Divide and Conquer: A Risky Strategy in Disability Funding

In its proposed FY 2026 budget, the Trump Administration has quietly but significantly shifted funding for University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities (UCEDDs) to the Independent Living Services program. On paper, this may seem like streamlining — but in practice, it’s a potential recipe for administrative chaos and long-term harm to people with disabilities.

Here’s the issue: UCEDDs are funded under the Developmental Disabilities Act, while the Independent Living Services program and the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program fall under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Trump Administration’s proposal would move funds authorized under one law into a program governed by a completely different statute. Whether that’s even legal is questionable.

More importantly, it’s bad policy.

If this proposal goes through, funds that currently support university-based research and training programs — programs that train professionals, evaluate what works, and build evidence-based practices — would be controlled by state VR agencies. These agencies have no obligation to fund UCEDDs or their work. The money would likely flow directly to Centers for Independent Living (CILs), which provide vital services but are not structured to do research or professional training.

CILs do important work: they help people with disabilities develop the skills to live as independently as possible and connect them with needed services. But they’re not designed to evaluate best practices or train the next generation of disability professionals. Eliminating UCEDD funding could gut this essential infrastructure — and for what? A short-term funding bump for services, at the cost of long-term progress and sustainability.

There’s a better way.

Congress should preserve separate funding for UCEDDs and CILs. But it should also incentivize stronger collaboration between the two. Their missions are distinct but complementary. Universities generate evidence-based strategies and train practitioners. CILs apply those strategies on the ground, helping people put them into practice.

By keeping the two funding streams separate — while fostering partnerships — we can preserve what works and build something even stronger. The Trump proposal, in contrast, would sow confusion, diminish outcomes, and take years to repair.

It’s time to tell Congress: don’t let a misguided budget maneuver undermine the disability infrastructure we’ve spent decades building. Keep UCEDD funding where it belongs — and strengthen collaboration instead of forcing consolidation.