Here's a scholarly analysis of PIP, and it clearly calls for a sharp response grounded in both empathy and evidence

🧭 Reforming PIP is not just policy — it's a moral necessity.

This critique lays bare how fundamentally flawed the current system remains. When your chance to access vital support hinges on whether you had a stroke at 63 or 67, something’s gone terribly wrong.

🔍 PIP was never truly designed to reflect the real costs of disability, nor the lived disadvantages that people face. Calling it an “extra costs” benefit when there’s no actual calculation of those costs is misleading at best — and harmful at worst.

💡 What’s needed isn’t more convoluted points-based assessments. It’s a humane, evidence-informed system that:

• Automatically entitles people with severe, clear diagnoses
• Respects professional medical input over bureaucratic hurdles
• Stops punishing people for the timing of their impairments or for aging

🛑 Abolishing Severe Disablement Allowance and barring older claimants from mobility support only compounds the injustice. If the aim is to “focus help on those most in need,” why are we denying mobility support to someone with profound difficulty walking, simply because they turned 67?

⚖️ Let’s not forget the most important insight here: Disability benefits are not about employment. They’re about equity. About restoring dignity and agency to people living with systemic disadvantage — regardless of whether they can or should work.

📣 True reform begins when we stop pretending the system is working. This piece makes it clear: tinkering isn’t enough. We need compassion, not conditionality. Justice, not jargon.

---

Important: DWP confirms 4-point rule won't apply to existing Pip claimants reassessed in future - after Kendall mis-speak implies otherwise

 

DWP confirms 4-point rule won't apply to existing Pip claimants reassessed in future - after Kendall mis-speak implies otherwise

The Department for Work and Pensions has released a letter that Stephen Timms has sent to MPs about the concessions on the welfare bill. It contains a Q&A, and the text of the amendments relating to Pip.

The Q&A covers what will happen to existing Pip claimants if their claims are reassessed. It says:

What has changed?

As part of our measures to strengthen the UC and Pip bill, we will bring forward an amendment for Commons committee so that the 4-point minimum only applies to new claims. This means that no existing claimants will be subject to the 4-point requirement, including if they undergo an award review, whether planned or due to a change in circumstances. Those making a new claim after the measure comes into force (not before November 2026) will be subject to the 4-point requirement.

Earlier in the Commons Liz Kendall seemed to the opposite, implied that existing claimants would be subject to the four-point rule if they ask for a reassessment after November 2026. (See 4.38pm.) But DWP sources have said Kendall mis-spoke, and that the situation is as set out in the DWP Q&A.

Labour DWP committee chair Debbie Abrahams says she cannot support welfare bill in current form

Labour DWP committee chair Debbie Abrahams says she cannot support welfare bill in current form

Debbie Abrahams, the Labour chair of the work and pensions committee and the second signatory on Meg Millier’s reasoned amendment against the welfare bill, has said she cannot support the bill, despite the concessions, ITV’s Romilly Weeks reports. She has posted on social media.

NEW: Debbie Abrahams one of 3 MPs to negotiate the welfare concessions with No 10 says they do not go far enough @ITVNewsPolitics

She says the government rowed back on what had been negotiated and in the current form she will not be supporting the bill

This is even more of a mess for the government than first thought. A costly u turn that might yet not get them off the hook

By contrast, Hillier, chair of the Treasury committee, welcomed the concessions on Friday, calling them a “good and workable compromise”.

 

Welfare Reform Bill Update (8:25 AM Montreal Time)

 

DWP explains why its update does not say what impact bill will have on number of disabled people in poverty

Here are some more points the Department for Work and Pensions is making about its updated assessment of the impact its benefit cuts will have on poverty. (See 12.15pm and 12.31pm.)

