By Kaelin Rapport, Ph.D. and Elyse Shaw
Note: this post originally appeared on Medium.
In mid-June, the Department of Justice (DOJ) released a memo calling for states to ignore the integration mandates embedded in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Olmstead case. These policies and cases are bound together by a desire to end the history of discrimination experienced by individuals with disabilities because of their condition and to provide access to in-home and community-based health services and educational accommodations. However, the crux of the DOJ’s memo is an attempt to undermine the needs of individuals with disabilities by reinterpreting the responsibilities of federal and local governments when administering accessible services in an ‘integrated’ setting.
Wide adoption of the memo’s provisions would be especially devastating for students with disabilities. Elyse Shaw’s experiences accessing and maintaining care for her child demonstrates how the system in place already fails to meet the needs of many students and their families.
The millions of children who qualify for and receive accommodations through section 504, from kindergarten to grade 12, are entitled to a “504 plan,” which includes accommodations such as extra time for testing and assignments, and access to sensory breaks and fidgets. Through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, students may also qualify for anindividual education program, or IEP, which has additional accommodations like one-on-one support or an aide, and comes with more stringent reporting requirements for schools. Both plans are tailored around an individual’s unique needs and ensure integration in the school and curriculum. But 504 and IEP plans are often aspirational. The shortfalls are generally not the fault of the teachers and staff who work tirelessly to provide these services, but the result of administrative obstacles and public school budget cuts that result in staffing shortages and reduced oversight on plan implementation.
When she tried to get an assessment for her child through the public school system, Elyse was told to expect a six- to eight-month wait. She could get a private assessment sooner, but that would cost more than $3,000 out-of-pocket if her health insurance plan didn’t cover the cost. Even with health insurance and private assessments, it still took a year and half to get an accurate diagnosis, which was just the first step in getting a 504 plan.
Even with a 504 plan in place, Elyse still spends countless hours on emails and meetings every year to make certain her child is getting the services she needs.
The accommodations her child receives, even with the system’s flaws, enable her to continue learning and progressing at grade level alongside her peers. The plan ensures that there is at least one paid professional at the school — even though it is understaffed and under-resourced — who works alongside parents to make sure children’s accommodations change and grow with them.
Without the 504 plan and a job with the flexibility to take time to address these care needs, it’s likely that Elyse’s child would be in a specialized school, segregated and isolated, with no accountability measures to make sure she is protected, safe, and given the same rights as her non-disabled peers.
Creating the Conditions for Re-Institutionalization
Many are not so lucky. Almost half of the students with disabilities that require accommodations go without, and a significant portion of those students feel that they need more support.
Without the assistance needed to thrive, they are punished more consistently than their peers. Children with disabilities comprise roughly a quarter of the children given an out-of-school suspension. The consequences of this access gap are further accelerated by race; non-white students, and Black students in particular, suffer harsh disciplinary actions in schools at disproportionate rates and are more likely to have their 504 or IEP accommodations mishandled.
At best, the DOJ’s move to reduce states’ responsibility to facilitate integration for individuals with disabilities could lay the groundwork for school segregation. At worst, the reinterpretation of the integration mandate will channel students with disabilities into the school-to-prison pipeline. The majority of children already swept into the juvenile detention system have disabilities that make them eligible for special education services, and yet only 37 percent received those services while in school.
To understand the Trump Administration’s likely solution to the integration problem, we can look to the proposed plan of building a forced treatment camp in Utah for individuals dealing with mental health challenges. Rather than provide services for individuals with disabilities in a home or community-based setting, they could be forced to go without their accessibility and health care needs met or isolate themselves within a presumably better resourced institution–if they can afford transportation and tuition.
What Is to Be Done?
Weaponizing the ambiguity surrounding state responsibility to accommodate the needs of people with disabilities is the latest in a series of attacks launched by the administration to shrink the federal government’s social safety net. This time, the consequences facilitate the conditions for segregation and mass institutionalization.
To protect children and students with disabilities, we must intentionally reckon with the past in ways that put students with disabilities first and include them in decision-making processes. That will require the commitment of states and education systems to building the infrastructure necessary for resourced, community-based care systems. We also need these systems to holistically define and expand the integration mandate.
Doing this will require states and school districts to hire more specialized staff for all schools, especially staff with the training and expertise to provide assessments, diagnosis, and tailored social, emotional, and academic support. Additional training for all teachers on how to properly adhere to and implement 504s and IEPs is also needed.
Finally, we recommend that codes of conduct and training be developed and disseminated for the implementation of 504 and IEP plans that acknowledge racial stereotypes and their impact on how individual school administrators, teachers, and support staff interact with and discipline students. Without these provisions, the most vulnerable of our students will be shut out or left behind, just like their predecessors.
Washington, D.C., September 15, 2026—Today’s release of the U.S. Census Bureau’s national Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance data for 2025 may be the last year of positive impact, as the prior administration’s policy choices taper off. Despite this, enormous income inequality persists.
In 2025, median household income increased 2.6 percent, to $87,460. Median earnings for women also increased by 3.2 percent; they now make 84 percent of what their male counterparts are paid. And 92.1 percent of the U.S. population had health insurance for at least some part of last year.
While these numbers may not seem concerning, a closer look reveals troubling trends and worrying indicators for future years. The median income didn’t rise enough to cover today’s inflation; indeed, when accounting for the effect of inflation in 2026, median income only rose less than one percentage point.
When income doesn’t keep up with inflation, the individuals and families most affected are those earning the least amount of money. This demographic is also disproportionately affected by the many provisions in H.R.1, which passed in July 2025, and that will further jeopardize economic security. We will not see the true impact of these provisions until next year’s numbers are released and as elements of these policies take full effect, but an estimated 4.5 million people lost SNAP coverage between July 2025 and May 2026, including approximately 1.5 million children.
Today’s data also showed that nearly eight million people were pushed into poverty due to health expenses. With millions more expected to lose Medicaid coverage because of H.R.1, the number of people who enter poverty due to higher out-of-pocket health care costs will also increase in the coming years.
“Many of the policies enacted in July 2025 through H.R.1 are on a long fuse, with just some of the massive cuts taking effect last year and many more on tap in the coming years. This means that the numbers we see today will only get worse in the future, including for children, women, immigrants, and people of color. We’re especially concerned about immigrants whose ability to work and access care without fear of immigration enforcement has already severely impacted their daily lives and economic security,” said Wendy Chun-Hoon, executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy.
The persistent gender wage gap is also a nagging indicator. While that gap narrowed in 2025, likely due to the beneficial polices of the previous administration, women’s wages only moved closer to men’s by three cents. Such a slight increase will not move the needle on income inequality.
Overall, today’s data can be seen as setting the baseline for the harmful policies hardwired to play out in the coming years. And even at this baseline, we can see that people are not moving out of poverty—they are holding steady. While we are relieved that the news is not worse, we recognize that the affordability crisis and impending cuts to programs families rely on will increase income inequality, widen the wealth and gender wage gaps, and push more Americans into economic precarity and poverty.
“As the affordability crisis deepens, so does the country’s wealth gap. H.R.1’s tax cuts for the wealthy were largely funded by draconian cuts to programs that support people with lower incomes. As a result, we expect to see income inequality rise even more in the coming years, as income soars for the wealthy while working families will see lower incomes and continued challenges with affording the groceries, rent, and other things they need for to survive—and thrive,” said Chun-Hoon.
By Elizabeth Lower-Basch
CLASP’s new working paper examines 30 years of TANF and finds that the program now reaches far fewer families while providing substantially less cash assistance. It finds limited evidence that TANF’s work requirements produced lasting employment or earnings gains and argues that declining caseloads should not be treated as a measure of success. The paper cautions against applying TANF-style work requirements and administrative barriers to programs like SNAP and Medicaid.
By Elizabeth Lower-Basch and Ashley Burnside
Updated August 2026
This brief, part of the TANF 101 series, explains the fixed block grant awarded to states under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
Updated August 2026
By Ashley Burnside and Elizabeth Lower-Basch
This brief, part of the TANF 101 series, describes the work participation rate which serves as the only measure of performance under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
The Ideas Factory in The New Republic featured a new CLASP report on August 27:
The Center for Law and Social Policy is out with a new report, “Access Denied: The Public Health Costs of Restricting Immigrant Benefits,” exploring how President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill has cut or restricted benefits to 1.4 million lawful immigrants, while his deportation machine has created an “increasingly hostile environment” that scares immigrants from seeking the benefits that are still rightfully theirs. The report shows how this not only harms health and economic outcomes in immigrant communities across the country but affects everyone in myriad ways—weakening herd immunity, reducing SNAP dollars, increasing demands on medical providers and food banks, and so on.
Excerpt:
Governments have a legitimate interest in protecting public programs, but fraud prevention is not the same as a license to repurpose benefit data. Identity theft, duplicate payments and administrative errors cost taxpayers money and undermine confidence in programs on which millions of people rely. Proposed safeguards shouldn’t make catching actual fraud harder. A 2022 Center for Law and Social Policy analysis by Parker Gilkesson, a former SNAP caseworker, found that intentional SNAP fraud is rare. It accounts for 0.1% of SNAP issuances, and the total overpayment rate is 0.9%. Infrastructure designed to prevent fraud has grown much larger than originally intended.
The following statement can be attributed to Wendy Chun-Hoon, president and executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
Washington, D.C., August 19, 2026—On September 15, the U.S. Census Bureau will release reports with national data on Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance for 2025. While we anticipate a slight rise in poverty across the board compared to the data from 2024, we know that next month’s numbers will serve as a bellwether for what’s coming.
The changes wrought by H.R.1, signed into law by President Trump in July 2025, are already taking effect in communities across the country. For example, Congress let the Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits expire last December when it passed H.R.1, pushing nearly three million people off their health insurance in early 2026. While the 2025 data don’t yet capture this drop in access to affordable health insurance for millions, we know that individuals and families are desperately struggling to pay for health care.
We should anticipate a rise in poverty for women, higher poverty for children of all races, and more poverty among immigrants, all driven by the many provisions in H.R.1 that are destabilizing families, such as the elimination of more than $200 billion in basic food assistance over the next decade. SNAP work requirements have also been tightened for elderly people and people with disabilities. Already, between October 2025 and February 2026, we’ve seen WIC participation decline by 250,000 people.
The administration’s relentless attacks on immigrants and their families will continue to have a chilling effect on access to the public benefit programs they are eligible for. This includes policymakers imposing significant eligibility restrictions on Medicaid, ACA, and SNAP for immigrants authorized to be in the U.S. In addition, immigration enforcement has created conditions in which workers lose wages and can fall into poverty if they stay home due to fear of ICE officers at workplaces.
While the administration and Congressional leaders have targeted immigrants in their slashing of social safety net programs, populations across the country are seeing their Medicaid, food assistance, and child care assistance gutted at the federal level in favor of funding military actions and aggressive immigration enforcement. We also know that last fall’s longest-ever government shutdown—a crisis manufactured by the White House and Congress—pushed countless people to the economic brink. Moreover, millions are living with the consequences of policy choices that have driven up inflation, driven down wages, and reduced funding for programs that meet basic needs. As a result, far too many people are taking on debt just to buy groceries and pay for the gas they need to commute to work.
We expect the September reports will show a wider gender pay gap and a rise in income inequality for Black households relative to white households. This phenomenon is largely driven by the disproportionate job losses experienced by Black women and the fact that it took Black women twice as long to find a job as white women in the second half of 2025. After attaining employment, Black women are paid less than their white peers, regardless of their educational level.
