children with disabilities. Remember that Medicaid applications and programs are administered by each state’s Medicaid program.
With fewer CMS staff there will be:
Status
Staff cuts have already happened in March. Funding cuts in the OBB Act need Senate and Executive approval.
The planned reorganization of HHS closes the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, which collects data and provides information to prevent common injuries such as drowning. Many such injuries disproportionately impact children with developmental disabilities. Drowning is the most common form of death for autistic children.
How it affects families
Without national leadership in prevention efforts, children with disabilities are more likely to suffer preventable injuries.
Status
In progress.
Proposed changes
Secretary Kennedy plans to create a new Office of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement to absorb the existing Departmental Appeals Board, Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals, and Office for Civil Rights (OCR). This is an office staffed mainly by attorneys who are dedicated to processing federal civil rights complaints about discrimination, including segregation, restraint, seclusion, and abuse in the provision of services for individuals with disabilities.
How it affects families
Disability rights activists have expressed great concern about the impact on families of reducing the OCR. The consolidation will inevitably slow their work and reduce the government’s capacity to enforce anti-discrimination law that has existed for 30 years. Examples of OCR complaints.
Status
In progress.
About the agency
The ACL is committed to the principle that “people with disabilities and older adults should be able to live where they choose, with the people they choose, and fully participate in their communities.” The agency has many separate programs and offices that don’t serve families directly but ensure that this principle is taken seriously by other government services. The ACL is responsible for enforcing the Olmstead decision in 1999 and parts of the 2014 Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act (WIOA).
Under the Administration on Disabilities (AoD), some key agencies and programs include:
Office of Independent Living Programs (OILP): OILP operates the Centers for Independent Living (CIL) and Independent Living Services (ILS) programs, which sustain, expand, and improve independent living services in every state. There are over 350 CILs — nonresidential, community-based, consumer-controlled nonprofits agencies that provide ILS. At minimum, they are required to provide information and referral, skills training, peer counseling, advocacy, and transition services from institutions to the community and from school to adult life. Both these programs are authorized by the Rehabilitation Act (1973). Use this tool to find your state’s CIL(s). Without federal funding, many centers may lose the ability to offer these vital services.
Office of Intellectual and Developmental Disability (OIDD): OIDD administers federally funded programs under the Developmental Disabilities Act and supports the President’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities (PCPID).
Office of Disability Services Innovation (ODSI): ODSI manages a number of key discretionary grant programs that include the Protection and Advocacy (P&A) programs in each state. Since these are authorized by the federal legislation, an act of Congress would be needed to end this program.
State Councils on Developmental Disabilities (SCDD): These councils identify key issues facing people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and work to improve laws, services, and education for families and providers. Every state has a state council.
University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities (UCEDDDs): There are 68 centers at universities across the U.S. focused on improving life for people with disabilities through training, research, and community outreach. They also support LEND (Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental and Related Disabilities) programs, which train graduate students, health professionals, and parents to lead with a person- and family-centered approach that respects culture and needs. LEND is funded by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) in the Health Resources and Services Administration, which is likely to be cut by $1,732 million based on the “Skinny Budget.”
President’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities (PCPID) is a federal advisory committee reporting to the president and the secretary of HHS on any issue related to people with intellectual disabilities. PCPID promotes self-determination, independence, integration, and inclusion in all aspects of community life. The committee was originally established by President John F. Kennedy, RFK Jr.’s uncle.
Proposed cuts
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) has suffered the harshest staffing cuts. They lost over half their workers (about 100 people) and leadership and policy teams. All the regional offices were closed. While the agency was allocated $2.6 billion annually, due to delays in approving the funds, the money had not yet been disbursed before budget staff members were fired.
For the 2026 fiscal year budget, a leaked memo suggested proposals to eliminate or reduce funds to zero for many ACL programs, such as:
The White House budget proposal combines most of these programs into the AFCS and allocates $466 million to provide resources to states and communities to assist individuals with disabilities living in their communities. Independent Living is allocated $228 million and State Councils on Developmental Disabilities $80 million. The National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research is allocated $100 million.