• The poverty assessment does not take account of behavioural responses, the DWP says. It explains:

The Department for Work and Pensions’ Policy Simulation Model (PSM) is used to model the impact of policies on individuals and poverty levels. The PSM is a static microsimulation model based on a snapshot of the UK population from the Family Resources Survey (FRS), currently for the financial years ending 2020, 2022 and 2023. It uses caseload forecasts alongside benefit rules to simulate results such as poverty levels for each year, currently up to and including FYE 2030. Because the PSM is a static model it does not capture the behavioural impacts of policies, such as changed work incentives due to reductions or increases in benefit rates, or a small number of additional benefit claims expected as a behavioural response to the reduction in household incomes due to the measures.

This means these figures don’t take account of the fact that, when benefit payments change, people react – and how they react will also have an impact on poverty figures.

But no one really knows what the behavioural impacts of these cuts will be. Ministers believe that the current system give people out of work an incentive to say they have a sickness or disability that stops them working (because those benefits are worth more than standard universal credit). The proposal will narrow this gap, by making the standard rate of UC more generous. Ministers hope this will incentivise people to find work.

But there is an argument that because it will make standard UC a tiny bit more generous, it may reduce the incentive for standard UC claimants to find a job. And with Pip being removed from some people who qualify now who don’t have a four-point need on some criteria, the new rules could incentivise more people to claim on the grounds of a more severe disability.

• The DWP claims it has not been able to estimate the impact of the changes on the number of disabled people in poverty. It blames this on the way data is collected.

Definitions of disability in the PSM differ from those used in the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) poverty statistics. It has therefore not been possible to estimate the impact of the package on the level of poverty amongst individuals living in families with a disabled person, as this requires an estimate to be made using the HBAI definition.

• It says the poverty figures it is publishing today do not take account of other factors affecting poverty.

As the poverty impacts presented are independent of the underlying trends in poverty, they are not an estimate of the total change in poverty over time.

Welfare Reform Bill Update (4:30 AM Montreal Time)

 

Good morning. Last week, on their Political Currency podcast, Ed Balls and George Osborne were talking about the Labour rebellion over the legislation to cut disability benefits – the universal credit (UC) and personal independence payment (Pip) bill – and Osborne asked for an example of an MP who would never normally rebel against the government because they were inherently mainstream and loyal, but who was opposed to this plan. Balls menioned Clive Efford, the veteran MP for Eltham and Chiselhurst. They were speaking on Thursday, before the government announced massive concessions to the bill worth £3bn a year.

Those concessions have won over some Labour MPs who were going to vote against the bill tomorrow, and Keir Starmer, instead of facing certain defeat, now seems likely to win the vote – although with a much reduced majority. But many moderates are still opposed and this morning one of them was on the Today programme. It was Clive Efford.

He told the programme that he was still not in a position to support the bill because the government has not yet published the full assessment of how people will be affected, and whether (as ministers claim) the cuts won’t lead to more poverty because people will get jobs instead. He said:

There are still £3.5 billion-worth of savings that are required in these measures and we don’t yet know the poverty impact that they will have. The original motion [the reasoned amendment to kill the bill, signed by Efford and more than 120 other Labour MPs] was asking for more time for us to understand the impact of these changes and that still applies to those people who will be adversely affected.

I think there are a lot of people waiting to hear what the government is saying today who may be inclined to accept what the government has done. For me the situation hasn’t changed for those people who will be adversely affected and until we know and understand the impact on them, we shouldn’t be taking what I think is a leap in the dark.

There are choices that the government can make here; there are other places it can go to identify the resources. What we want to see, and fully support, is measures the government is putting in the palace to assist people to move into work, the right to try, we support, but we can’t guarantee the savings.

When you’re asking for £3.5bn regardless of the impact of those changes that can only adversely affect people who are in the benefit system.

We cannot make assumptions about how much we can save in the welfare system ahead of actually bringing in those changes and seeing how they work.

As Pippa Crerar and Rowena Mason report in their overnight story, Efford is far from alone; Vicky Foxcroft, who resigned as a government whip over the cuts, has not been won over by the concessions.

