In a recent course session I was in, the classroom discussion delved into the topic of disability benefits and work eligibility. A student in class shared their own experiences, highlighting their frustrations, uncertainty, and the financial stress they were facing. Unfortunately, disability programs and policy in the US are not a mainstream topic of discussion within our society, which is structured around the able-bodied experience. However, it is still a key matter, especially with the recent actions and proposed plans by the Trump administration, which center on reducing support for welfare policies.
There is no doubt that, in comparison to the past, progress has been made in disability programs. But there is still work to be done. In the US, disability policy is set counterintuitively; it aims to support those who can’t work consistently, but can simultaneously discourage and disincentivize individuals who try to work, forcing them into a dilemma of facing economic risk. Despite work incentives within disability policies, concerns lie with how frameworks continue to perceive employment and experiencing disability as mutually exclusive, as seen with the complex application processes, complicated reporting requirements, strict income thresholds, and punitive benefit cliffs. Much of our policy seems to encourage staticity, and such rigidity reduces autonomy and control, creates constant concern, and fosters a sense of financial limitations. People with disabilities may reduce/turn down hours or decline certain jobs, as going over certain thresholds may terminate the necessary benefits they are receiving. It's a system that enforces stagnation and essentially punishes the desire to attain economic and social autonomy as a person with disabilities.
For example, SSDI has a Trial Work Period that allows for nine months of high earnings, but after that, earnings above “substantial gainful activity” may lead to losing benefits. This can cause many individuals to limit themselves to lower-paying jobs or irregular work to avoid completely losing necessary benefits. Similarly, for SSI, every added dollar above the income exclusion threshold reduces benefits by $1 for every $2 earned. Within this, a major stressor for people is maintaining vital medical coverage (such as Medicaid or Medicare). Healthcare is vital for many individuals with disabilities, as it gives people access to life-sustaining and essential care. Making it so healthcare eligibility is rigid, with strict income thresholds, puts people with disabilities in a difficult situation, as they must restrict themselves to continue getting such access to healthcare, cautious of any triggers that would lead to losing such medical support.
Benefits don’t just represent monetary support- they represent access to healthcare, housing stability, and maintaining a good quality of life. The anxieties and fear of losing such support can make the path toward employment seem more like a gamble, not a path toward further independence. On top of all of this, the Trump administration has taken steps and is looking toward eliminating support for vital policies. In 2025, they cut off federal support for the intervention training within the SOAR program, which teaches caseworkers to be adept at navigating the complicated disability application process, and also supplies other important support and resources to their target population of individuals facing homelessness, particularly those experiencing severe mental health illnesses.
Disability is not a monolithic reality- it can be unpredictable, fluctuate for some people (some days may be better than others), and can be impacted by the environment and factors surrounding the individual. In moving toward a system that truly values independence and supports individuals with disabilities, efforts should focus on reflecting how employment and disability can coexist. As a society, we can move towards universal healthcare, not tied to income/employment or benefits eligibility. There can be steps toward pushing for more gradual benefit tapering and bolstering employment supports, such as with part-time, episodic, or accommodated work. Within all of this, it is vital to make navigating the system of disability programs and policies clearer, simpler, and better communicated. Policy and discussion should revolve around the basis that individuals with disabilities want meaningful activity, autonomy, and stability, grounded in values such as dignity, inclusion, equity, and person-centered support. We can not walk away or allow administration decisions veer away from vital welfare policies and support. The current system can perpetuate a sense of ‘movement as dangerous,’ forcing people to ‘stay still.’ We must reshape this, as support should be a foundation people can safely build upon, where mobility is genuinely supported.