Sadly, no funding is allocated to the University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities (UCEDD).
How it affects families
Since the Administration for Community Living is going to be broken up, its sections and offices will be relocated to other federal departments. Families and providers rely on research and leadership from the UCEDD. Such programs are created by legislation, so the administration cannot close them down without an act of Congress, but they can de-staff and defund them to the point of negligible impact.
There are UCEDDs at major universities and hospitals. These centers focus on training medical professionals — including dentists, nurses, psychologists, and social workers — as well as teachers and family on the needs of the disability community, promoting innovative healthcare and systems change. For example, the UC Davis Mind Center has promoted supported decision-making, and the Semel Tarjan center at UCLA has promoted college opportunities for neurodivergent individuals. Without these grants, it may be difficult for university centers to focus on individuals with developmental disabilities.
Status
Programs such as State Councils, and P&A (like each state's Disability Rights organization) are saved and UCEDD will require legislation to be closed down, but it is very important to tell our representatives how valuable these resources are to families.
Proposed changes
The proposed K-12 Simplified Funding Program in the White House budget “could” support activities authorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act 2015 and its predecessor, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), in the following programs: Comprehensive Literacy State Development grants; Innovative Approaches to Literacy; neglected, delinquent, and at-risk children and youth; Supporting Effective Instruction state grants; 21st Century Community Learning Lenters; state assessments; education for homeless children and youths; Native Hawaiian education; Alaska Native education; rural education; Student Support and Academic Enrichment grants; American history and civics education; magnet schools assistance; arts in education; Javits Gifted and Talented Education; statewide family engagement centers; school safety national activities; and Promise neighborhoods.
These programs are currently funded by individual funding lines totaling $5.8 billion for school improvement programs and $700 million for literacy programs and migrant, neglected, delinquent, and at-risk children and youth. This is replaced by a single budget line for $2 billion. There is also a cut of $890 million in ESSA III for English Language Acquisition.
Proposed changes
We have heard from various agencies the concerns that Head Start funding will be cut. This is a federal program for eligible low-income families that supports more than 675,000 children and their parents with low-cost or free early education; it also ensures that these programs are inclusive for children with disabilities. The program has been used by some families to provide access to an inclusive setting at the same time as accessing IDEA Part C Early Start. The concerns started early on in the Trump Administration when payments to the Head Start programs were temporarily frozen.
The White House’s HHS budget proposal continues the current funding for Head Start directly supporting local level institutions, “including faith-based centers.” The budget proposes a set of reforms, which aims to cut the red tape preventing access and claims these reforms will increase parental choice, enhance efficiency, promote parental engagement, and improve health, education, and employment outcomes. However they also include removing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), which may impact the capacity of the program to serve students with disabilities and other underserved communities.
How it affects families
If the administration changes the rules, Head Start programs may no longer be required to give places to children with disabilities and may exclude children with extensive support needs like other preschool programs.
Status
It’s not yet clear what the administration means by removing diversity, equity, and inclusion from a program designed to provide a head start to children who often did not have opportunities for early childhood education.
Proposed changes
The budget proposes to maintain levels of special education funding. Federal legislation that governs IEPs, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), includes federal grants as an incentive for states and schools to comply with the law. However, it is not a substantial portion of what schools spend on special education since most of the funding (see this article for an example of how funds are allocated at the state level).
The Trump Administration’s proposal expresses intent to “reduce the federal footprint” by introducing the Special Education Simplified Funding Program to consolidate seven IDEA programs to provide states and school districts greater flexibility to support students with special education needs. The administration claims, “Parents of students with disabilities would remain empowered to direct these funds because the federal IDEA law would remain in place; maintaining a base set of federal funds means they can also be withdrawn from states and districts that flout parental rights.” This means that the administration may try to cut funding to states as a control mechanism where they disagree on policy. However, the flouting of parental rights are more likely to be allowing teens privacy rights over reproductive care or use of preferred names and pronouns at school, or choice of religious and segregated schools than parents defending IDEA.
There are two key changes.
