_______________________________________________________________________________
Vol. 69, No. 6 June 2026
Chris Danielsen, Editor
Distributed by email, in inkprint, in Braille, and on USB flash drive, by the
National Federation of the Blind
Mark Riccobono, President
telephone: 410-659-9314
email address: [email protected]
website address: http://www.nfb.org
NFBnet.org: http://www.nfbnet.org
NFB-NEWSLINE® information: 866-504-7300
Like us on Facebook: Facebook.com/nationalfederationoftheblind
Follow us on X: @NFB_Voice
Follow us on Mastodon: @[email protected]
Watch and share our videos: YouTube.com/NationsBlind
Letters to the President, address changes, subscription requests, and orders for NFB literature should be sent to the national office. Articles for the Monitor and letters to the editor may also be sent to the national office or may be emailed to [email protected].
Monitor subscriptions cost the Federation about forty dollars per year. Members are invited,
and nonmembers are requested, to cover the subscription cost. Donations should be
made payable to National Federation of the Blind and sent to:
National Federation of the Blind
200 East Wells Street at Jernigan Place
Baltimore, Maryland 21230-4998
THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND ADVANCES THE LIVES OF ITS MEMBERS AND ALL BLIND PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES. WE KNOW THAT BLINDNESS IS NOT THE CHARACTERISTIC THAT DEFINES YOU OR YOUR FUTURE. EVERY DAY WE RAISE THE EXPECTATIONS OF BLIND PEOPLE, BECAUSE LOW EXPECTATIONS CREATE OBSTACLES BETWEEN BLIND PEOPLE AND OUR DREAMS. OUR COLLECTIVE POWER, DETERMINATION, AND DIVERSITY ACHIEVE THE ASPIRATIONS OF ALL BLIND PEOPLE. THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND IS NOT AN ORGANIZATION SPEAKING FOR THE BLIND—IT IS THE BLIND SPEAKING FOR OURSELVES.
ISSN 0006-8829
Each issue is recorded on a thumb drive (also called a memory stick or USB flash drive). You can read this audio edition using a computer or a National Library Service digital player. The NLS machine has two slots—the familiar book-cartridge slot just above the retractable carrying handle and a second slot located on the right side near the headphone jack. This smaller slot is used to play thumb drives. Remove the protective rubber pad covering this slot and insert the thumb drive. It will insert only in one position. If you encounter resistance, flip the drive over and try again. (Note: If the cartridge slot is not empty when you insert the thumb drive, the digital player will ignore the thumb drive.) Once the thumb drive is inserted, the player buttons will function as usual for reading digital materials. If you remove the thumb drive to use the player for cartridges, when you insert it again, reading should resume at the point you stopped.
You can transfer the recording of each issue from the thumb drive to your computer or preserve it on the thumb drive. However, because thumb drives can be used hundreds of times, we would appreciate their return in order to stretch our funding. Please use the return envelope enclosed with the drive when you return the device.
Vol. 69, No. 6 June 2026
Convention Bulletin
From the Editor
by Chris Danielsen
Employment Events at the 2026 National Convention
by Lia Stone
How to Be a Blind Wheelchair User
by Ellana Crew
When the Pain Is Real, but the Reason Is Invisible
by Kaleigh Brendle
We Need Your Help
Becoming the Voice His Daughter Will Need
by Ismael Collazo
Keep NFB Advancing: Give $25 in ’26
The Super-Braillers and Me
by Will Hendrick
Indiana Drops Out, but States Continue to Threaten Section 504 in Lawsuit
by Anna Claire Vollers
Once Again, the Federal Government Delays Equal Access
by Chris Danielsen
DOJ Delay of ADA Web Rule Undermines Equal Access
by Mark Riccobono and Eve Hill
From the President’s Desk
The National Federation of the Blind’s National Convention brings together blind people from across the country and around the globe. We come from all walks of life. Some of us have been blind all our lives, while others may be new to blindness. Some are young, some have been around the sun more than a few times. Some are convention first-timers, while others have been attending for decades. Our patchwork of individual experiences makes us stronger together, and it means that our national conventions are a celebration of our diversity.