The Hidden Death Toll of Austerity: Why We Need Miller’s Law (Says Samuel Miller)

 

The Hidden Death Toll of Austerity: Why We Need Miller’s Law

When politicians slash funding for welfare, healthcare, Medicaid, or Social Security, they often frame it as fiscal responsibility. But behind the sterile language of “budget tightening” lies a brutal truth: these cuts kill. Not metaphorically. Literally.

💀 Austerity Has a Body Count

Recent research has laid bare the devastating human cost of austerity policies:

• In the UK, austerity measures introduced after 2010 led to approximately 190,000 excess deaths between 2010 and 2019. These were not inevitable deaths—they were preventable, caused by reduced access to healthcare, housing, and social support.
• A separate study from University College London found that over 1 million people in the UK died prematurely between 2011 and 2019 due to health inequalities exacerbated by austerity. Of those, 148,000 deaths were directly attributed to austerity policies.
• Another analysis estimated that 335,000 excess deaths occurred in the UK due to austerity—twice as many as previously thought.

These are not just numbers. They represent real people—many of them poor, disabled, elderly, or chronically ill—whose lives were cut short because their governments chose to balance budgets on their backs.

🧾 The U.S. Is Not Immune

While much of the data comes from the UK, the United States is on a similar path. Cuts to Medicaid expansion, disability benefits, and food assistance programs have already been linked to increased mortality, especially in marginalized communities. Yet, these consequences are rarely acknowledged in public discourse.

Why? Because death by austerity is slow, dispersed, and politically convenient to ignore.

⚖️ Introducing Miller’s Law: Accountability for Austerity

It’s time to demand accountability. Just as environmental impact assessments are required before building a highway, Miller’s Law would require a “deaths assessment” before any legislation that reduces funding for essential social programs.

Under Miller’s Law, lawmakers would be obligated to:

• Commission independent studies estimating the potential mortality impact of proposed cuts.
• Publicly disclose these findings before a vote.
• Justify any decision to proceed despite projected loss of life.

This isn’t radical—it’s responsible governance. If a policy is likely to result in thousands of premature deaths, the public deserves to know. And politicians should be forced to own that decision.

🧠 The Moral Imperative

We cannot allow budgetary decisions to be made in a moral vacuum. Every dollar cut from Medicaid or Social Security is a policy choice with life-or-death consequences. Pretending otherwise is not just negligent—it’s cruel.

Miller’s Law would shine a light on the human cost of austerity and force our leaders to confront the consequences of their actions. Because in a just society, no one should die for being poor.

---

Liz Kendall's statement to Labour MPs

 

Liz Kendall’s statement makes a clear distinction: current PIP recipients will not be affected by the new eligibility rules. The phrase “stay within the current system” strongly suggests that anyone already receiving PIP before November 2026 will continue to be assessed and reviewed under the existing criteria—even after that date.

So, in practical terms:

• New claimants from November 2026 onward will face the revised eligibility rules (such as the requirement to score at least 4 points in a single activity).
• Existing claimants will remain under the current system, even when their awards come up for review.

This marks a significant shift from earlier proposals, which had implied that all claimants—new and existing—would eventually be reassessed under the new rules. The updated position appears to be a response to political pressure and concerns about fairness and disruption.

If you’re looking to clarify this for others, you might say: “The government has confirmed that only new PIP claims from November 2026 will be subject to the new eligibility criteria. Existing claimants will continue under the current system, even after that date.”

Reference: 

rightsnet: now: Work and Pensions Secretary’s letter to Labour MPs on changes to ‘strengthen’ the new welfare reform bill - Rightsnet https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/now/post/63585

 

To April Dwyer

 

Yes, based on the latest available information, existing PIP recipients will be subject to the new eligibility rules if their award is reviewed from November 2026 onwards.