First off, there is no funding allocated for IDEA at a national level for things that come through the Department of Education. For example, programs like State Personnel Development and Technical Assistance and Dissemination — which received $39 million in 2024 — have no funding budgeted for 2025 or 2026. On top of that, the $115 million that supported preparing special education personnel has also been cut.
Also missing in the national level funding for IDEA is $33 million for Parent Training and Information Centers (PTIs). These national-level grants fund the Parent Training Information Centers in each state. The total amount of national-level activity funding is added to the state level funding as $278 million (an increase of $1 million) in undistributed funding. This means that states can still use these funds to fund technical expertise and parent information centers, but these will now effectively be state-funded centers and therefore less likely to push back on state policy where it is lacking.
Another key difference is the funding for Vocational Rehabilitation. $78 million of nationally distributed grants for Vocational Rehabilitation are now included in the state grant. This includes the budget of $20 million to pay for Protection & Advocacy organizations (usually called Disability Rights organizations) — institutions whose main purpose is to protect and defend children’s rights from the policy that the state that will now be funding them determines. These organizations are likely going to be in the difficult position of taking legal action against their main funder.
About special education funding
The purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is to authorize formula grants to states (and also discretionary grants to eligible applicants, such as state educational agencies, institutions of higher education, and other nonprofit organizations) in order to educate children with disabilities, improve results for such children, and ensure equal protection of the law. The law recognises that “a more equitable allocation of resources is essential for the federal government to meet its responsibility to provide an equal educational opportunity for all individuals.”
IDEA provides three main types of funding called formula grants to states to support children with disabilities:
Part C Grants (birth–age 2): These provide early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities from birth to age 2 and support their families. Part C Grants for Infants and Families are for early help before preschool.
Part D Grants: Discretionary grants (more on this below).
The White House budget proposal maintains the same amount of funding for IDEA, i.e. special education, with no cost of living adjustment. However, the budget combines the preschool grants (last year $420 million) into the total state grant so that all Part B funding is lumped together. The state still has a mandate to provide preschool, but they can determine how much of their total formula grant they spend on preschool. The budget allocates $5.6 billion to states to contribute to IDEA Part B Section 611.
States will still have an obligation under IDEA to provide preschool for eligible students with disabilities ages 3-5 — and remember that the preschool budget never covered the full cost of this anyway. The reason for separating them is that the preschool grant was introduced at a later date, and the grants include some minimum and maximums depending on last year’s appropriation as well as the formula being based on a different census. These factors may result in minor redistributions between the states.
The current annual appropriation is that Part B school-age funding is $4.9 million; the White House proposes an increase in 2026 to $5.6 million, an increase of $678 million or 13.74%. The preschool grants (IDEA Part B Section 619) budget line is cut from $420 million to $0 but can be funded from the main grant. IDEA Part C funding remains at the same level as last year, $540 million.
Part D funding in the special education budget is greatly impacted. Part D refers mostly to national activities that are overseen by the Department of Education, often in the form of discretionary grants, to universities or non profits. The White House proposed $0 budget lines for these items:
This includes Parent Training Information Centers and Technical Support and Information, which has previously funded TIES Center and more recently SWIFT and other programs.
Another example of Part D technical assistance is the National Consortium on Deafblindness (NCDB), a federally funded technical assistance and dissemination center that supports children and youth who are deafblind, and the professionals that serve them. NCDB provides technical assistance, information services, and personnel training and is funded by an OSEP Part D grant. Individual states also have federally funded, statewide Deafblindness technical assistance and training projects serving individuals from birth to age 21 with combined hearing and vision problems, their families, and service providers.
What do discretionary grants do? Currently, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) provides discretionary grants to state educational agencies, institutions of higher education, and other nonprofit organizations:
IDEA Part D is still the law, and the federal government is still responsible for meeting its purpose “to ensure that educators and parents have the necessary tools to improve educational results for children with disabilities by supporting system improvement activities; coordinated research and personnel preparation; coordinated technical assistance, dissemination, and support; and technology development and media services; and to assess, and ensure the effectiveness of, efforts to educate children with disabilities.”
