SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
russell vought
'Monstrous' Trump Rule Change Could Slash Benefits to 400,000 Adults With Down Syndrome and Other Disabilities
"As they push to build a $400 million ballroom, they are stripping disabled Americans of their meager benefits," said one congressional candidate.
Apr 29, 2026
The Trump administration is pushing forward with a new rule that could strip as many as 400,000 low-income adults with disabilities of hundreds of dollars per month.
ProPublica reported on Tuesday that the Trump administration was planning a major rule change to the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, which provides basic income to adults with severe disabilities like Down syndrome and autism and some indigent elderly people who may struggle to support themselves.
The program, which serves around 7.5 million Americans, typically provides payments of around $600-700 per month—enough to help pay for basic needs like food and shelter, but not enough to live on independently, especially for those already struggling due to disabilities. As a result, many SSI recipients still reside with family members.
Under the rule change, ProPublica reported that the administration would "penalize" these individuals "simply for living in the same home as their families, according to four federal officials, internal emails, and a federal regulatory listing."
According to the report:
The administration is working on a rule change that would deduct the value of a disabled adult’s bedroom from their SSI allotment, even if the family members they live with are poor enough to qualify for food stamps. This would mean slashing the benefits of some of the most low-income SSI recipients by up to a third... or ending their support altogether.
Kathleen Romig and Devin O’Connor of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained the proposed rule change in a policy briefing in August:
Currently, very low-income disabled or older people who receive SSI can have their benefits reduced by up to one-third (about $300 a month) if they receive “in-kind support and maintenance,” including a place to stay. Similarly, SSI recipients can have their benefits reduced based on the income of their parents (if they are under 18) or spouse, under the assumption that they will contribute to an SSI beneficiary’s living expenses. However, these reductions don’t apply to beneficiaries who live in a household that receives “public assistance,” including food assistance programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). That’s because households financially precarious enough to qualify for those benefits can’t afford to financially support SSI recipients...
SSI’s public assistance household rule has been updated to reflect the ways struggling families make ends meet—but the Trump administration proposal would return the program to the outdated criteria first established in 1980... This change would ignore the reality that families who receive SNAP have very low incomes—the typical multi-person SNAP household with at least one member who receives SSI has an annual income of around $17,000, well below the poverty line.
According to ProPublica, one woman with Down syndrome in Philadelphia, 22-year-old Shy’tyra Burton, who has struggled to find a job due to her intellectual disability, is expected to see her $994 monthly benefit cut by about $330 a month because she has continued to live with her father, Rondell, a sanitation worker.
He makes about $2,000 a month, or $24,000 annually—well below the federal poverty line for a single parent with multiple children. Even with the SSI payment, which allows Shy’tyra to pay for her own internet and meals, Rondell said that he's "still barely managing."
Using actuarial figures from the Social Security Administration (SSA), which administers the program, ProPublica determined that as many as 400,000 disabled people and indigent elderly people could lose some or all of their benefits.
"These are not people gaming the system," argued Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.), whose state could see more than 57,000 people lose benefits as a result of the cuts.
"Fewer than one in three applicants is approved," he said. "The process takes years and requires medical and vocational evaluations.
"The administration calls this rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. It is not," he continued. "This policy costs more, helps no one, and punishes families for taking care of their own."
The rule change is being reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), where it will be subject to editing before being sent back to the Social Security Administration, where it will face a period of public comment.
The OMB is administered by Director Russell Vought, one of the architects of the Heritage Foundation's far-right Project 2025 agenda. In addition to using last year's government shutdown to withhold SNAP benefits from around 42 million Americans and starve blue states of funding for federal programs, he has used the office to push for a full-fledged assault on benefits for the poor, disabled, and elderly, including those administered by the SSA.
Vought reportedly led the charge for the SSA to raise the age threshold for disabled adults receiving Social Security disability insurance from 50 to 60, or to remove age as a factor altogether when determining whether a disabled individual has the capability to work. According to the Urban Institute, the plan could have kicked 750,000 people off their disability payments and reduced payouts by $82 million over the next decade.
The administration ultimately backed off the proposal once it became clear that many of those hurt would be older coal miners and factory workers in red states, some of Trump's core demographics of support. But it is still reportedly soldiering ahead with its plan to cut SSI payments for those with disabilities.
Vought has justified these and other dramatic cuts as part of efforts to make the government more efficient. But ProPublica found that while cutting Burton’s benefit could save taxpayers about $11 per day, it could mean her father is unable to care for her, forcing her into a state facility that costs hundreds of dollars a day in public money.