Over the course of eighty-five annual conventions, nearly three dozen cities reflecting similar diversity have played host to the NFB’s biggest event of the year. Yet, among this broad list of destinations, our convention has never come to the capital city of Texas to gather and celebrate. This will change next month when we head to the JW Marriott Austin for our annual National Convention!
Austin is widely known as the “Live Music Capital of the World,” having been home to the PBS program Austin City Limits for more than fifty years and host to the annual South by Southwest music and media festival. Austin also boasts a vibrant arts scene with many public art displays throughout the city. But Austin isn’t just fueled by creative energy. A strong technology sector thrives here, with many tech companies establishing headquarters in the city. Waymo and Tesla are two notable names, as both companies offer autonomous vehicle rides within Austin. The University of Texas at Austin, with over 50,000 students, sits just north of downtown. Visitors will notice an emphasis on local retailers over national chains. This broad and eclectic diversity perpetuates the popular “Keep Austin Weird” vibe and makes for a truly unique destination.
The upscale JW Marriott Austin will serve as our headquarters hotel, and all convention events will take place here. Our block of sleeping rooms at the JW is fully booked. However, there is plenty of space at all our nearby overflow hotels.
The recently opened Austin Marriott Downtown is a couple blocks’ walk from the JW Marriott. Specify our room block code, BL1, when calling 800-627-7468 to book your room. The hotel offers several on-site dining options, a 24/7 fitness center, and a pool with rentable cabanas. Please note that rooms do not have refrigerators, but these are available upon request for those who must keep medications cold.
The Courtyard by Marriott Austin Downtown is just a few blocks from the JW Marriott and offers a Starbucks and Champions Sports Bar, a pool, fitness center, and breakfast buffet for just over twenty dollars. Call 800-321-2211, ask for the Courtyard by Marriott Austin Downtown, and mention the National Federation of the Blind National Convention to book a room.
Located at the same address as the Courtyard, the Residence Inn Austin Downtown includes access to Starbucks and a complimentary breakfast buffet at Champions Sports Bar for guests. The pool and fitness center are also available. To book, call 800-331-3131, ask for the Residence Inn Austin Downtown, and request the National Federation of the Blind National Convention room block.
All 2026 convention hotels offer our nightly rate of $139 for singles and doubles. Triples and quads are available for $155 per night. Sales tax and a tourism fee total a combined 19.7 percent. For each room you book, the hotel requires a deposit of the first night’s room rate, taxes, and fees, payable by credit card or a personal check. If a reservation is cancelled before Sunday, June 1, 2026, half of the deposit will be returned. Refunds will not be issued after that date.
In-person registration for convention on the NFB website closes on May 31, but onsite registration will be available in Austin for a cost of $30 per person plus $90 per banquet ticket. Registration includes the biggest event of the year, access to the mobile app, and communications on the latest news and events. Registration for the Convention Virtual Experience is still open. The Virtual Experience registration fee is $10. Virtual Experience registration includes access to the mobile app and the opportunity to win door prizes. Links to both registration forms are at nfb.org/convention. The latest convention information will also be available on that webpage.
The 2026 Convention of the National Federation of the Blind will be an exciting and memorable event, with an unparalleled program and renewed dedication to the goals and work of our movement.
Make plans to be a part of it.
Remember that we need door prizes from state affiliates, local chapters, and individuals. Prizes should be small in size but significant in value. Cash, of course, is always appropriate and welcome. As a general rule, we ask that prizes have a value of at least $25 and do not include alcohol. Drawings take place throughout the convention sessions, and you can anticipate a grand prize of truly impressive proportions to be drawn at the banquet.
Important note for attendees: You must be registered to win a door prize!
If you or members of your chapter are first-time attendees, please learn about convention through the First-Timer’s Guide available at nfb.org/convention.
by Chris Danielsen
As I write this note in preparation for finalizing the issue that is now in your hands, we are in the midst of a very busy May in which the focus is advocacy. It will be clear why that is as you read this issue. Doubtless you have also heard something about our recent advocacy efforts on either the live or recorded Presidential Releases, received calls to action via email, or even ran across mainstream news articles. As President Riccobono has said, the National Federation of the Blind is as critical now as it has been at any time in our history, perhaps even more so. Since there were a lot of fast-moving developments in late April and early May, the Braille Monitor may not be your first source of information on some topics, but we have included items in this issue that we hope make it the most in-depth coverage of some of those developments. We also note that you can get much of the latest information on advocacy efforts by visiting https://nfb.org/advocacy. There you can read our latest policy statements, legislative priorities, and more.