Liz Kendall, the Work and Pensions Secretary, confirmed that from that date, claimants must score at least 4 points in a single activity to qualify for the daily living component of PIP. This is in addition to the existing requirement of scoring a total of at least 8 points overall. The mobility component remains unchanged.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has stated it will work with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that people who may no longer qualify under the new rules still have their health and care needs met. However, this does suggest that existing claimants will be reassessed under the new criteria when their reviews occur after November 2026.

You can read more details in this summary of Liz Kendall’s speech or from this article explaining the new PIP points system.

Parliamentary Sovereignty

 

That’s a classic constitutional conundrum, and a great opportunity to slice through the fog with some clarity and bite.

While parliamentary sovereignty means Parliament can make or unmake any law it chooses, judicial review still plays a crucial role—especially when it comes to human rights and administrative fairness. Even if a policy like PIP cuts is embedded in legislation, courts can still scrutinize how it's implemented. For example:

• If the implementation of the law violates the Equality Act 2010, the Human Rights Act 1998, or principles of procedural fairness, it can be challenged.
• The courts can’t strike down the Act itself, but they can issue a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act, putting political pressure on Parliament to amend it.
• They can also rule that specific decisions made under the Act are unlawful—especially if they’re discriminatory, irrational, or made without proper consideration of individual circumstances.

So no, parliamentary sovereignty doesn’t give the government a blank cheque. It’s not about whether the law exists—it’s about how it’s wielded. And if the DWP starts using that law like a blunt instrument, the courts can still step in and say, “Not like that, you don’t.”

Reclaiming Humanity: Challenging the Language of "Economic Inactivity"

Recently, Liz Kendall—now the UK’s Work and Pensions Secretary—criticized the term “economically inactive”, calling it a “terrible” phrase to describe those out of the labour market. She’s right. It’s a cold, clinical label that erases the real, complex lives behind it: people living with chronic illness, disability, caregiving responsibilities, and mental health struggles.

For too long, policymakers have relied on this kind of technocratic shorthand to frame non-working populations as a problem to be solved, rather than citizens to be supported. "Economically inactive" suggests stagnation, burden, even blame. But what it hides are the social and structural failings that push people out of work—lack of accommodation, inadequate healthcare, unaffordable care systems, and inaccessible workplaces.

That Kendall is distancing herself from this language signals a shift, at least rhetorically. But words are just the beginning. If we truly want to honour the humanity of those left behind by austerity and neglect, we need more than new terminology—we need a radically different vision of work, health, and dignity.

Because when a label like “economically inactive” is allowed to define someone’s worth, we’ve already lost sight of what a just society demands.

---

More Weight: Austerity’s Cruel Burden on the UK’s Sick and Disabled

In The Crucible, Arthur Miller gives us Giles Corey—pressed to death under heavy stones for refusing false confession. His final words? “More weight.” A man literally crushed by injustice, defiant to the end.

For the UK’s sick and disabled, years of austerity have echoed that slow, merciless pressure. Every cut to services, every reassessment, every hostile policy—another boulder on the chest. More weight.

PIP, ESA, WCA, bedroom tax, benefit sanctions—the labels shift, but the burden doesn’t. This isn’t collapse; it’s a long erosion of dignity, security, and hope.

And like Miller’s Salem, this didn’t happen by accident. It stems from deliberate choices—policies that punish need under the guise of reform. Starmer’s recent welfare concessions don’t erase that legacy. If anything, a two-tier PIP system adds yet another stone. Discrimination by date of claim? Still more weight.

Austerity didn’t just fail the disabled community—it damaged them. Its toll is counted in lost health, stolen independence, and shortened lives.

We should remember Giles Corey—not for his suffering alone, but for his resistance. He stood unbroken under the weight. Today, we owe that same resolve to every disabled person still being pressed down by this system.

---

Welfare bill cuts could lead to 500,000 people losing out by more than £8,000, IFS says

 

Welfare bill cuts could lead to 500,000 people losing out by more than £8,000, IFS says

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has published a new report today on the proposals to cut sickness and disability benefits in the UC and Pip bill. Many thinktanks have already published reports on the impact of these measures, but this analysis contains some new material, and is a bit more long term than some of the other ones.

It contains findings that might be welcomed both by supporters of the bill, and its opponents.

Supporters of the bill argue that the current system is unsustainable, and the IFS says that eventually the measures could save £11bn a year.

The long-run legacy of these reforms is far greater. The reform package will still be being rolled out well into the 2030s. Based on 2029–30 claimant numbers, we expect the three main reforms could save £10bn per year when fully rolled out. Adding in the removal of UCHE [universal credit health element] for under-22s, the proposed additional premium for those with the most severe disabilities and the scrapping of the work capability assessment brings the savings to as much as £11bn per year, equivalent to 17% of pre-reform expected health-related working-age benefit expenditure in 2029–30. If the number of applicants for health-related benefits continues to grow past 2029–30, both spending on health-related benefits and the savings from these reforms could be even bigger than these figures.

But bigger-than-expected savings for the taxpayer means bigger-than-expected losses for claimants, and the IFS says in the long term this could lead to 500,000 people losing more than £8,000. That figure is a mix of existing claimants who will find their payments cut, and future claimants who will lose because they will receive less than they would have got under the old system. The IFS says:

These savings – and again, this is after the reforms are fully rolled out – come from 3.2 million claimants of health-related benefits losing an average of £4,000 per year and 5 million individuals, largely without an assessed disability, gaining £410 per year on average. For some, the losses will be much greater: perhaps as many as half a million will see their incomes fall by more than £8,000.

The IFS also says the changes involve a significant redistribution within the welfare system.

The way that this package of reforms is designed means that their full effect will not be felt for many years to come. But when that full effect is in place, the legacy of these policies is a huge change to the shape of benefits in the UK. Support for health conditions, which – unlike unemployment support – has gradually increased in real terms over recent decades (Waters, 2025), will fall significantly. Some people who would have received health-related support under the current system will not, and most people who continue to receive some will receive less. These reforms will go at least some way to slowing the rapid increase in spending on health-related benefits since the pandemic. And it is likely that that will increase employment – perhaps in the low six figures.

In contrast, the support for people without health conditions will be increased. The introduction of an unemployment insurance – a significant contributory benefit against the backdrop of our predominantly means-tested system – will represent a meaningful increase in the protection the system provides against job loss. This is bolstered by the increase in the UC standard allowance.

We know, we know, we know …

Alexander brushes off criticism of Morgan McSweeney over welfare bill, saying he helped deliver 'historic' election victory

 

Alexander brushes off criticism of Morgan McSweeney over welfare bill, saying he helped deliver 'historic' election victory

Morgan McSweeney, the PM’s chief of staff, is being blamed by many Labour MPs for No 10 now being in the situation where, with less than a week to go before the vote on the welfare bill, the government does not yet have the votes to get it through.

In a long read on McSweeney’s role in the crisis, written by Jim Pickard, George Parker and Anna Gross, the Financial Times quotes a “Labour veteran” saying:

Everyone is selling shares in Morgan. People are starting to put their heads above the parapet and say maybe he’s not the Messiah after all.

The article says McSweeney is accused of ignoring the views of the parliamentary party and being too obsessed with fighting Labour’s left. It says:

Another MP said McSweeney’s role in the government seemed to be to “shield” Starmer from uncomfortable truths, including on his welfare reforms.

“Other people in Number 10 were saying he didn’t have the numbers for this and he wouldn’t get it through parliament. The chief whip has been warning them about this for months. But they had their fingers in their ears,” they said. “It’s extraordinarily arrogant and complacent.”