"The Trump rule would have harmful consequences beyond the loss of benefits and eligibility, creating heartbreaking dilemmas for SSI recipients and their families," explained Romig and O'Connor. "It could discourage families from offering help to their loved ones, for fear of jeopardizing their meager benefits. It could force more people to turn to institutional care because they could no longer afford to live in the community."
Fred Wellman, a military veteran and Democratic candidate for the second congressional district in Missouri—a state where around 6,000 disabled and elderly people could potentially be affected by the proposed cuts—called the policy a “truly monstrous decision” especially in light of a recent Republican proposal for Congress to allocate $400 million for Trump’s White House ballroom project after a court ruled it could not be funded using donations.
"As they push to build a $400 million ballroom, they are stripping disabled Americans of their meager benefits," Wellman said. "Over and over, this administration and the GOP choose cruelty over caring. It’s just sick."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Moral Obscenity': Trump Budget Pairs Record Military Boost With Billions in Cuts to Social Programs
"To pay for his endless wars, he wants the biggest increase to military spending in 70 years," said Rep. Greg Casar. "Hell no."
Apr 03, 2026
President Donald Trump's White House released a budget proposal on Friday that pairs an unprecedented, debt-exploding $1.5 trillion in military spending with tens of billions of dollars in cuts to domestic agencies and education, healthcare, climate, and housing programs.
Trump's budget request for fiscal year 2027, which must be approved by Congress, includes $73 billion in total cuts to nondefense spending while boosting military outlays by 42%—or nearly $500 billion—compared to current levels.
Programs cut or eliminated in the proposed budget—under the guise of slashing "woke programs" and "ending the Green New Scam"—include the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Justice program, Community Services Block Grants, electric vehicle charging subsidies, renewable energy initiatives at the Interior Department, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing.
The budget proposal also calls for cuts to the already-depleted Internal Revenue Service, without offering specific figures.
One budget expert noted that, if enacted, the White House's requested cuts would bring nondefense discretionary spending to "its lowest level in the modern era."
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote in response to Trump's request that "to pay for his endless wars, he wants the biggest increase to military spending in 70 years."
"How does he pay for it? Cuts to 'education, health, housing, and more,'" Casar added. "Hell no."
Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, said in a statement that "the Trump-Vought budget proposal is a moral obscenity," referring to Russell Vought, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget.
"The $500 billion annual increase in proposed Pentagon spending—if it were instead deployed humanely—would be enough to solve or meaningfully address the nation's great problems, from healthcare to daycare, from the climate crisis to affordable housing, from improving schools to making college education affordable," said Weissman. "Instead, Trump and Vought propose to spend an unfathomable amount on a Pentagon that can't even pass an audit to further empower an out-of-control and incompetent leader in Pete Hegseth."
"As usual, the priorities of the people are simply unimportant to this administration as they think about spending our taxpayer dollars," Weissman continued. "Republicans and Democrats in Congress should treat this proposal with all the care it deserves and immediately hit delete."
"Trump said that our country cannot afford to help families with childcare or healthcare—but his own budget proves what a ridiculous farce that is."
The White House unveiled its budget request days after Trump said it is "not possible" for the federal government "to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things" because "we’re fighting wars," comments that observers viewed as a stark summary of the administration's priorities.
"Trump is telling the American people our country somehow can’t afford childcare, Medicaid, and Medicare, but is never too stretched to fund wars of choice," Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement Friday. "He is wrong. We are the wealthiest country in the world and can absolutely afford to both defend and invest in the American people."
"The president is now demanding a massive increase in defense spending, including a $350 billion slush fund for his reckless war with Iran, while cutting billions from healthcare, education, housing, and more. This budget represents ‘America Last,'" said Boyle. "I will be demanding answers from White House OMB Director Russell Vought when he testifies at the House Budget Committee on April 15."
The Trump White House is calling on Congress to approve a significant chunk—roughly $350 billion—of its proposed military budget increase via the filibuster-proof reconciliation process, which would allow Republicans to push the funding through without any Democratic support. The new budget request also calls for a "historic investment" in the Department of Homeland Security, which has been partially shut down for more than a month as Democrats push for reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
"This funding would come in addition to the $170 billion passed just last year that has enabled the deaths of migrants in detention centers, the detention of children, and the deaths of US citizens at the hands of mass deportation agents," Lindsay Koshgarian, program director of the National Priorities Project, said in response to the budget request.
“The president looked at the country, with our rising gas prices and nearly half of us struggling to afford basic necessities, and decided what we really need is a bigger war budget," said Koshgarian. "Not healthcare or childcare or relief from high prices or expensive housing, but a nearly bottomless budget for whatever wars his cronies and the contractors dream up next."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Scrapping the Endangerment Finding: Payback for the Billionaire Climate Criminals
Who's responsible for rolling back the endangerment finding? We believe it is time to name names so future generations—and future climate justice tribunals—will know who is responsible for incinerating our futures.