Two informative articles in this issue deal with the intersection of blindness and other disabilities. While the Federation is focused on barriers faced by the blind and deafblind, we must not forget that other disabilities can present barriers to our members’ full participation in our movement if we are not intentional about learning and addressing their needs. Ellana Crew shares what she has learned about using a cane in conjunction with a wheelchair, and Kaleigh Brendle reminds us that disabilities—even physical ones—are not always obvious but have real effects that require the care, consideration, and support of our Federation community.
Ismael Collazo is the president of the National Federation of the Blind of South Dakota. He has been a chef, is now an entrepreneur, and has a family. In a beautifully written piece appropriate to the celebration of Father’s Day this month, Izzy shares his journey and how blindness, training, and fatherhood have molded him into the advocate he is today.
Our May articles centering around the concept of independence continue to generate discussion. Colleen Roth of Ohio called to share her thoughts on how independence redefines itself for many of us as not only our individual needs, but the needs of our families change. She said that as a blind parent of children with other disabilities, she found services like paratransit very helpful, even as she recognizes that blind people generally should learn about and can use public transportation. Now a grandmother, she uses a quad cane rather than a traditional white cane, and sometimes a wheelchair.
She urges us to accept people where they are. In the same vein, Will Hendrick writes about an experience he had earlier in his Federation involvement that, without anyone intending it, did not make him feel valued or welcomed as he worked on building his Braille skills. While he recognizes the role of his own feelings about what happened, we believe that sharing his experience in these pages can help our community be a more inviting one. Finally, Kemuel Perez shared the following: “Through leadership and community involvement, I have learned that independence is not isolation—it is empowerment supported by others who share the same goals. Ultimately, independence begins with mindset. It is something we claim by believing in our abilities and taking action. For me, independence means living with confidence, purpose, and the freedom to define my own life.”
The countdown to National Convention continues, so we’re pleased to include an article from the chair of the National Federation of the Blind Employment Committee sharing what they have planned for jobseekers who will be attending, as well as the last “2026 Convention Bulletin” before the big event. All of this and more awaits your perusal, and hopefully your feedback as well. I look forward to receiving the latter at [email protected] or by phone at 410-659-9314, extension 2330.
Your article submissions are welcome as well. You can review our recently developed submissions policy by visiting https://nfb.org/braille-monitor. There you can also peruse our Early Access content and the online versions of our latest issues.
Happy reading!
by Lia Stone
I was raised in a union household, and because of that, I’ve always understood myself first and foremost as a worker. I’ve been blind since age eleven and started working at fourteen. Aside from a brief stretch after back-to-back layoffs in 2022, I’ve spent my entire adult life employed as a blind person. Those experiences shaped my belief that work is dignity and that we as blind people have something to contribute in every corner of the workforce. That belief guides my work as chair of the National Federation of the Blind Employment Committee and fuels our efforts to lower the abysmal unemployment rate in our community.
Throughout the year, the Employment Committee hosts programs to support blind jobseekers and professionals, but nothing compares to what we offer at National Convention. Every summer, we bring together workshops, panels, and our signature career fair to help members prepare for and secure the jobs they want. I’m excited to share a preview of what we’re planning for Austin.
Our biggest event is the career fair, where we will connect employers from Texas and across the country with talented blind jobseekers. Members often ask for more mid-career opportunities and a wider mix of industries, and we continue building those relationships year-round. Blindness agencies will of course be featured at the fair, not because we love repetition, but because improving rehabilitation services requires blind professionals with a positive philosophy shaping those systems from within. Be sure to check the agenda when it’s released for the new date and time.
We’ll also host our annual Seeking Success Seminar (the event formerly known as the Job Seeker’s Seminar) where speakers and panelists will dig into topics members consistently ask for, including entrepreneurship, the impact of AI on employment, and navigating career transitions. Stay tuned for the full seminar agenda.
