Including People With Disabilities
It's Not Just About Diversity, It's About Creating Powerful Strategies and Alliances
Several months ago, I was in New York briefing a small group of philanthropists about the rise of authoritarianism and the ways civil society can push back. A woman in the group, someone managing grants that support disability-led social justice, asked if I’d considered how the disabled community fits into our efforts to build a united front against authoritarianism. The truth? I hadn’t given it much thought.
It’s not easy to admit that, especially as someone who grew up with disabilities. You’d think I’d have that perspective more deeply embedded in my thinking. So, I left that conversation determined to learn more, and what I found was eye-opening. Disability and the struggle against authoritarianism aren’t just connected; they are foundational.
Historically, ideas about disability—conceptions of “unfitness,” dependence, or “unproductiveness”—have fueled broader frameworks for marginalization. These ideas have propped up arguments for racial and economic inequality, led to the mistreatment of countless groups, and created pathways for control and exclusion. Here’s a closer look at these intersecting dynamics:
The Roots of Marginalization: Dehumanization and “Unfitness”
Disability as "Inferiority": Since the start, disability has been framed as a mark of inferiority. This notion of “unfitness” then extended to justify exclusion based on race, ethnicity, and gender, asserting that some populations are inherently “less capable.” It’s a narrative that has rationalized systemic barriers to rights, opportunities, and full citizenship for people with disabilities and many others.
Eugenics and “Purity”: Originally designed to regulate disabled populations, eugenics ideology expanded to target racial and ethnic minorities, justifying forced sterilizations, restrictive immigration laws, and policies meant to “purify” society. The disabled community and people of color alike have suffered the fallout of this pseudoscience, which still lingers today.
Institutional Exclusion and Economic Marginalization
Confinement and Segregation: The institutionalization of disabled people was a model for containment—warehousing those deemed “undesirable” in asylums and prisons. This logic spread, justifying detention centers, mass incarceration, and certain forms of policing of Black and Indigenous communities and other people of color.
Economic Exclusion: Historically, disabled individuals have been labeled “unproductive” or “resource-draining,” rationalizing exclusion from economic opportunities and relegating them to low-wage or marginalized roles. When we consider this, we should keep in mind that about 70% of people who are blind or seriously visually impaired are unemployed, and that’s been true consistently across at least the last 50 years. And, we should be alert to the fact that similar dynamics have limited upward mobility for communities of color.
Social Safety Net Cuts: Disability stigmas have shaped welfare policies, framing support for disabled people as a “handout.” These narratives have been adapted to justify restrictive welfare programs for other marginalized communities, and vice versa, resulting in erosion of critical supports.
Surveillance and Control
Medical Surveillance Models: Disability-based surveillance in institutions informed broader systems of monitoring and control targeting marginalized populations, from over-policing in Black communities to immigration enforcement targeting racial minorities.
Expanding Carceral Spaces: The logic of confinement for disabled people spread, helping to the inform the logics driving disproportionate incarceration rates among marginalized communities under the guise of “public safety.”
Social Narratives and Moral Framing
Stereotypes of Dependency: The trope of disabled people as “helpless” or “unworthy” has fueled stigmatization that extends to other marginalized communities, reinforcing harmful narratives about dependency and blame.
Moral Justifications for Marginalization: By casting disabled people as “burdens,” societies have used moral purity and social responsibility rhetoric to justify exclusion, framing marginalized groups as “threats” to societal well-being.
Disabled Communities in Authoritarian Visions
Looking back, fascistic regimes have always sought to “purify” society, marginalizing those who don’t meet the ideal of strength, productivity, or purity. Fascists in the 20th century, from Mussolini’s Italy to Nazi Germany, ostracized, institutionalized, and even eliminated disabled people to achieve a vision of social rebirth—a vision intertwined with race, gender, and ethnic supremacy.
That Was Then, This is Now
The “Makers vs. Takers” Narrative
Fast forward to today, and we see echoes of these dehumanizing ideas in the “Makers vs. Takers” rhetoric. This narrative—pitting “productive” individuals against those labeled “parasitic” or reliant on social services—is a modern reincarnation of exclusionary ideologies. It’s used to justify shrinking the social safety net, undermining public resources, and dividing communities. At its heart, this strategy chips away at social solidarity and lays the groundwork for authoritarian control.
The “Makers versus Takers” narrative is best described by Political Research Associates (PRA). Check out their website for more analysis and other resources.
