The Trump administration’s recent decision to transfer oversight of key special education programs from the Department of Education to the Department of Health and Human Services has ignited widespread concern among disability advocates and families across the United States. At the center of the shift is Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose past public statements on autism and disabilities have drawn sharp criticism from those who work directly with students who have special needs.

Background on the Policy Shift

On June 16, 2026, Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced that the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, commonly known as OSERS, would enter into an agreement to move its programs to HHS. This includes responsibilities for implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, which guarantees students with disabilities the right to a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. The move is part of broader efforts to restructure federal education functions and reduce the footprint of the standalone Department of Education.

Under the new arrangement, HHS would handle disability education oversight while the Department of Justice would assume certain civil rights enforcement roles previously managed by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights. Officials described the change as a way to cut bureaucratic barriers and better align federal resources for individuals with disabilities and their families. Kennedy himself stated that the partnership would deliver more effective support.

RFK Jr.’s Record on Autism and Disability Issues

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long been a polarizing figure on health and disability topics. As HHS secretary, he has repeatedly framed autism as an epidemic linked to environmental factors, including vaccines, despite extensive scientific consensus to the contrary. In public remarks, he has described autistic children in terms that many find dehumanizing, suggesting some will “never pay taxes” or “hold a job.” Advocates note that he has walked back some statements only to reiterate concerns about severe cases and the need for “cures” or alternative approaches such as wellness programs.

These views stand in contrast to the prevailing educational approach under IDEA, which emphasizes individualized supports, inclusion with nondisabled peers, and preparation for independent adult life. Disability rights organizations argue that placing special education under an agency led by someone with this track record risks shifting policy away from educational best practices toward a more medicalized model focused on treatment rather than accommodation and opportunity.

Reactions from Disability Advocacy Groups

Leading organizations have responded swiftly and critically. The Autistic Self-Advocacy Network has stated that autistic students deserve accommodations and supports rather than attempts to “cure” their autism. Policy analysts from the group have expressed that the community does not feel safe with Kennedy in this role. The Autism Society of America has highlighted how misleading narratives about causes perpetuate stigma and distract from needed services like early intervention, inclusive education, and adult supports.

Senators including Patty Murray and Ed Markey have issued statements warning that the change will be devastating for families. Murray pointed out that students with disabilities require education experts at the helm, not individuals whose rhetoric has alienated the very communities served by these programs. Families and self-advocates echo these concerns, noting that decades of progress toward inclusion and self-determination could be undermined.

Photo by Tiry Nelson Gono on Unsplash

Implications for Students and Families

The transfer raises practical questions about continuity of services. OSERS has historically provided guidance, funding oversight, and technical assistance to states and school districts on individualized education programs, or IEPs, and related services. Moving these functions to HHS, which lacks the same depth of K-12 education infrastructure, could create gaps in expertise during the transition.

Advocates worry about reduced emphasis on inclusive classrooms and increased focus on medical interventions. For students with autism, ADHD, intellectual disabilities, and other conditions, this could mean fewer resources for behavioral supports, speech therapy, or assistive technology in school settings. Parents report already feeling heightened anxiety about whether their children’s legally mandated services will remain consistent.

Historical Context of Federal Disability Education Policy

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act traces its roots to the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act, passed after landmark court cases exposed widespread exclusion of students with disabilities from public schools. Over nearly five decades, the law has evolved to promote inclusion, transition planning, and parental involvement. The shift to HHS represents one of the most significant structural changes since its enactment.

Previous administrations have expanded protections through regulations and enforcement. The current restructuring occurs amid ongoing debates about federal versus state roles in education and the appropriate balance between health and education agencies in supporting children with complex needs.

Perspectives from Educators and Experts

Special education teachers and administrators have voiced apprehension about potential disruptions in federal guidance and funding streams. Many emphasize that effective special education requires deep knowledge of learning science, classroom strategies, and legal requirements under IDEA—areas where HHS has limited direct experience.

Some experts note that while coordination between health and education agencies can be beneficial, especially for students with medical complexities, the wholesale transfer risks diluting the educational focus that has driven progress. They call for robust safeguards, including continued involvement of education specialists in policy decisions.

Potential Challenges and Risks

Key risks include delays in IEP development and dispute resolution, reduced monitoring of state compliance, and shifts in research priorities away from inclusive practices. Disability groups also fear that rhetoric framing autism as something to be eradicated could influence resource allocation toward experimental treatments rather than proven educational supports.

Transition periods often bring uncertainty. School districts may face confusion over reporting requirements and technical assistance sources. Families, particularly those in underserved areas, could experience longer wait times for evaluations or service coordination.

Photo by Shelby Murphy Figueroa on Unsplash

Broader Societal Impacts

Beyond individual students, the policy change touches on larger questions of equity and inclusion. Students with disabilities represent a significant portion of the K-12 population, and their successful education contributes to workforce participation and community integration. Any erosion of supports could have long-term economic and social consequences.

The debate also highlights tensions between different models of disability—medical versus social. The social model, reflected in current IDEA implementation, views disability as arising from barriers in the environment rather than solely individual deficits. Advocates argue that HHS leadership may tilt policy toward the former.

Future Outlook and Calls for Oversight

As implementation proceeds, Congress and advocacy organizations are monitoring developments closely. Some lawmakers have called for hearings to examine the rationale and safeguards. Disability groups continue to urge retention of education-specific expertise within any new structure.

Stakeholders emphasize the importance of maintaining the core principles of IDEA: individualized planning, inclusion, and accountability. Whether the transfer ultimately strengthens or weakens these goals remains to be seen, but the immediate reaction underscores deep divisions over leadership and philosophy in serving students with disabilities.

For families navigating these changes, staying informed through official channels and connecting with local advocacy networks will be essential. The coming months will likely bring further details on how OSERS functions will operate under HHS and what adjustments states and districts must make.