And this year, we’re bringing back a classic: a program designed specifically for early-career professionals. Some of you may remember the Upward Mobility seminars from years past. Well, they’re back—revived by a new group of emerging leaders who are ready to help the next generation of blind professionals launch their careers with confidence. The Blind Professional Playbook will cover everything from self-advocacy in a first job to building strong professional networks, with time built in for connecting with other early-career attendees.
Our committee is working hard to make this year’s employment programming the strongest yet. We always welcome ideas and feedback. All are welcome to share feedback at our committee meeting at convention, or you can email me at [email protected].
I can’t wait to see everyone in Austin! Until then, I’ll be getting back to work!
by Ellana Crew
From the Editor: Ellana Crew has worn many hats in the National Federation of the Blind, including serving on our national staff in the Independence Market. She is currently secretary of the Central Maryland Chapter while pursuing a degree in disability studies.
When I first started experimenting with using a wheelchair almost three years ago, figuring out how to use my white cane at the same time was like searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack. I was a well-rounded cane traveler with hundreds of hours of blindfolded Structured Discovery training under my belt, so I figured that I could teach myself with a little research, but what I found was an information drought. I combed through online forums and internet search results, hunting for any scrap of information I could find, but I typically emerged from these research sessions largely empty-handed. The only blind people I could find making videos about it seemed not to use canes at all. An old APH document on the topic seemed to rely on a lot of traditional closed-minded assumptions. And though I successfully unearthed two articles by blind wheelchair users in the archives of our National Federation of the Blind publications—one by Maureen Pranghofer and the other by the late Treva Olivero—neither went into the kind of detail I needed to teach myself from the ground up. They provided excellent pro tips that I still use, but what I truly needed was a complete beginner’s guide, and I didn’t have one of those. I had only three or four tiny pieces of a much larger puzzle. I put those puzzle pieces together to the best of my ability, but there was still much that I was left to figure out on my own. It felt like I was reinventing the wheel—pun intended.
Since then, however, quite a few more of those pieces have fallen into place. Over the course of around six months, I built myself a network of contacts from whom to learn. Some of them were my old blindness skills instructors, such as my former Orientation and Mobility (O&M) teacher L J Bowens. Some of them were blind people I found online who did not have the same cane training I did but had the wheelchair-using experience, allowing me to ask them questions and then workshop my own solutions. And some of them were Federation members who had known blind wheelchair users.
Eventually, I was also able to successfully make the case to my state VR agency that I needed a new round of adjustment-to-blindness training, this time at the Louisiana Center for the Blind (LCB). It was there that I made the most progress, working closely with Roland Allen as my travel instructor to stretch my skills and test the boundaries of what was possible. I spent five full months re-learning how to cross streets, re-training the muscle memory of my cane arc so that I would quit smashing my rims into door frames, and practicing wheelies in the grass to get better at hopping over train tracks.
I am still by no means an expert. I’ve only been using my wheelchair for around three years, only have direct first-hand experience with manual chairs, have never used a guide dog with or without my wheelchair, and cannot speak for every blind wheelchair user and every situation. I have collected quite a breadth of information, though, and I think it’s high time that we take a firehose to the information drought on this topic so that others are not left in the same place that I was in the beginning.
In this article I plan to share the most fundamental things I believe you should know about using a white cane and a wheelchair at the same time, according to my research and experience. I have done my best to cover a wide range of factors and variables, although my aforementioned limitations should be fair warning that this guide cannot cover every situation. Hopefully, however, it will provide enough of a jumping-off point for you to experiment with solutions for your own needs and then perhaps spark further contributions to the Braille Monitor by those who can share perspectives that I cannot.
And so, with all of that said, let’s begin.
