Bureaucracy masking itself as progress. This “Federal Evidence Agenda on Disability Equity“ (January 2025) report is a perfect example of how the federal government fails to innovate, fails to include the voices of disabled people, and fails to invest in meaningful solutions. It’s not a roadmap for progress—it’s a dead end.

The report insists that “While person-first language is often used in more formal writing, many people with disabilities, particularly younger people, are choosing to use identity-first language.” This claim is laughable, considering these facts:

1. The 7th edition of the APA Publication Manual in 2020 introduces identity-first preferences for scientific “formal” writing, and especially mentions “Autistic”.
2. Many young Autistic people see autism as an integral part of who they are, not something separate from them, so they prefer “Autistic” identity-first language that reflects this. 
   
   

---

The Federal Evidence Agenda on Disability claims to provide a roadmap for improving outcomes for people with disabilities, but in reality, it’s an exercise in policy recycling that offers nothing new or innovative. These so-called new policies are simply revisions of outdated frameworks, built on historical data and previous outcomes, and fail to make any meaningful progress for Autistic individuals.

The CDC considered Autistic people a widespread pandemic until COVID took that place—a stark reminder of how federal agencies have historically failed us. Yet, instead of addressing these failures or evolving with the times, this report doubles down on outdated approaches. The very first sentence proudly states that “person-first language” is used throughout the report to align with other federal reports, reinforcing a tired agenda that ignores the growing preference for identity-first language within the disability community. This isn’t progress; it’s bureaucracy rebranded.

The structure of the report reveals a deeply flawed process that excludes the voices of the disability community. The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) were tasked with developing this agenda to improve the federal government’s ability to make data-driven policy decisions. However, these workgroups rely solely on representatives from federal agencies like the Census Bureau, National Center for Health Statistics, and the National Council on Disability. They have not extended their research beyond the agency level, recycling internal views and opinions that are often more than a decade old.

The disability community—the people these policies are supposed to serve—has been completely excluded from the process. This is yet another case of “about us without us,” where policies are created in a vacuum to reinforce internal stakeholder priorities rather than address the actual needs of disabled people.

The qualifications of those involved in creating this agenda are also highly questionable. These workgroups are often filled with the least qualified individuals, recruited through insider networking rather than expertise. If you work for the government, you’re likely to be promoted to a task force based on your position, not your knowledge or experience. Meanwhile, the affected people—those of us living with disabilities—are not considered stakeholders. Only the governing bodies are. To make matters worse, the report fails to list the credentials of the individuals involved in its development, leaving us to wonder whether they have any relevant expertise at all.

The report’s references further highlight its lack of credibility. Reference #128 discusses language use, particularly the term “Autistic,” but it cites outdated guidance and links to a federally funded support program that employs funded guidelines. This creates a circular reference, meaning the report relies on its own recycled policies rather than primary sources or evidence-based research. Similarly, reference #129 links to a CDC guideline that explicitly excludes identity-first language, once again promoting the person-first agenda that is already entrenched in federal policy. These circular references are not only lazy but also indicative of a system that prioritizes maintaining the status quo over fostering innovation.

Finally, the broader approach of the White House reflects a troubling pattern. The government continues to promote an economic model that emphasizes recycling, reusing, and repurposing materials, effectively retreading old policies under the guise of minimizing waste. Scientific consultants are still considered “wasteful spending,” and policy experts from funded non-profit organizations are dismissed as irrelevant to administrative mandates. This cost-cutting approach might work for material goods, but it’s a disaster when applied to policymaking. By refusing to invest in external expertise and fresh perspectives, the government perpetuates a cycle of stagnation that leaves the disability community underserved and unheard.

---