Sponsors (15)
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Replaces outdated and pejorative federal legal terms that refer to "mental retardation" and similar phrases with modern, neutral language such as "intellectual disability" and "individuals with intellectual disabilities." It requires federal agencies to treat existing regulatory uses of the old terms as references to the new terms and to note that the prior terms were formerly used. The changes are strictly textual: they do not create new programs, change benefits or eligibility, or force states to change their own laws.
The bill reduces stigma and improves clarity by modernizing federal terminology for people with intellectual disabilities while preserving existing benefits — at the cost of modest administrative burdens, potential short-term legal ambiguity, and leaving states free to retain outdated language (which may limit broader program reforms).
People with intellectual disabilities: federal statutes and regulations will use modern, respectful terminology instead of outdated or stigmatizing language, helping reduce stigma and improve dignity.
Beneficiaries, providers, and administrators: the law makes clear the change is terminology-only and reassures that existing program coverage and benefits remain unchanged, reducing fear of lost benefits or eligibility.
Federal agencies, courts, and service providers: updated and consistent terminology (and an explicit requirement that agencies note equivalence when amending regulations) improves clarity across statutes and regulations, reducing confusion about who is covered by programs and protections.
Federal, state, and local agencies and providers: implementing the terminology changes will require staff time and administrative work to update statutes, regulations, forms, guidance, and cross-references, creating modest compliance costs.
People with disabilities and governments: brief legal uncertainty could arise if courts or practitioners interpret updated terms differently than legacy terms, potentially causing short-term disputes over statutory scope or program eligibility.
People with disabilities: because the change is limited to federal terminology and states may keep outdated language in state law, stigma and unequal treatment may persist in some states or programs.
Introduced May 15, 2025 by Pete Sessions · Last progress May 15, 2025