The Census reports will be much more than a look-back at the state of the country in 2025. Sadly, they will be a preview of the harm ahead for our communities because policymakers have chosen to enrich the wealthiest and finance a siege on immigrants over helping people meet their most basic, human needs. Poverty is the result of systemic failures, and our nation and the people who show up every day to make our economy work deserve better.
CLASP submitted comments opposing a new federal policy that would allow citizenship and immigration data from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program to be shared with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The comments warn that expanded data sharing could deter eligible immigrant families from accessing cash assistance and other public benefits, increasing financial hardship for children and families with low incomes.
By Diana Rocha
My Indigenous Mexican heritage shaped how I understand community. I was raised with the belief that our responsibility to one another extends beyond our immediate families—that our well-being is intertwined with that of our neighbors, our elders, and the generations that come after us. That understanding has also shaped how I view other Indigenous communities. While our Nations each have their own histories, cultures, and traditions, the struggles of other Indigenous communities are not distant from my own. They are part of a broader story of resilience, responsibility, and the enduring pursuit of self-determination.
That belief followed me to Arizona, where my work addressing food insecurity brought me alongside Tribal communities in ways that profoundly shaped my understanding of federal nutrition policy. From supporting food access in the Grand Canyon to working with child nutrition programs serving rural reservation communities throughout the state, I witnessed challenges that extended far beyond whether food was available. Families spoke of wanting healthier options for their children, while broader barriers—including limited infrastructure like a lack of grocery stores, inadequate food distribution systems, and limited transportation; geographic isolation; and policies that often failed to reflect Tribal priorities—continued to shape daily life. Those experiences made clear that addressing food insecurity requires more than expanding food assistance. It requires recognizing Tribal Nations as leaders in designing policies and programs that affect their communities.
The Farm Bill shapes many of the nutrition programs that support children and families across the country, making it one of the federal government’s most important tools for addressing food insecurity. At a time when millions of people are already losing access to nutrition assistance, the next Farm Bill will play a critical role in determining whether federal policy expands opportunity or deepens existing inequities. For Tribal communities, the Farm Bill is one of the most important federal opportunities to strengthen Tribal food sovereignty, improve children’s health and nutrition, and advance racial equity by ensuring Tribal Nations have a greater voice in shaping the systems that nourish their communities. As Congress negotiates the next Farm Bill, Tribal food sovereignty should be understood as an early childhood and racial equity priority.
Colonization, Food Systems, and Racial Equity
Indigenous food insecurity did not emerge by chance. It is rooted in centuries of federal policies shaped by settler colonialism that displaced Tribal Nations from their homelands, fractured Indigenous food systems, and undermined Tribal self-determination. Policies such as the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and the General Allotment (Dawes) Act of 1887 dispossessed Tribal Nations of millions of acres of land, disrupting traditional practices of farming, hunting, fishing, and gathering that had sustained Indigenous communities for generations. As access to land and natural resources diminished, many Tribal communities became increasingly dependent on federal food assistance programs and commodity foods to meet basic nutritional needs.
While programs like the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) have long played a critical role in reducing hunger, they also reflect a broader history in which the federal government largely addressed food insecurity for Tribal Nations rather than with them. Early commodity foods often replaced nutritious, culturally relevant traditional foods with highly processed alternatives, contributing to disproportionately high rates of food insecurity, diabetes, and other diet-related illnesses that persist in many Tribal communities today. These disparities are not simply public health concerns. They are the enduring consequences of historical federal policy and long-standing racial inequities in the government’s treatment of Tribal Nations.
