Imagine a scenario where a law that has significant public support is targeted for repeal. The public move to repeal the law might spark protests, create political backlash, and tarnish the reputations of those advocating for its repeal. The legislative process turns into a divisive battleground, where the attempt to repeal the law consumes political capital and distracts from other political priorities. The legal and practical complications of removing a long-standing law add to the chaos, creating uncertainty and disrupting established behaviors.
Now, think about that paragraph in the context of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). No one wants to be labeled the person or political party who is attacking those poor, disabled people.
Now with all of that in mind, here is how implementing Project 2025 quietly attacks people with disabilities without trying to overtly repeal the ADA.
💸 Underfunding Enforcement: A law can be rendered ineffective even though it still exists on the books by significantly reducing or eliminating the budget for enforcement. A law simply can’t be implemented without some type of funding. Without adequate funding, the agencies responsible for enforcing the law cannot perform their duties, leading to a lack of oversight and non-compliance. After all, how many people would correctly report their income if they knew the IRS weren’t watching?
📜 Regulatory Changes: Implementing regulations that contradict the law’s purpose or excessively complicate the enforcement process will undermine its enforcement. By creating burdensome administrative requirements or hoops that disabled people need to jump through, the positive impact that the ADA can have is minimized or eliminated. Even a change as tiny as requiring notarizing a disability complaint form will cause disabled people to opt out of the process due to a lack of money or time. This, in turn, will reduce the number of people who are able to successfully fight for the original rights granted by the ADA.
📋Executive Orders and Policy Directives: Government leaders can issue executive orders or policy directives that change how a law is implemented. This can include prioritizing other initiatives over ADA enforcement or interpreting the ADA in ways that reduce its effectiveness.
⚖️ Judicial Interpretations: Courts can significantly diminish a law’s impact. By interpreting the law narrowly or declaring parts of it unconstitutional, a conservative judiciary can weaken it without requiring legislative repeal. This has already happened twice. The judiciary weakened the ADA with respect to intermittent and temporary disabilities and also with respect to the use of assistive technology. This is what triggered the update of the ADA in 2008. More recently, the Supreme Court eliminated something called the Chevron doctrine, where courts gave federal agencies deference when interpreting the statutes those agencies administer when a dispute arises.
📣 Public Messaging and Campaigns: Strategically shaping public opinion against the law can lead to widespread non-compliance and lack of support for enforcement. Making fun of disabled people and suggesting they would be better off dead is Trump’s approach in this area.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a critical piece of legislation that has significantly improved the lives of millions of Americans with disabilities. However, the methods of undermining this law, as outlined in Project 2025, severely threaten its continued effectiveness. By underfunding enforcement, implementing burdensome regulatory changes, issuing executive orders that deprioritize ADA enforcement, leveraging judicial interpretations to narrow the law’s scope, and utilizing public messaging to erode support, the protections offered by the ADA can be systematically dismantled without the political fallout of an outright repeal.
This insidious approach allows policymakers to sidestep the backlash that would come with direct attacks on the ADA, while simultaneously achieving the same end: reducing the law’s power to protect and support disabled individuals. Beware of any efforts that look like this; they may be ADA repeal wolves in sheep’s clothing. As we move forward, it is crucial for advocates and allies to remain vigilant against these tactics, ensuring that the ADA’s promise of equal opportunity and access remains intact for all Americans. The fight for disability rights is far from over, and it requires our unwavering attention and action to safeguard the progress we’ve made and continue striving for a truly inclusive society.