The first thing to know is that choosing the cane you use with a wheelchair will in many cases involve different considerations than choosing a cane for walking. To start, a wheelchair user will often require a cane that is longer than that of an ambulatory cane user. This is for two primary reasons:
But exactly how much longer does your cane need to be? This depends on a wide variety of factors: how fast you tend to move in your chair, how high off the ground your seat is, how your disability may or may not affect your reaction speed, the angle of your footplate, whether you are using a manual chair or a power chair and how quickly you accelerate and decelerate on average, and the position in which you hold your cane relative to your body and chair. Because of all these variables, I believe that there is no set standard or universal rule that can be applied to all wheelchair users. However, when asked, I usually suggest taking whatever your typical recommended cane length would be when standing based on your height and go up two sizes as a starting point. If that’s not enough reaction time, continue to experiment with taller and taller canes until you find the one that allows you to move, navigate, and stop at a comfortable pace.
I am a firm believer that the cane should match the user, not the other way around, so if the cane you are using in your chair isn’t giving you enough reaction time, in most cases I believe a longer cane will be more beneficial than artificially slowing your pace to meet the limitations of your cane. I know I am not the only blind wheelchair user who has been unduly advised to slow down when I knew that I could keep myself perfectly safe with a longer cane.
All that said, one thing to keep in mind is that by being seated, to some extent your cane is automatically a little farther ahead of you than the same cane would be on foot because you are lower down in space, which changes the angle at which your cane tip meets the ground. This means that some people may be able to use the same cane in a wheelchair that they would when standing, especially if they tend to move relatively slowly in their chair and their seat is fairly low compared to other wheelchair users. But for many, this effect is not enough to compensate for the above factors, hence my general recommendation of a longer cane for most wheelchair users. But do keep this caveat in mind because there are always exceptions.
Due to a variety of factors, the type of cane you choose to use with a wheelchair may also need to be considered differently than it would if you are ambulatory. For instance, a lightweight cane can be even more important for many wheelchair users, both because some of our disabilities also affect our hand strength and dexterity and because we are often positioned lower down in space than someone who is standing, which can make the extra weight of a heavier cane feel even more pronounced. For similar reasons, using a cane that tapers to be skinnier at the bottom than it is at the top can also be extra important for a wheelchair user. That tapering changes the weight distribution of the cane to be more concentrated at the handle, so that you do not feel the weight as much down by the tip. Even when I am using my ultra-lightweight NFB rigid cane, which is the lightest cane I’ve ever used, its weight is more noticeable to me when I am in my wheelchair than it is when I am ambulatory because of the different angle.
For similar weight reasons, a rigid cane can also be more advantageous, just as it is when ambulatory. Many people are under the impression that a wheelchair user must always use a collapsable cane. But in most cases, rigid canes when using a wheelchair provide all the same benefits that they do when on foot, such as lighter weight and enhanced tactile feedback. They also feature all of the same drawbacks in terms of being slightly less convenient to store when not actively in motion. But holding a rigid cane while at rest in a wheelchair is not significantly different from doing the same while seated in an ordinary chair in my experience, and so if a rigid cane provides you more functional benefit than a folding one, I say use it anyway and experiment with the most comfortable resting positions for your needs. I frequently wedge my cane shaft between one of my clothing guards and the side of my cushion with the upper shaft resting against my backrest beside my push handle or with the handle leaning against the wall behind me.
It may also be possible to lean the cane against your shoulder with the tip held between your feet, clamp it between your knees, position it behind your footplate and lean it against your seat so the footplate acts as a stopper, lean it up against a nearby wall or corner, hold it between your shoulder and chin, or even stick the tip inside your shoe if the tip is small enough. For wheelchair users who may need frequent assistance being pushed, you may also experiment with the best position in which to hold it so that the upper half is not poking the person pushing your wheelchair in the face. Some strategies may also be utilized for clamping or strapping your cane to a spot on your frame, for which you can often draw ideas from wheelchair users who do the same for a physical support cane or crutches, with modifications for the height and diameter of white canes as needed.
There are certainly exceptions to this; I have met a handful of blind wheelchair users for whom the nature of their disabilities sincerely require them to use a heavier cane. However, this so far appears to be the exception and not the norm, and some of those same people still experience hand pain or other difficulties from those heavier canes but still choose them based on the overall pros and cons for their individual circumstances. And so, I would personally still suggest starting with something light and tapered like the NFB Chris Park cane, the D Cane, or the non-tapered Ambutech Slimline cane and working up to other options as needed. The Revolution graphite cane may be a good in-between weight for some users, while Ambutech canes are often the heaviest—at least until entering the heavy-duty market with options like the titanium All Terrain Cane.