Tribal Food Sovereignty Matters for Young Children
These investments are especially meaningful for young children. Nutritious foods support healthy growth and development during the earliest years of life, while culturally relevant food systems help preserve the traditions, knowledge, and relationships that connect children to their families and communities. Strong Tribal food systems also strengthen the economic stability of caregivers and create healthier environments in which children can thrive. Nearly three-quarters of Farm Bill funding supports nutrition programs, making it one of the federal government’s most significant investments in food security and the health of children and families.
The Farm Bill Is an Opportunity to Advance Tribal Food Sovereignty
The Farm Bill is the nation’s primary food and agriculture law. In addition to legislating farming policy, the bill also governs nutrition assistance, conservation, forestry, rural development, and agricultural research.
The 2018 Farm Bill included 63 Tribal-specific provisions that expanded Tribal self-governance, strengthened nutrition programs, and supported local food production, Native agriculture, and traditional foodways. These investments helped create new opportunities for Tribal Nations, but persistent disparities in food security demonstrate that more remains to be done.
In 2022, more than 78,000 American Indian and Alaska Native Producers stewarded 58,336 farms and ranches across 63 million acres, generating more than $6 billion in agricultural sales annually. Yet despite this significant agricultural presence, Native communities continue to experience disproportionately high rates of food insecurity. A nationwide survey of Native households found that half of the respondents experienced food insecurity, while one in four experienced very low food insecurity, with households raising children facing even greater challenges. Together, these data reveal that food insecurity in Indian Country is not simply a matter of food production. Despite the strength of Native agriculture, enduring structural barriers continue to prevent many Tribal communities from fully benefitting from the food systems they have long sustained.
The 2026 House Farm Bill includes nearly 40 provisions specifically referencing Tribes, including a new 638 demonstration project for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which would give Tribes greater authority over food procurement for older adults; a cooperative purchasing program that reserves 10 percent of funding for Tribes; and conservation initiatives that recognize Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), the ecological knowledge and land stewardship practices developed by Indigenous communities over generations, and provide Tribes with enhanced federal cost-sharing opportunities. These provisions reflect meaningful steps toward expanding Tribal self-determination. However, they exist within a broader Farm Bill that does not adequately respond to the growing food insecurity facing families across the country. At a time when over four million people have already lost access to SNAP, the bill misses a critical opportunity to strengthen the nation’s nutrition safety net and instead advances policies that are likely to deepen hardship for millions of households.
While certain provisions would make important progress, significant gaps remain. The 2026 House Farm Bill does not make the existing FDPIR 638 Demonstration Project— which allows participating Tribes to directly procure culturally relevant foods through Tribal self-determination agreements—permanent, leaving one of the most significant Tribal-led nutrition initiatives without long-term certainty. Several Tribal initiatives also remain dependent on pilot authorities or future appropriations, creating uncertainty for Tribal governments seeking to make long-term investments in local food systems. In addition, persistent gaps in federal data collection on Native food insecurity continue to limit policymakers’ understanding of community needs, making it more difficult to ensure that federal investments effectively reach Tribal communities. These shortcomings are especially concerning given the broader erosion of nutrition assistance nationwide. Together, these limitations suggest that meaningful progress toward Tribal food sovereignty requires not only recognition in federal law but also sustained implementation, funding, and accountability.
Advancing Tribal Food Sovereignty
While the Farm Bill offers one of the strongest opportunities to advance Tribal food sovereignty, lasting progress will require sustained federal commitments that extend beyond a single piece of legislation. Priorities for Congress must include:
The Path Forward
The next Farm Bill presents an opportunity to recognize that Tribal food sovereignty is a matter of child well-being, racial equity, and Tribal self-determination. The choices made in this legislation will shape more than food programs; they will shape who has the authority to nourish communities, preserve cultural knowledge, and define what food security looks like for future generations. A truly equitable food system cannot be built without recognizing Tribal Nations as leaders in shaping their own food futures. The impact of this legislation cannot be measured solely in acres cultivated or dollars appropriated, but in whether Native children inherit not only food security but also the freedom and authority to define it on their own terms.