The White House proposes shifting these responsibilities to the State Department of Education. However, this supposes that the institution responsible for educating children with disabilities can also be responsible for ensuring the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities.
How it affects families
As of yet, we do not have enough information about the new funding proposal to fully judge the possible impact. The role of the federal government has been to hold states accountable for implementing IDEA, so any reduction in its power to do so will likely lead to more districts neglecting children’s rights to a free and appropriate public education. It also seems likely that they plan to allow families to use IDEA funds to pay private schools, which has not resulted in better outcomes for students in states where vouchers have been tried.
Technical assistance and data collection provided at the national level is both an efficient way to provide expertise for low-incidence disabilities and also essential to disseminating innovative practices that work in other states. It also holds states accountable for their IDEA obligations.
Since the majority of special education services are paid for from general education funding, the other 15% cuts to the proposed federal education budget will also impact schools' ability to adequately fund special education.
Status
This consolidation of funding would require an act of Congress. There is currently no proposed budget cut for IDEA. Some school districts receive a small amount of funding by claiming reimbursements from Medicaid for IEP related services for eligible children; reducing the number of families eligible for Medicaid may have a small impact on these schools.
Proposed changes
The Republican Administration has a stated goal to eliminate the US Department of Education. This was announced in an Executive Order on March 20, 2025. But even before the order, Secretary for Education, Linda McMahon, made drastic staff cuts in the department that will affect the capacity for the department to do its work, particularly the work it is tasked with under IDEA and ADA, which ensures that children with disabilities are not discriminated against in the public education systems that each state provides.
The Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education is responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination federal law, such as:
The office collects and monitors data and also receives complaints, which it investigates. The OCR investigates tens of thousands of complaints every year, and is notoriously slow doing so. Often, the complaint results in litigation against school districts or states that are failing to uphold the law, such as the recent case in Pasco, Florida where the US Department of Justice sued the school district for cutting the school day short 15 minutes for its students with extensive support needs.
Proposed staff cuts
On March 11, 2025, the department announced that its goal was to cut its 4,133 workforce by 50%. Some workers had already left, and others were placed on administrative leave at the end of March.
The Office of Civil Rights was particularly hard hit. Out of 12 offices around the country, seven were shut, in Chicago, Philadelphia, New York City, Dallas, San Francisco, Boston, and Cleveland, laying off 240 workers, mostly civil rights attorneys.
The “skinny budget” also proposes a $49 million reduction in the OCR’s budget from $49 million (35 percent, compared to the 2024 budget) consistent with the administration’s policy of “right-sizing” the OCR.
How it affects families
ProPublica estimates, “About 12,000 complaints were under investigation when Trump took office. The largest share of pending complaints — about 6,000 — are related to students with disabilities who feel they’ve been mistreated or unfairly denied help at school.” If anything, families need more OCR attorneys rather than fewer, so they can investigate more complaints faster.
Status
50% of the staff was already laid off in March. The Administration plans to close the entire office and move it to the Office of Civil Rights in HHS, which also has had cuts to staff and funding.
OSERS is made up of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA).
About the agency
OSEP provides leadership and technical expertise to support implementation of IDEA by state special education programs. They collect data and monitor how schools are implementing the federal requirements of IDEA. They also administer discretionary grants to states:
There are also discretionary grants for Parent Training and Information Centers in each state to ensure parents of children with disabilities and youth have access to resources, information, and training. (For example, California has federally funded PTIs such as DREDF and TASK.)
Status
On February 10, 2025, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), the independent research arm of the U.S. Department of Education, abruptly terminated 89 federally funded research contracts. This decision, which affected approximately $900 million in Congressionally approved grants, represents a profound setback for the field of education, particularly special education research. These cuts not only disrupt research initiatives but also actively reverse decades of progress in evidence-based policy and practices.
How it affects families
Data collected this year is slowly turning up on the OSEP Open Data website. Like many organizations advocating for students with IEPs, we at Undivided use this data to understand the statistical landscape of special education and inform how we help parents navigate the system.
