Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) is more than a benefit. It is a foundational economic guarantee for people who are unable to work due to illness or injury. Its core promise is that one’s labor earns the right to dignity and basic security when hardship strikes.
The proposed changes would fundamentally alter how disability is determined in the United States.
Now, that social contract faces a grave threat. The administration of President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing a proposed rule that could reduce the share of applicants who qualify for SSDI by up to 20 percent, which would be the largest cut in the program’s history.
The proposed changes would fundamentally alter how disability is determined in the United States, with devastating consequences for older workers, their families, and nonprofits.
This is not about fiscal discipline. It is, rather, a violation of public trust. The fallout will not be abstract. Nonprofits will bear increased burdens as the public sector retreats from its responsibility.
How the Rules Would Change
The proposed changes are a calculated dismantling of protections for older disabled workers. Officials are looking at eliminating age as a factor in determining SSDI eligibility, or considering age only for applicants over 60 instead of over 50.
Currently, the Social Security Administration acknowledges a fundamental truth: Individuals over 50 are less adaptable to new fields of work and less likely to make a vocational transition, even when in good health.
The system acknowledges that a 55-year-old coal miner with a back injury faces different employment prospects than a 30-year-old with the same condition. Under current rules, applicants over age 50 must prove only that they cannot return to their previous work experience or any vocations they worked in the past, while applicants under age 50 must prove they can no longer perform any type of work.
The proposed changes would erase these crucial distinctions. An Urban Institute analysis found that even a cut half the size considered would mean 750,000 fewer people receiving SSDI benefits over 10 years. Including family members, the toll rises—about 80,000 spouses and children would lose support tied to those beneficiaries.
Consider what this means in human terms: Research shows that most older Americans who seek disability benefits do not find another job if their claim is denied. These aren’t people gaming the system. They’re workers whose bodies have been broken by decades of physical labor, who lack the education or resources to retrain for desk jobs, and who now face the prospect of poverty in what should be their secure years.
The health consequences cascade from there. SSDI recipients typically receive Medicare 24 months after they begin to receive benefits; if a person no longer qualifies for these benefits, they won’t be able to get Medicare until they turn 65. In states that haven’t expanded Medicaid, these individuals may find themselves in a coverage desert—too young for Medicare, too “healthy” for disability, too poor for private insurance.
The Nonprofit Sector as Involuntary Insurer
When the public sector retreats from its commitments, such as during government shutdowns, many nonprofits become de facto insurers of last resort, scrambling to catch those the safety net drops. The implications of SSDI cuts are both immediate and structural:
- Demand Surge
Food banks, housing programs, and emergency aid will likely see much higher demand. Organizations already stretched thin will see their waiting lists and needs grow rapidly.
- Mission Drift Under Duress
Nonprofits focused on education, arts, or development risk being pulled into crisis response. When benefits vanish, nonprofits can be saddled with a difficult choice of filling gaps at the expense of core programs or watching participants suffer.
- Equity Impact
People with disabilities are twice as likely to live in poverty as people without disabilities. They face extra barriers to housing, healthcare, jobs, and education. Cutting disability benefits does more than increase poverty; it shuts people out of community life.
- Trust Erosion
When earned benefits are denied, public faith in government and the civil sector erodes. Nonprofits, trying to fill impossible gaps, may seem like inadequate fixes instead of valued partners. The social fabric breaks in ways that can take generations to repair.
The Ripple Effect of Economic Devastation
The proposed cuts to SSDI trigger economic damage that extends far beyond individual beneficiaries. Federal cuts already approved by Congress to Medicaid and SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) will affect state economies, with program cuts jeopardizing people’s health, increasing hunger, and exacerbating hardships for millions of families. When federal dollars disappear from disability programs, entire communities feel the shock.
Healthcare providers, particularly safety-net hospitals and rural facilities, will lose revenue, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. An estimated $87 billion loss over the next 10 years for rural hospitals is anticipated, even after accounting for the $50 billion rural health fund meant to mitigate the cuts’ negative effects. Closures of some rural hospitals are near certain, and some rural health clinics have already closed since the Republican policy and spending “megabill” passed in July.
State governments might shift spending from other state-supported programs such as education and infrastructure, or hike taxes to cover the losses, but none of these measures, of course, is cost-free, and the vulnerability of a given state to the cuts varies according to factors like state-level poverty rates and age and disability profile.
Sign up for our free newsletters
Subscribe to NPQ's newsletters to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.
By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.
Crossroads for Nonprofits
Nonprofits stand at a crossroads. One option is to be the cleanup crew for public sector abandonment, serving, as an NPQ article years ago put it, as the “institutional equivalent of duct tape.” Or nonprofit leaders can recognize that defending earned social insurance is inseparable from their missions of building just, equitable communities.
This moment demands more than charity. It requires nonprofits to see themselves as primary defenders of the social contract.
At its core, this isn’t about budget numbers or bureaucratic rules. It’s about restoring a sense of social mission. SSDI embodies a fundamental moral principle: that a lifetime of work earns the security of support when disability strikes. It recognizes that human worth is independent of productive capacity, that dignity doesn’t disappear with disability.
When earned benefits are framed in public discourse as government largesse, the harm is not just to the individuals who lose their benefits. Rather, the very idea of mutual obligation that makes society possible is undercut. Every worker who pays into Social Security is buying insurance not just for themselves, but for the collective security of knowing that disability won’t mean destitution.
Defenders of the Social Contract
This moment demands more than charity. It requires nonprofits to see themselves as primary defenders of the social contract. Ensuring fairness in SSDI is not a side issue. It is central to preserving nonprofits’ ability to serve communities equitably.
So, what can be done? Here are a few potential action steps:
- Document the Damage
Track the rise in demand resulting from disability benefit denials. Create data systems that demonstrate the direct link between federal cuts and local suffering. While stories matter, numbers do too.
- Build Defensive Coalitions
Partner with disability rights organizations, aging advocates, and healthcare providers. More than 1,100 organizations led by the Disability and Aging Collaborative and the Consortium for Constituents with Disabilities are already mobilizing. Join them.
- Educate Constituencies
Many Americans don’t understand that SSDI is earned insurance. Use your platforms to explain what’s at stake. When a congregant, patron, or volunteer recognizes that their own future security is at risk, they become advocates.
This isn’t just about cutting a program; it’s about breaking a promise. Every paycheck stub with social security withholding represents a covenant.
- Prepare for the Storm
If SSDI cuts proceed, nonprofits need contingency plans. Identify which services you can expand, which you must protect, and which partnerships can help share the load. The time for crisis planning is now, not when the wave hits.
- Demand Accountability
Challenge the false narrative of fiscal responsibility. The federal government collected these insurance premiums from workers with a promise. Breaking that promise isn’t fiscal discipline—it’s theft.
Social Security’s Promise
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) called the proposed cut to SSDI “the largest cut to disability insurance in American history.” But this isn’t just about cutting a program; it’s about breaking a promise. Every paycheck stub with social security withholding represents a covenant—work today, security tomorrow.
The proposed rule changes would shatter that covenant, transforming earned insurance into discretionary charity. When the public sector breaks its promises, it doesn’t just harm the person losing benefits—it undermines the reciprocal bonds that hold society together.
Nonprofits must not quietly accept the role of substitute for abandoned public obligations. That path has been followed all too often in the past—and the results have been a constantly weakened social safety net.
Today, the choice is clear: Nonprofits can either be complicit in eroding economic justice or stand as fierce guardians and defenders of the social contract.
The workers who built this country, who paid into the system with every paycheck, who now face disability in their later years, kept their part of the bargain. The question now is whether nonprofits will fight to ensure the public sector keeps its promise, or whether they’ll simply manage the consequences of betrayal.
