Author’s note: The disability community is rapidly evolving to use identity-first language in place of person-first language. This is because it views disability as being a core component of identity, much like race and gender. Some members of the community, such as people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, prefer person-first language. In this column, the terms are used interchangeably.
Introduction and summary
During the 2022–23 school year, 7.6 million students between the ages of 3 and 21 received Part B special education and related services through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).1 Unfortunately, these students, who are already at a disadvantage in terms of federally funded programs and resources, will be severely harmed by the House-passed and Senate Republicans’ proposed tax and budget bill.
The House Republican-passed reconciliation bill consists of tax cuts, the bulk of which accrue to the wealthy and large corporations, that are estimated to reduce revenue by $2.8 trillion over 10 years.2 At the same time, the bill will implement estimated spending cuts of nearly $350 billion from education,3 around $285.7 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),4 and more than $900 billion from health programs including Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA).5 Text released from the Senate Republicans’ bill proposes cutting more than $1 trillion from health care, $189 trillion from SNAP, and $307 billion from education over the next 10 years.6 The total cuts included in the reconciliation bill will lead to disabled students losing valuable services and resources.
Here are the top five ways all students, particularly disabled students, will be harmed by the House and Senate Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill:
- Cuts to Medicaid will result in fewer school-based health programs.
- Reducing SNAP eligibility will limit students’ access to free, healthy school meals and Summer EBT programs.
- Eliminating Pell grants for part-time students will disproportionately affect disabled college students.
- Removing states’ ability to regulate AI, including its use in schools, will limit the responsible use of AI in classrooms and limit student data privacy and civil rights protections.
- Establishing a national tax credit scholarship program will divert at least $4 billion of public funds annually from K-12 schools to private schools.
Cuts to Medicaid
In 2023, Medicaid covered approximately 30 million children—roughly 40 percent of children under the age of 18 in the United States.7 Medicaid provides coverage for preventive and ongoing care, including inpatient and outpatient hospital services, as well as early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment (EPSDT) services for individuals under the age of 21.8 EPSDT can cover services used to diagnose and treat medical conditions found through periodic screening and can include speech-language pathology, physical therapy, and other health services.9
Due to federal underfunding of IDEA services,10 schools rely on Medicaid to cover the costs of support services such as nursing services and mental and behavioral health services provided by school psychologists and counselors.11 Medicaid supports approximately $7.5 billion in K-12 health services annually,12 making it the fourth-largest federal funding stream for K-12 public schools.13 Research shows that children who benefited from Medicaid expansion were more likely to graduate from high school and attend college.14
In 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) shifted its policies to increase the flexibility of the school-based Medicaid program.15 The shift enabled K-12 schools to bill Medicaid for all covered health services for Medicaid-enrolled students. In August 2022, CMS issued an informational bulletin highlighting schools as the ideal setting to provide all medically necessary services for students through EPSDT.16
The potential for Medicaid cuts is causing concern among school district staff and officials across the country. Eighty-six percent of respondents to a 2025 survey run by the Healthy Schools Campaign reported that their schools utilize Medicaid dollars to fund salaries for school health staff and personnel, including school nurses, school psychologists, occupational and physical therapists, and speech-language pathologists.17 A majority of respondents also stated that they expect layoffs of school health staff and personnel, a reduction in mental and behavioral health services, and fewer funds for assistive technology and specialized equipment for students with disabilities as a result of proposed Medicaid cuts.18
College students will also be negatively affected by cuts to the Medicaid program. In 2023, an estimated 3.5 million college students were covered by Medicaid.19 Significantly more college students were covered in Medicaid expansion states (18.9 percent) compared with nonexpansion states (10.7 percent).20 The new rules and proposed cuts to Medicaid in both the House21 and Senate22 reconciliation bills will add more administrative burdens by requiring more frequent eligibility redeterminations, incurring additional expenses due to cost sharing, and requiring address verification. College students may be especially vulnerable to losing essential services such as home- and community-based services; mental health treatment; and certain medical equipment services, which can fall under optional coverage in states,23 as they transition into adulthood. Optional services covered by Medicaid are usually the services cut first if states lose funding.24
Reducing SNAP
SNAP, which has been operating for more than half a century,25 provides nutrition and food assistance to more than 42 million Americans experiencing food insecurity,26 including school-age children. Students living in low-income households that qualify for SNAP benefits are categorically eligible for free school meals.27 The House-passed budget reconciliation bill proposes a $300 billion cut to SNAP through 2034.28 This represents a 30 percent funding reduction, the largest cut in the program’s history.29The proposed cuts will be attained through various means, including expanding work requirements to age 64 and for parents or guardians of children over the age of 10 and reducing the federal government’s contribution to the program by 25 percent, thereby placing a greater financial burden on states and straining already thin local budgets.30 The Senate version of the bill attempts to soften the blow to the House-passed SNAP provisions by reducing SNAP spending by a total of $186 billion, which is $114 billion less than in the House-passed version.31 However, the Senate version still imposes significant harms with these cuts as well as language that limits SNAP eligibility for people who are not permanent legal residents.32 Since SNAP eligibility categorially qualifies a student for free and reduced-priced lunch,33 eliminating this eligibility for those who are not permanent legal residents directly affects many students’ access to free school meals, specifically children who are U.S.-born citizens or permanent residents but whose parents do not have permanent legal status.