Mar 24, 2026
The February rollback of the "endangerment finding"—which provides the legal basis for regulating climate change—was many years in the works. It's the ultimate payback for a politically engaged fossil fuel industry and the climate criminals who use their wealth, power, and position to block efforts to help us transition to a post-oil, gas, and coal era.
Who's responsible for rolling back the endangerment finding? We believe it is time to name names so future generations—and future climate justice tribunals—will know who is responsible for incinerating our futures. Researchers at the Climate Accountability Research Project have tracked several of the key individuals working to undermine climate protection for the last two years
On February 12, 2026, Lee Zeldin, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), announced the rescission of the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, repealing regulations for GHG emissions of motor vehicles. According to The New York Times, a small group of fossil fuel-funded right-wing operatives have pushed to roll back government regulation of greenhouse gases for the past 16 years and have finally succeeded. Myron Ebell, a leading climate denier and fellow at the libertarian think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, stated that “no amount of public support would have done anything if there hadn’t been those four people: Russ and Jeff and John and Mandy.”
So who the heck are “Russ and Jeff, and John and Mandy?” Russell Vought, Jeffrey Clark, Mandy Gunasekara, and Jonathan Brightbill are well-known operatives within right-wing circles. For example, Russell Vought, President Donald Trump’s director of the US Office of Management and Budget, and Jeffrey B. Clark, former acting administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, are veterans from the first Trump administration.
Rolling back the endangerment finding will have devastating and irreversible consequences to the planet.
Clark has been fighting the government’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases since 2005. In 2022, Vought was vice president of the Heritage Foundation and managed Project 2025, the blueprint for many Trump initiatives. Vought hired Clark to draft executive orders for a future Republican president to easily reverse President Joe Biden’s climate initiatives. In 2023, Clark described climate change regulation as part of a plot to “‘meta control’ Americans.” Following the 2024 election, Vought and Clark were both asked to serve in Trump’s second administration where they were able to push for the repeal of the endangerment finding.
The “Mandy and Jonathan” are lesser known right-wing operatives. Mandy Gunasekara is an environmental attorney, former chief of staff for the EPA during the first Trump administration, and author of the Project 2025 report chapter on reforming the EPA. Gunasekara fought against policies from the Biden administration regarding emission reduction and self-identified as the “chief architect” behind Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. The Climate Accountability Research Project identified Gunasekara as a Climate Criminal in 2024 because of her historical role in rolling back greenhouse gas regulations.
In 2015, Gunasekara infamously handed the late Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) a snowball to use as a prop on the Senate floor as “proof” that climate change wasn’t a real threat. Gunasekara was serving as an aide to Sen. Inhofe, who was considered to be one of Congress’ most outspoken climate skeptics at the time. Gunasekara was also a former visiting fellow with the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment, where she helped draft a policy agenda that “unleashes American energy production, and reduces barriers to economic freedom.”
Following Gunasekara’s resignation from the EPA in 2019, she founded the Energy45 Fund, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization “to promote the Trump energy agenda” and inform the public on the "environmental and economic gains made under the Trump administration.” The sources of funding for this organization have remained anonymous, and the organization has even been dubbed as a “dark money group” by Open Secrets.
In 2023, the Heritage Foundation published Project 2025, which featured Gunasekara’s 32-page chapter “Mandate for Leadership,” outlining a conservative agenda to move the EPA away from its focus on climate change. Key policy proposals outlined in her chapter include resetting scientific advisory boards, scaling back greenhouse gas regulation programs, and updating the 2009 endangerment finding. Gunasekara’s chapter also included the “Day One Executive Order,” which included a list of immediate actions to be taken on the first day of President Trump’s second term, with orders like “stop all grants to advocacy groups and review which potential federal investments will lead to tangible environmental improvements” and “revise guidance documents that control regulations such as the social cost of carbon.”
Jonathan Brightbill is currently the general counsel of the US Department of Energy. Brightbill argued against Obama-era climate policies while serving in the Justice Department in the first Trump administration.
In 2022, Gunasekara and Brightbill began their secret campaign to end the endangerment finding, in which they secured $2 million in funding from right-wing groups like the Heritage Foundation. The funding allowed Gunasekara and Brightbill to draft regulatory documents that would simplify the abandonment of the endangerment finding. Over the years, the two collected an “arsenal of information” to dispute the scientific evidence of climate change. The evidence collected along with their detailed plans of attack helped the Trump administration end the endangerment finding.
Rolling back the endangerment finding will have devastating and irreversible consequences to the planet. There will come a day, maybe sooner than we think, when climate criminals like “Russ and Jeff and John and Mandy” will be held to account.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular