Launched in the spring of 2025, a research initiative powered by artificial intelligence (AI) called Disability Discourse Matters (DDM) is centered around the collection and analysis of statements that are publicly made by political leaders about people with disabilities. The DDM team also tracks related policy proposals, with a goal of creating a dataset that captures how disability is discussed at the federal level so that, over time, this information can be used to conduct a deeper analysis of how shifts in language relate to changes in law, policy, and public attitudes.
The DDM initiative was developed by Michael McCarthy, PhD, a postdoctoral associate in the Education Collaboratory at Yale Child Study Center (YCSC). “The language political leaders use shapes the society we live in, and how people with disabilities are talked about can influence policy, public perception, and daily life,” McCarthy says. While the dataset currently focuses on the White House and members of the U.S. Senate, the project will expand this spring to include statements from all members of the Senate. Later in 2026, it is expected to expand further to include statements from additional lawmakers, including members of Congress and the Judiciary Branch, as well as statements and rulings from Supreme Court justices and governors across all 50 states.
Statements for the project are analyzed using a four-point scoring system, in which a score of one indicates that the language dehumanizes or uses hate or ableist speech toward people with disabilities. A score of two reflects criticism of their abilities; a score of three reflects deficit-framed language; and a score of four values and affirms the social, cognitive, physical, and employment abilities of individuals with disabilities.
This past fall, a summary of DDM data collected between January and November 2025 was released, based on more than 100 statements made by politicians about people with disabilities during that time period. Slightly fewer than a quarter of the statements were scored as valuing the capabilities of individuals with disabilities, while a third of the statements used a deficit frame—or were focused on limitations—and nearly half were critical, included language identified as hate or ableist speech, and/or encouraged violence toward individuals with disabilities.
“Said in another way,” comments Education Collaboratory Director Chris Cipriano, PhD, “more than 75% of the political discourse regarding individuals with disabilities since January 2025 has been negative, critical, or harmful, relative to less than 25% of the discourse valuing individuals with disabilities.” McCarthy adds, “Words carry weight, and history has shown that the language used by politicians and policymakers profoundly shapes the policies, practices, and daily experiences of individuals with disabilities.”
The DDM team identified 32 proposed bills in 2025 that impact people with disabilities and found that the majority valued people with disabilities, though eight percent of the bills used a deficit frame. Of seven education-related bills introduced between January and November, nearly half used a deficit frame.