SNAP cuts would limit access to free or reduced-price school meals and Summer EBT programs for students.34 Current law allows students enrolled in SNAP and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to be eligible for free school meals.35These students count toward a school’s 25 percent threshold to provide universal school meals through the community eligibility provision (CEP).36 If fewer households qualify for SNAP as a result of the proposed changes, students with disabilities and other vulnerable groups would be less likely to receive school meals individually and through the universal CEP. In addition, an increasing number of states are also using Medicaid data for direct certification for free or reduced school meals. Therefore, the proposed Medicaid cuts, if passed, will further threaten the school meals37 program.
Recent analysis estimates that nearly 7.5 million children may lose access to free school meals if the proponents of these bills are successful in cutting SNAP.38 This would affect the 585,000 children with disabilities participating in the program.39 With inflation and rising food costs, SNAP benefits remain more essential than ever in fighting childhood hunger. When children have unmet basic needs such as a lack of food, their physical well-being and ability to learn are harmed.
Cutting Pell grants
The House-passed reconciliation bill includes Pell grant eligibility changes that would require many students to enroll in six additional credits of coursework per academic year to receive a full Pell grant award.40 At the same time, students enrolled less than half-time or in less than 15 credits per academic year would be ineligible for Pell grant assistance.41 The Senate bill does not include these alterations.42 It will be up to the two chambers to negotiate on the Pell grant regulations to reconcile the differences between the two bills.
If the House-passed bill’s Pell grant regulations remain, fewer disabled students will be able to afford higher education.
Disabled students will be penalized if the reconciliation bill includes the Pell grant changes because in 2020, they were more likely to receive Pell grants (45.1 percent) than nondisabled students (39 percent).43 The ineligibility of part-time students to the grants will also disproportionately affect disabled students, as Pell grant recipients with disabilities were more likely to attend school part time (27.2 percent) compared with Pell recipients without disabilities (23.1 percent).44 If the House-passed bill’s Pell grant regulations remain, fewer disabled students will be able to afford higher education.
Banning state AI regulation
The Senate and House Republicans included a 10-year federal ban on state and local artificial intelligence (AI) regulations within the reconciliation bill.45 The House bill includes a standalone 10-year freeze on state regulations on AI or automated decision technologies.46 The Senate Commerce Committee’s public draft47 added the standalone AI moratorium language to the law authorizing the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. The Senate Commerce Committee reportedly revised its draft48 to make its moratorium—now rebranded as a “temporary pause”49—comply with the Senate’s Byrd rule, and gained the Senate parliamentarian’s approval to keep the provision in the bill.50 However, the latest Senate text, released after consultation with the Senate parliamentarian, still creates sweeping restrictions on state AI governance.51 In addition, an amendment to the AI pause proposed by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)52 and negotiated with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)53shortens the pause to 5 years instead of 10 years and says that states subject to the AI pause are prohibited from passing or enforcing laws that limit, restrict, or regulate AI, AI systems, or automated decision-making systems. It exempts federal law that could be “generally applicable” and does not cause “undue or disproportionate burden” on AI54 and treats non-AI models and systems that perform comparable functions in the same manner.55 The Center for American Progress and other experts have concerns that these new requirements will apply to states with the previously obligated $42.5 billion in BEAD funding.56
AI is one of the fastest-growing technologies in the world, and some estimates suggest that the market could reach $4.8 trillion by 2033.57 Despite this growth potential, there are no federal laws that specifically address the use of AI in schools.58 Only 17 states and territories have passed AI education bills,59 and 25 states and territories currently have school guidance on AI.60 During the 2025 legislative session, all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Washington, D.C., introduced AI legislation covering a wide range of issues, including education.61
Disabled students are particularly vulnerable to AI misuse and abuse because they are more likely to utilize AI and to be disciplined for doing so than their peers.62 AI is a promising tool for students with disabilities as it can level the playing field in the classroom by assisting with tasks that were previously too difficult or impossible for them such as taking notes, reading aloud, and helping with spelling.63 AI has also helped schools through tools designed to grade,64 monitor students,65 and proctor tests.66 However, many AI tools are trained on biased data that do not take into account disabled students’ physical features, behaviors, or accommodation needs.67 This can jeopardize students’ entitlement to privacy, dignity, and fundamental civil rights.