Just as the weight of the cane itself can be more important for wheelchair users, so too can the weight of the tip you choose. As mentioned before, some of our disabilities can also affect our hand strength and dexterity, and so heavier tips can be even more detrimental for us than they can for ambulatory users. And just as our lower position in space can make the weight of the cane itself feel more pronounced, the same is true for our cane tips. in most cases, therefore, I suggest using small and lightweight tips, such as metal glide and ceramic tips. These tips provide excellent weight balancing, great aerodynamics, and superior tactile and auditory feedback compared to larger and heavier tips. They are also versatile enough to enable the use of a wide variety of techniques for different situations.
Fixed tips can also be more advantageous than rolling tips for similar reasons. I have encountered a surprising number of people who believe that a wheelchair user must only use rolling tips. However, the user being on wheels does not automatically require their cane to be on wheels as well. Rolling tips are often much heavier than fixed tips, and for those of us with limited hand strength, the momentum created by a rolling tip can sometimes make it more difficult for us to wrench the cane back in the opposite direction after reaching the edge of the cane arc.
I have noticed that this momentum issue for me personally can cause great hand pain, and so I find fixed tips much easier to control for my particular disability. Others with greater hand strength and hand control may not experience such difficulty when changing directions, but a rolling tip will still be significantly heavier, and that extra weight may feel more pronounced while seated in a wheelchair. And of course, the usual disadvantages of rolling tips still exist when using them in a wheelchair, such as reduced tactile feedback and limited opportunity for auditory feedback from tapping the cane. The auditory effect is especially pronounced because rolling tips are often made from plastic, which does not produce such a crisp sound when tapped and does not generate as much detail through touch compared to materials like metal or ceramic.
One concern I have heard expressed not just by wheelchair users, but also blind people who haven’t had much experience with metal and ceramic tips, is that these tips cannot be used with constant contact. Although some vendors like Ambutech may advertise metal glide tips in particular as being only designed for two-point touch technique, this is not true, and in fact a good cane tip should be designed for numerous techniques, as the well-rounded cane traveler should ideally be making use of multiple techniques for different situations. The questions of when and where to use each cane technique are beyond the scope of this guide, but I can say with certainty that both a metal glide and ceramic cane tip are versatile enough to be used with virtually any technique. So, for those wheelchair users whose disabilities make the dexterity involved in two-point touch extremely difficult, you need not worry that the tips I’ve suggested here will not be usable if you need to make more frequent use of the constant contact technique.
Again, though, there will be exceptions. Just as the nature of some disabilities can sincerely necessitate a heavier cane, they can also sometimes necessitate a heavier tip, and some find the momentum of a rolling tip to be a help rather than a hinderance. Some disabilities can also impair a person’s proprioception—the body’s ability to perceive its position, movement, and spatial orientation without visual input—such that they struggle to detect large drop-offs, such as stairs and curbs, without a tip that is either large or heavy enough to make the sensation significantly more obvious. Still others may use a small lightweight tip for greater functionality but use something like loose metal washers or tied-on bells to produce an obvious sound to alert them of such changes if they are not physically able to detect them reliably by touch.
Given that falling off of a curb or step can be far more dangerous to someone in a wheelchair than it can be to most on foot, ensuring you have adequate drop-off detection for your disability is imperative. That said, these cases are often still the exception and not the norm in the experience I’ve had so far, and so I would still recommend starting with something small, lightweight, and with great feedback for most and then experimenting with other options once lighter options have been thoroughly exhausted. No need to risk pain, tiredness, or repetitive stress injury from a heavy rolling tip if something small and lightweight will get the job done just as well. I will also discuss some technique options later on that may aid in better drop-off detection without requiring a specific tip type.
And now we move onto the real meat of the question: How do you use a white cane and a wheelchair at the same time? The first thing I will say is that there is not one single answer to this question. There are many types of wheelchairs and power attachments and many different individual needs. However, I will try to cover the main options available to you, and we will talk separately about power chairs and manual chairs.