Others see in Number 10’s determinedness to press ahead with next week’s House of Commons vote on the welfare bill a sign of McSweeney’s desire to still confront Labour’s denuded leftwing. One MP from the 2024 election intake said it seemed as though McSweeney was “spoiling for a fight” with the left of the party over the welfare reforms, which was a “very stupid thing to do”.

The Times’ splash story also quotes unnamed MPs criticising McSweeney. It says:

Other MPs in last year’s intake conceded many of the rebels were united by their dislike of senior advisers in No 10. “What links everyone on that list is that they reject Morgan’s way of doing politics,” one said.

Ministers blamed McSweeney and [Rachel] Reeves for “shambolic” political management. “Rachel’s responsible for imposing an arbitrary cuts agenda on Liz’s welfare reform agenda,” one said. “Morgan is responsible for shambolic political management. He was warned that this would happen and ignored it. He has completely failed to do his job.”

Asked about the criticism of McSweeney from unnamed Labour figures quoted in the press, Douglas Alexander, the trade minister, told broadcasters this morning that he was not interested in SW1 “gossip”. He said it was for the prime minister to choose his team in No 10. But he also said that McSweeney was part of a team that delivered Labour “an historic victory only last July, against expectations”.

Starmer confirms willingness to make concessions on welfare bill

 

Starmer confirms willingness to make concessions on welfare bill, saying reforms must comply with 'Labour values of fairness'

Keir Starmer starts his statement by talking about welfare reform – which is not the subject of the statement, but he says the main statement covers “security”, and he says he wants to start talking about social security.

He goes on:

On social security, I recognise there is a consensus across the house on the urgent need for reform of our welfare system, because the British people deserve protection and dignity when they are unable to work, and support into work when they can.

At the moment, they are failed every single day by the broken system created by the Conservatives, which achieves neither.

I know colleagues across the house are eager to start fixing that, and so am I, and that all colleagues want to get this right, and so do I.

We want to see reform implemented with Labour values of fairness.

That conversation will continue in the coming days, so we can begin making change together on Tuesday.

Universal Credit - mitigation of the two-child limit: Key Details

 The Scottish Government has released draft regulations for a new two-child limit mitigation payment to be implemented for Universal Credit claimants in Scotland. This payment aims to offset the UK government's two-child limit policy, which restricts benefit payments for families with more than two children. The mitigation will provide a monthly payment equivalent to the Universal Credit child element for each eligible child beyond the first two. Applications for this payment will open on March 2nd, 2026, and will be managed by Social Security Scotland. 
Key Details:

    Mitigation Payment:
    The Scottish Government will provide a monthly payment equal to the Universal Credit child element (currently £292.81) for each third and subsequent child in a family impacted by the two-child limit, according to the Scottish Government. 

Application:
Families in Scotland eligible for Universal Credit but not receiving the child element for all their children due to the two-child limit will be able to apply to Social Security Scotland starting March 2nd, 2026. 
National Delivery:
The scheme will be administered nationally by Social Security Scotland, ensuring equal support for all eligible families across Scotland, regardless of location. 
Purpose:
The primary goal of the mitigation payment is to reduce child poverty in Scotland by providing additional financial support to families with more than two children. 
Evidence Base:
The Scottish Government conducted a public consultation to gather feedback on the proposed implementation of the mitigation payment, ensuring a strong evidence base for the legislation. 

To Members of the UK Parliament—A Call to Conscience: Parliament’s Role in Preventing a Humanitarian Crisis

To Members of the UK Parliament:

If you vote to pass the proposed PIP cuts, and sick and disabled people begin to die as a result of losing their lifeline benefits, know this: a formal complaint will be filed with the International Criminal Court. The charge? Democidal policy by neglect—state-sanctioned abandonment of the vulnerable.

I will also be reaching out to The Honourable Louise Arbour, a fellow Montrealer and one of the world’s most respected jurists. As former Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, she made history by indicting Slobodan Milošević for crimes against humanity. She later served as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Her legacy is one of fearless accountability.