Without research funding, many research projects will not be completed. How can educators use evidence-based practices unless there is reliable research on best practices? At the same time, many researchers might leave the field and pursue another career path, so that we lose valuable expertise.
What comes next
Overall, closing the Department of Education will affect families, but it is difficult as yet to determine how much. The administration has promised to place these responsibilities in other government departments, but we are likely to lose expertise, capacity, and efficiency as a new department learns to administer these funds.
Proposed changes
On March 9, 2024, the Biden Administration’s Health and Human Services Department (HHS) issued updated regulations to enforce Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act from 1973. These regulations are known as the Final Rule and provide regulations to enforce the Rehabilitation Act. In September 2024, seventeen states brought a lawsuit against HHS (at that time led by Secretary Becarra, now led by Secretary “RFK” Kennedy) because they did not like that the rule included gender dysphoria as a disability.
Status
On April 10, 2025, HSS officially clarified that language about gender dysphoria in the updated Section 504 regulations “does not have the force or effect of law” and “cannot be enforced” so that much of the lawsuit was now unnecessary. Kennedy’s HHS claims that Section 504 does not apply to transgender people.
On April 11, 2025, the attorney generals of the seventeen states issued a statement that they did not intend for the suit to render Section 504 unconstitutional.
The lawsuit continues, despite gender dysphoria being taken out, challenging the settled law on how Section 504 can be legally enforced.
How it affects families
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act governs how public schools treat students with disabilities who do not require special education but may need accommodations to ensure equal access to education. The section also governs how healthcare services are provided to individuals with disabilities, ensuring that providers are not allowed to discriminate. Any organization that is funded by the United States government to serve the public has to follow the rules.
Dropping gender dysphoria as a qualifying disability could affect a number of children who experience mental health challenges or bullying as well as children who are intersex.
The case continuing after the gender dysphoria sections are dropped indicates that there may be deeper effects. The case now focuses on other aspects of the enforcement of Section 504, including the standards that schools and hospitals can be held to in not discriminating against individuals with disabilities, also related to another case A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools.
What comes next
On April 17, 2025, Texas v Becarra was stayed, which means it is closed until the court decides to reopen it.
The Supreme Court decision on June 12, 2025, will make it easier for families to use the Americans with Disabilities Act to protect children’s equality of opportunity in education.
A.J.T. is a highschooler with a rare form of epilepsy who needs evening classes because morning seizures prevent her from attending school early. Her previous district arranged evening instruction, but her new Minnesota district refused, even though that meant she missed about two hours of daily school compared to peers. The family went to due process and showed that the district initially violated her rights under IDEA, requiring additional services. Then they sued again—this time under the ADA and Section 504—for discrimination, seeking damages and a permanent injunction.
The case depended on the school district’s claim that students with disabilities have to prove “bad faith or gross misjudgment” to get relief under the ADA or Section 504, rather than “deliberate indifference,” which is the usual standard.
“Bad faith or gross misjudgment” is a much harder standard than “deliberate indifference,” and some courts required it for school-based claims.
“Deliberate indifference” means the school knew (or should have known) about the need and then failed to act, not because they intended harm but out of negligence or inaction.
The Supreme Court found, in a unanimous decision, that there is no higher bar for schools: students don’t need to meet the tougher “bad faith” standard—it’s the same rules as everyone else under the ADA and Section 504. For claims, families need only show that the school disregarded a known need for accommodations.
| Before (some courts) | After this ruling |
|---|---|
| Must show “bad faith or gross misjudgment” | Only need to show “deliberate indifference” |
| Harder to win ADA/Section 504 relief in schools | Easier path to accountability when schools ignore needs |
| Enables discrimination claims under IDEA only | ADA/Section 504 protections are now more accessible for school cases |
This Supreme Court decision makes it easier to enforce a child’s legal rights under ADA and Section 504. If a child needs accommodations at school, such as accessible materials or extra time, which the school fails to provide, the family should only have to demonstrate that the school knew and didn’t act, not that it acted with intent to discriminate. We at Undivided cannot give legal advice; if you need help with a claim against a school, please contact an education attorney.
Save your favorite resources and access a custom Roadmap.
Get Started