If you use a power chair, I have good news because your answer to this issue is much simpler than manual chair options for most. The majority of power chairs that I know of are operated fully one-handed, leaving your other hand free to use your cane as usual. This certainly gives many power-chair users an advantage in learning to use their canes from their wheelchairs. So long as you have enough hand function in at least one hand to use a white cane and enough hand function in the other to operate your chair, you shouldn’t have too many other factors to worry about. The primary consideration will likely be in which hand to use the cane and which to use the chair control, particularly if you do have issues with hand function, and you may want to try a wide variety of joysticks and control methods for your chair to find what works best for your needs.
If hand function or coordination is an issue such that using a cane in one hand and chair controls in the other is not possible but one hand can still use the cane, you may want to look into alternative control methods for your chair that do not require the hand. I will admit to knowing extremely little about these alternatives other than that some do exist, however, so this will be something you will want to research heavily on your own time to determine if they would work for you or not. There are certainly some who will simply not be able to use a cane and operate their chairs independently at the same time due to the nature of their disabilities and hand function in particular, but it may still be worth researching as many options for chair controls as possible if you have the ability to use a white cane.
Note: if you use a power chair which allows you to adjust the height of your seat for easier access to tables or conversations, you may want to pick a consistent seat height at which you keep your chair when traveling, at least while you are still learning, and find an accessible way to return your seat to that same height. Inconsistent seat heights when using your cane could produce varying reaction time with your cane due to changing the angle at which your cane extends forward and thereby altering exactly how far ahead your cane tip is from one outing to another.
We manual wheelchair users often have to get a little more creative about how we operate our chairs and canes at the same time. The typical manual wheelchair requires the use of both hands on the push rims, which does not leave a free hand for the white cane. There are several options to try out, however, so the answer need not necessarily be to just use a power chair instead.
The first option, requiring the least specific chair design and augmentation choices, is to hold both the cane handle and one push rim in the same hand, sweeping the cane between each push as you move. I confess that I have had significant trouble learning how to perform this technique. However, I have met several manual wheelchair users who do, one of whom was our very own late Treva Olivero, as she described in an article she wrote for the Future Reflections magazine entitled “From Tumbles to Triumphs: Using a Cane from a Wheelchair.” You may need to experiment quite extensively with this technique to determine if it will work for you, trying different grip positions, arc movements, and potentially different push rim shapes and textures. Some may need to wrap the whole hand around both the cane handle and push rim, some may split their fingers between cane and push rim like some crutch users do when carrying other objects, and some may only use the palm or heel of the hand to push the wheel and so have the cane wrapped with all of the fingers. Making this technique work can be very individualized and require plenty of trial and error. However, if you can achieve it, it will often allow you to have the greatest choice and flexibility in your chair features, since it does not require any special customizations to make it work.
When using this technique, however, you may want to pay special attention to your cane arc to ensure that it is even. Because this technique means that your arc will begin with the handle held off to the side instead of the center of your body, it can require more practice to ensure your arc does not fall too short on one side or the other. I have personally found myself prone to not sweeping far enough out on my right side when experimenting with this technique, leading to swiping my right push rim on things too frequently as I pass. If you find this technique effective for you, be sure to pay close attention to your cane arc as you practice it in order to build good habits.
A second option is a one-arm drive system on your manual chair so that both wheels can be pushed with only one hand. These systems place both push rims on one side, the standard push rim that controls the wheel on that side and a second, smaller push rim that controls the opposite wheel via a removable axle. To move forward or backward, the user grips both push rims at once, and to turn, you only operate one push rim. One-arm drive systems are used most often for those with one-sided upper limb differences or significantly reduced hand and arm function on one side, but they can be repurposed for those of us who need a hand free for our second mobility aid.
The largest potential downside to this feature is that it can be more challenging to push yourself long distances or up hills with only the power of one arm. It can also make the chair slightly heavier overall and require some dexterity, so it may be best for those with reasonably good hand function and upper-body strength or may need to be augmented with a power-assist attachment. It can also lead to your chair arm building up a bit more strength from pushing compared to your cane hand, but so long as you do not mind some slight asymmetry of your arms to those who look closely enough, a one-arm drive system can offer great freedom to use your cane normally in the other. It also leaves your cane hand free to hold the cane in the center of your body, if you are able, rather than off to the side, avoiding the more complex cane arc work involved in the first option we discussed. This customization can be quite pricey, however, and so you will want to ensure that you have a wheelchair occupational therapist (OT) who is very good at writing medical justifications for your desired features.