As for me, I’ve been called “an iconic figure in Canadian disability history” by a University of Ottawa law professor. I do not make this statement lightly. I make it because I know what’s at stake.

History is watching. So is international law.

---

A Prayer for the Vulnerable in the UK

Merciful and Just God,

Today, we lift up the poor, sick, and disabled in the United Kingdom—those who stand on the precipice of hardship and despair. We ask for protection over the most fragile among us, for their lives are precious, and their dignity sacred.

Let justice prevail where injustice threatens. Stir the hearts of those in power, that they may see, truly see, the suffering of those their decisions affect. May compassion overcome indifference, and wisdom guide policy, so that no life is lost to neglect.

For those who bear the weight of illness and poverty, grant resilience. For those who fight for their rights, grant strength. For the advocates and allies who refuse to look away, grant perseverance.

And if the world grows cold, may love remain steadfast. May communities rise, hands extended in solidarity, refusing to let any be forgotten. Let humanity triumph where hope seems dim.

In unwavering faith, we pray.

Amen.

---

Subject: Russ Vought’s Dismissal of Austerity-Related Deaths Ignores Reality

 

Subject: The Reality of Austerity and Public Health Consequences

Russ Vought’s claim that fears of benefit cuts leading to deaths are “totally ridiculous” dismisses well-documented evidence from the UK. Studies have shown that austerity measures implemented after 2010 contributed to hundreds of thousands of excess deaths, particularly among vulnerable populations.

Research estimates 190,000 excess deaths over a decade due to reductions in welfare benefits, healthcare funding, and other public services. Another study suggests the number may be closer to 335,000 between 2010 and 2019. These deaths were linked to increased poverty, worsening health outcomes, and reduced access to essential services—clear consequences of austerity-driven policies.

Ignoring this evidence is dangerous. If similar measures were introduced in the U.S., we would likely see similar devastation among low-income and marginalized communities. Economic policy cannot be divorced from public health. Austerity is not merely about balancing budgets—it has direct, measurable impacts on life expectancy, well-being, and societal stability.

Dismissing concerns about benefit-related deaths is not a defense of responsible governance, it is an attempt to evade accountability. The historical evidence is clear: austerity can kill. The real question is whether policymakers are willing to acknowledge this reality—or continue pretending it doesn’t exist.

---

President Trump's Attitudes Toward People with Disabilities

 

Throughout his political career, former President Donald Trump has faced criticism for his remarks and policies regarding people with disabilities. His actions and statements have sparked controversy, raising concerns among disability rights advocates.

One of the most widely discussed incidents occurred during his 2016 presidential campaign when Trump appeared to mock Serge Kovaleski, a journalist with a disability. Kovaleski, who has arthrogryposis, a condition that affects joint movement, was imitated by Trump in a speech, an act that was widely condemned as insensitive and disrespectful.

Beyond this incident, Trump's administration pursued policies that disability rights advocates found troubling. His efforts to cut Medicaid funding posed a significant threat to individuals with disabilities who rely on the program for healthcare and support services. Additionally, his administration sought to roll back diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives, which could negatively impact protections for disabled individuals in workplaces and public spaces.

Further reports suggest that Trump has expressed deeply troubling views on disability in private conversations. According to Fred C. Trump III, the former president allegedly stated that people with severe disabilities "should just die," a remark that has been widely condemned as cruel and dangerous. Such statements reinforce harmful stigmas and undermine efforts to promote inclusion and support for disabled individuals.

Despite these controversies, disability rights advocates continue to push for policies that protect and empower individuals with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), passed in 1990, remains a cornerstone of disability rights in the United States, ensuring equal access and opportunities for millions of Americans.

In conclusion, Trump's attitudes and policies toward people with disabilities have been a source of significant concern. His remarks and policy decisions have drawn criticism from advocates who emphasize the importance of dignity, inclusion, and support for disabled individuals in society.

---