Recent guidance for some federal programs has raised concerns among disability advocates and service providers. Certain words, including “disability,” “accessible,” and “inclusive,” are reportedly discouraged in applications and documentation for federal funding. While the intent may be to standardize language or simplify processes, the result is increased confusion and misclassification of individuals who rely on these programs. Clear language is essential for accurately identifying needs and ensuring that applicants receive the services they are entitled to.

The consequences of these restrictions go beyond semantics. Without the ability to describe disabilities and necessary accommodations, staff reviewing applications may misinterpret or overlook applicants’ needs. This can lead to individuals being placed in the wrong programs, denied services, or forced to wait for appropriate support. Programs may also need to spend additional time and federal funds correcting these misclassifications, creating inefficiency and delays that could have been avoided with accurate terminology.

Ironically, efforts to streamline or restrict language may end up costing more money and creating additional administrative work. Misclassifications, repeated assessments, and program transfers all require resources that could have been avoided with proper language from the start. Ultimately, restricting words that describe disability and accessibility does not simplify the system — it undermines the very purpose of programs designed to serve people with specific needs.

My Thoughts

It’s frustrating to see how avoiding certain words can create so many problems for people who just need support. Clear, accurate language isn’t about politics or ideology — it’s about ensuring that people get the services they’re entitled to and that programs operate efficiently. Restricting these words doesn’t save money; it wastes time, resources, and, most importantly, opportunities for people with disabilities to access the help they need. It’s a situation that could be easily avoided if programs were allowed to describe disabilities and accommodations openly and accurately.

Another concern is how these restrictions make it even harder for people with disabilities to access the services they already struggle to get. Adding another barrier — by preventing clear language about needs and accommodations — only makes the system more confusing and frustrating. It’s hard to understand why this became a problem in the first place, or what the current administration expects to accomplish by limiting the words that describe disabilities. This is an issue that could be easily avoided, yet the guidance creates unnecessary obstacles for people who rely on support every day.

Finally, the guidance says these words should be restricted because they are considered “political language” under new federal policy. But that reasoning doesn’t make sense — words like “disability,” “accessible,” and “inclusive” aren’t political; they’re practical terms used to accurately describe a person’s situation and the support they need. Restricting them only creates confusion, misclassification, and unnecessary barriers for people trying to access services. It’s unclear why these words were deemed “not useful” anymore, because they are essential for programs to function properly and for individuals to get the help they’re entitled to. This is another example of a policy that could be easily avoided, yet ends up making the system harder for everyone it’s meant to serve.

Question to Consider

Do you think the policy of restricting words like “disability,” “accessible,” and “inclusive” in federal funding applications is truly about effective administration — or does it create unnecessary barriers that harm people who need support the most?

My Sources    

 1.    KPBS Public Media – “Head Start centers told to avoid disability, women, and more in funding requests”     2.    U.S. Senate (Senator Murray’s Office) – “Letter to HHS regarding Head Start banned words”     3.    PEN America – “Head Start programs banned words”