Project 2025 and the Disabled Community
Looking at Project 2025 (an authoritarian blueprint for governance) the connections to disability rights and authoritarianism are even clearer. By proposing to roll back federal protections, cut social safety nets, and deregulate accessibility standards, Project 2025 threatens to erode essential services, supports, and protections that disabled people depend on for autonomy, access, and inclusion. It’s a direct threat to democratic participation, economic independence, and educational opportunity for disabled individuals - and, by extension, for many marginalized groups that rely on public support and regulatory protections.
Here are several ways Project 2025, the authoritarian blueprint for governance, could negatively impact people with disabilities:
Erosion of Disability Rights Protections
Reduced Regulatory Protections: Project 2025 advocates for substantial deregulation across federal agencies, which could include scaling back protections under laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Deregulation might weaken enforcement of accessibility standards in workplaces, schools, public transportation, and public spaces.
Threats to Civil Rights Enforcement: By diminishing the role of agencies such as the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, Project 2025 could lead to fewer investigations and less enforcement of policies that protect people with disabilities from discrimination in education, employment, and housing.
Cuts to Social Safety Net Programs
Reductions in Disability Benefits: Project 2025 suggests overhauling and potentially reducing entitlement programs, including Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). These programs are vital for people with disabilities who rely on them for income, healthcare, and basic necessities.
Limits on Medicaid and Medicare: Many people with disabilities rely on Medicaid and Medicare for essential health services. Project 2025’s push for budget cuts and block grants could lead to limited access to healthcare, reducing coverage for services such as in-home care, assistive technologies, and specialized therapies.
Impact on Healthcare Access and Quality
Threat to the Affordable Care Act (ACA): Project 2025 proposes repealing or dismantling parts of the ACA, which could mean higher premiums and the return of preexisting condition exclusions. Many people with disabilities would face increased costs, reduced coverage, and the possibility of losing insurance altogether.
Reduction in Mental Health and Disability Services: Mental health services, which many people with disabilities use, could face funding cuts if Project 2025 influences healthcare reform in a way that deprioritizes non-emergency or long-term care.
Education Limitations
Cuts to Special Education Funding: If Project 2025 leads to federal education funding cuts or block grants, schools may receive less funding for IDEA, which mandates services and accommodations for students with disabilities. This would jeopardize access to appropriate education, individualized support, and specialized instructional resources.
Deregulation of Accommodations: Project 2025’s focus on reducing federal oversight could mean fewer enforceable requirements for accommodations, making it more challenging for students with disabilities to receive needed adjustments in school and other places of learning.
Employment and Workforce Challenges
Rollbacks in Workforce Protections: By limiting regulatory oversight, Project 2025 could reduce protections that ensure accessibility and fair treatment in the workplace for people with disabilities. This could lead to fewer accommodations, less recourse for discrimination, and increased barriers to employment.
Weakening Vocational Rehabilitation Services: Federal funding cuts may impact vocational rehabilitation programs that support training and employment for people with disabilities, leading to fewer opportunities for workforce participation.
Housing and Community Integration Threats
Cuts to Affordable Housing Programs: Many people with disabilities rely on affordable housing assistance. Proposed cuts in Project 2025 could reduce access to safe, accessible housing, leading to increased homelessness or institutionalization risks.
Impact on Community-Based Services: Project 2025’s focus on shrinking government could lead to reductions in programs that enable people with disabilities to live independently, such as community-based supports, in-home care, and transportation services.
Increased Risk of Institutionalization
Reduction of Support for Independent Living: Project 2025’s potential funding cuts to Medicaid and home- and community-based services could force more people with disabilities into institutional care, which often provides fewer freedoms and lower quality of life than community-based living.
Voter Access Limitations
Barriers to Voting: Project 2025’s vision includes policies that could restrict voter access by eliminating voter accommodations, such as mail-in voting, used by many people with disabilities who cannot physically access polling stations. This could disenfranchise people with disabilities and limit their influence in democratic processes.
Summary
When we understand disability rights in this broader context, we see that authoritarianism is a direct threat not only to disabled individuals but to all who are vulnerable to these patterns of marginalization, and we see that the ideas, policies, and social norms that have contributed to the marginalization of people with disabilities affects all of us. Our fight against authoritarianism isn’t just about saving democracy in the abstract; it’s about challenging the foundational ideologies that permit exclusion and oppression across all vulnerable communities.