Access is a Right
- Kathleen Traylor
- 2 days ago
- 5 min read
Access Isn’t a Burden—It’s a Right
Posted: June 9, 2025
This week, I learned something that stopped me cold.
The Department of Energy has announced it will rescind the regulation that requires new buildings receiving federal funds to be accessible to people with disabilities.
Let me say that again: The government wants to delete the rule that says new construction has to be accessible. That’s not a typo. It’s happening under a “direct final rule” quietly filed under DOE-HQ-2025-0015 and DOE-HQ-2025-0024.
In their words, the regulation is now considered “unnecessary and unduly burdensome.”
In my words? It’s a betrayal—and a threat to decades of progress.
What’s Actually Happening
The Department of Energy (DOE), under the Trump administration, is rescinding a key provision of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act—specifically:
10 CFR 1040.73 – a rule that required all new or altered buildings receiving federal financial assistance to be accessible to disabled people.
This rule also required those buildings to follow Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS)—quantitative, objective guidelines for what “accessible” means (e.g., ramp widths, elevator buttons, door clearance).
💬 DOE’s Justification
DOE claims:
The regulation is “unnecessary and unduly burdensome”
General non-discrimination rules are enough (10 CFR 1040.71)
Accessibility requirements should be more flexible for private entities
A “one-size-fits-all” approach isn’t optimal
It’s part of their broader goal of deregulation
🚨 Why This Is a Big Deal
Gutting Disability Access Protections
This isn’t just a cleanup of old rules. It’s the active removal of a mandatory federal standard for making buildings accessible in programs receiving public funds.
Dismantling Enforceable Standards
Without UFAS—or a clear replacement—“accessible” becomes subjective. Private contractors and agencies can now interpret it however they want—or ignore it altogether.
Opening the Door for Broader Rollbacks
DOE is starting here, but this may be a trial balloon to undo accessibility across other agencies—HUD (housing), DOT (transportation), DOJ (civil rights), and more.
Blaming “Burden” to Justify Discrimination
The phrase “unduly burdensome” is often code for cutting costs over upholding civil rights. We’ve heard this same argument used against the ADA for years.
Precedent-Setting Deregulation
The DOE openly cites Executive Orders like 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”)—making it clear this is ideologically motivated and could spread further.
🧠 Why This Framing Is Dangerous
The regulation didn’t just say “don’t discriminate”—it said buildings must be usable.
Without this:
Publicly funded projects could again be built with stairs-only access, no visual or auditory cues, and bathrooms that are physically impossible to use.
People with disabilities are forced back into second-class participation.
Let’s be honest: Section 504 and the ADA are already just the minimum. Removing parts of them risks a return to exclusion—under the guise of “flexibility.”
🔮 What’s Likely Next?
Other agencies may follow suit, especially those with large infrastructure footprints—like HHS, HUD, or Education.
Lawsuits and advocacy challenges will likely arise if this becomes precedent.
Disability rights organizations will need to mobilize quickly to demand protection or replacement of enforceable standards.
What’s at Risk
This isn’t just a dusty rule in a government filing cabinet. It’s 10 CFR 1040.73—a regulation that has ensured, since 1980, that ramps get built, elevators are installed, and bathrooms are designed for people like me to actually use them.
It’s the rule that said if you’re going to receive federal money, you don’t get to pretend we don’t exist.
The regulation uses the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS)—a clear, enforceable set of design rules that take the guesswork out of access. Without it, the word “accessible” becomes vague, optional, or worse—ignored.
Section 504 Is More Than a Statement
Section 504 is more than a non-discrimination statement—it has long guaranteed access by requiring that newly constructed and altered facilities be usable by everyone, including people with disabilities. These rules, in place since 1978, reflect a carefully negotiated compromise: flexibility for existing facilities, but a firm commitment to full accessibility in all new construction moving forward.
To discard these protections now would:
Invite new construction that is inaccessible—especially in science, education, energy, and research facilities that receive DOE funds.
Undermine decades of bipartisan policy and coordination across over 80 federal agencies.
Create legal confusion for organizations receiving funding from multiple agencies or covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Destroy accountability by replacing enforceable accessibility standards with vague “flexibility.”
And this rulemaking is unlawful.
DOE’s use of a “direct final rule” process is deeply inappropriate. These are not routine updates. They are significant, controversial, and have profound civil rights implications. Courts have repeatedly affirmed that architectural accessibility is central to the Rehabilitation Act’s purpose (Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 1985). The DOE cannot lawfully delete foundational protections without full public input, interagency review, and Congressional oversight.
Why This Matters to Me
I’ve used a wheelchair for most of my life. I’ve been lifted up stairs by strangers, told “there’s no access, but we’ll help you,” and steered through side entrances meant for deliveries—sometimes up freight elevators or through loading docks—like an afterthought.
PHAMALY Theatre Company, which I co-founded, was born out of a need to stop hiding disability behind curtains. We built something beautiful, but it was never easy. And access was never a given.
When PHAMALY began 36 years ago—before the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law—we rehearsed in spaces that were far from ideal. Afterward, we’d try to socialize in nearby bars, most of which had steps at the entrance and no accessible restrooms. Those of us who used wheelchairs had to be carried inside by strangers. We often had to limit how much we drank because the restroom doors weren’t wide enough for a wheelchair—and if we managed to get inside, the stall doors couldn’t close behind us. Privacy wasn’t an option.
And yet, things got better. Slowly, thanks to public pressure, advocacy, changing laws, and the good intentions of many business owners, things started to shift. Some built ramps. Some widened doors. Some rethought their layouts entirely.
Not all of it was perfect—some ramps were too steep, some stalls still too small—but there was movement. Businesses, architects, city planners, and communities have spent the last four decades adapting and learning, with regulations like UFAS guiding that progress.
This rollback threatens to undo that momentum. It signals that accessibility is no longer a shared goal—but an inconvenience to be discarded.
This rollback feels like erasure. Like someone tearing a page out of the book we fought to write.
Let’s Be Clear
Accessibility is not a luxury.
It is not a courtesy.
It is a civil right.
The idea that it’s a “burden” to design spaces that include everyone is not just offensive—it’s discriminatory. And this rule change sends the message that equity is now optional again.
If we remove the standards that helped move businesses forward, we risk returning to a time when inclusion was an afterthought—if it was thought of at all.
What You Can Do
If this concerns you—even a little—please join me in speaking up.
✔️ Contact your representatives.
✔️ Share this story.
✔️ Submit a public comment to www.regulations.gov using docket numbers DOE-HQ-2025-0015 and DOE-HQ-2025-0024 before Monday, June 16.
✔️ Talk about it. Accessibility shouldn’t be a hidden issue. It should be a shared commitment.
We’ve come too far to let this go quietly.
Let’s keep moving forward—together.
With defiance, determination, and disability pride,
Kathleen Traylor
Advocate. Artist. Co-founder of PHAMALY Theatre Company.
댓글