In 2021, the Center for Democracy and Technology found that 81 percent of teachers surveyed reported that their schools utilize monitoring software on students.68 Using these AI monitoring software programs resulted in increased student suspensions and interactions with law enforcement.69 In Albuquerque, New Mexico, schools utilized AI to complete threat assessments, and disabled students were disproportionately targeted as they were 56 percent of all threat assessments but only 18 percent of the student population.70 Research indicates that the disproportional impact is likely due to bias being built into the system.71
States are laboratories of democracy and can fine-tune AI regulations to fit their needs. Removing their ability to address issues around bias, discrimination, and privacy issues leaves students—particularly disabled students—vulnerable to harassment, oversurveillance, and institutionalization.
Supporting private school vouchers
The House budget reconciliation bill includes the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA). This temporary national tax credit scholarship program would give an annual cap of $5 billion in federal tax credits to wealthy individuals and corporations through 2029.72 The Senate Finance Committee’s reconciliation text includes a permanent version of the scholarship program with an annual cap of $4 billion in federal tax credits.73 The Senate parliamentarian reviewed this proposal and advised that it broke procedural rules.74 However, it is likely Senate Republicans will attempt to rewrite the proposal in order for it to pass the Byrd rule. Senate Republicans may decide to follow President Trump’s request to ignore the parliamentarian.75
Billionaires and businesses that donate to scholarship-granting organizations, which distribute scholarships to private schools in the form of voucher payments, would receive a dollar-for-dollar tax credit and evade paying their fair share of federal taxes, including capital gains tax on stock contributions.76 Because the House and Senate versions of the bill both copy text from the ECCA, they share the same lack of accountability for private and religious schools that receive these federal funds.77 Funneling billions of dollars to private schools while cutting and freezing funding for public education,78 including IDEA,79 is harmful to all students and particularly harmful to disabled student populations. Students with disabilities lose full protections of IDEA when utilizing private vouchers.80 This can lead to a loss of full access to special education services,81 equal access to be taught by a certified educator,82 and most due process protections to resolve complaints.83
Funneling billions of dollars to private schools while cutting and freezing funding for public education, including IDEA, is harmful to all students, particularly disabled student populations.
Another key difference between the Senate and House budget bills is that the Senate bill removed language prohibiting vouchers to private schools if their admission standards consider whether a student has an individualized education program (IEP). Striking this language increases the likelihood that private schools with illegal discriminatory admission practices will benefit from public funds via vouchers.
The ECCA also reverses decades of progress for inclusive education. Since the needs of students with disabilities who have IEPs cannot be fully met at traditional private schools,84 a national voucher program would bind these students to more restrictive settings since their options would be limited to specialized private schools serving students with disabilities. This strips students with disabilities of their right to a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment where they are educated alongside their nondisabled peers. The ECCA would harm students with disabilities who lose nondiscrimination and equal access protections under IDEA and other civil rights laws when they pursue a private school education, including protections of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.85 These students may also lose protections under Title VI86 and Title IX87 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Given the history of discrimination against students with disabilities in voucher programs,88 the controversial and low-performance outcomes of these programs,89 and the fact that private schools are often ill- equipped to meet the needs of these students,90 funds being directed to private vouchers through the ECCA would be better spent fully funding IDEA. Congress originally intended the IDEA, previously titled the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, to cover 40 percent of the average per-pupil expenditure for the program.91 Today, IDEA’s national funding shortfall is $38.66 billion, 28 percent less than the initial federal commitment.92 Congress is poised to do even more harm with this reconciliation bill.
Conclusion
Students with disabilities are legally entitled to equal access to a free and appropriate public education.93 The significant proposed cuts to federal programs such as Medicaid, SNAP, and the Pell grant program and the deregulation of technology raise concerns about the appropriateness and quality of education that students will receive. A quality education is especially crucial for students with disabilities as it improves their chances of being employed,94 earning higher pay,95 and having increased independence.96 The congressional Republican’s budget reconciliation bill will disproportionately harm disabled students by robbing funding for critical services and decreasing protections, making it more difficult for them to obtain an equal education.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank William Roberts, Sara Partridge, Adam Conner, Nicole Alvarez, Lily Roberts, Andrea Ducas, Colin Seeberger, and Madeline Shepherd for their reviews; Chandler Hall for fact-checking; and CAP’s Editorial and Legal teams for their guidance.