A third option—assuming you have the leg function—is foot propelling. This is how I have personally chosen to use my manual wheelchair most of the time because my disability allows me to do so. This option will certainly not be possible for many whose disabilities prevent it, but if you are physically able, foot propelling can be a great option that leaves both of your hands free, allowing even more flexibility than most power-chair users. I am often seen on my college campus rolling along with my cane moving in one hand and a Starbucks cup in the other. It also allows me to keep my cane centered in front of my body, avoiding the more complex cane arc practice required of the first technique, and having my feet on the ground allows me to get a little extra feedback about the surface, as I would when walking. Having my non-cane hand free also means that I can use that hand for extra leverage on small slopes or when turning or even just for a little extra momentum on occasion.
However, for larger slopes, foot propelling can be quite difficult on its own, and so you may find yourself needing to use both hands for a push or two with a sweep of the cane in between or opting for a power-assist attachment as I have. The major downside to foot propelling, however, is limiting your options for rigid-frame wheelchairs, as the fixed footplate will inevitably get in your way. However, some manufacturers, such as TiLite and Sunrise Medical, offer rigid chair models and customizations that include split flip-up or fully removable footrests, so it can still be possible to have both if you can get insurance to pay the extra price for it. I plan on going for this in my next chair. Do also note that if you plan to use foot propelling as a primary technique, your seat height will need to be much lower to ensure you have good traction.
You may also be able to make use of some combination of both foot propelling and pushing with one hand if you are able to do so but neither one is good enough on its own. Having the strength of both feet and one arm may be a great combination for some people depending on your disability, or even one arm and one leg if one of your legs is capable of foot propelling but the other is not. You may even be able to combine foot propelling with a one-arm drive system to make this method more effective. I do not have a one-arm drive system on my current chair, but just having one hand on my left wheel can give me a little extra speed or power from time to time. If you do this without a one-arm drive system, however, be aware that putting only one hand on one wheel like this may sometimes cause you to turn or veer slightly in the opposite direction. I have found that my feet doing most of the directing largely sidesteps this issue but be sure to pay attention to your trajectory when doing this to stay on track.
If manual propulsion on its own will not meet your needs well enough, you may also consider a power-assist attachment. This is a motorized device that attaches to a manual wheelchair in different ways to enable the user to have some power at their disposal while not losing the overall lightness and maneuverability of a manual wheelchair.
Power assists come in three primary configurations. The first category includes options such as the SmartDrive, SMOOV, Empulse R90, Klaxon Twist, and Light Drive, which come in the form of an extra motorized wheel attached to the back of the chair between the large rear wheels, which is operated by a one-handed control unit that consists of either buttons or dials. Rear mounted power assists usually cannot steer for you, however, they may be best for blind users who are able to steer either by foot propelling, as I do, or by moving their hands between the cane plus control unit and the wheels.
The second category are rear wheel replacements that have power built in and are activated either by pushing them manually or operating a control device like a joystick. With manually pushed powered wheels, they are steered the same way as regular rear wheels, by using your hands on the push rims. With joystick-operated wheels, the joystick allows you full directional control with one hand, essentially turning your manual chair into a power chair. Some available manually-operated power wheels include the E-Motion and NaviONE wheels, and these may be well suited to those who are able to hold the cane and the push rim in one hand, as they cannot be operated one-handed. Some joystick-controlled options include the E-Fix and NaviGo wheels, which can be great for those who need one-handed control, and some powered wheels like the Empulse M90 can do both joystick and manual push power. These options are great for blind users who want their power assist to also be able to handle the steering.
The final category includes choices like the Firefly, Batek, Klaxon Klick, Triride, and Empulse F35, which consist of an extra motorized wheel mounted to the front of a wheelchair. Front-mounted power assists lift the front castor wheels off the ground, effectively turning your wheelchair into a tricycle. They typically have handlebars on top, which the user must use to steer. I will personally admit that I have largely excluded front-mounted power assists from my own pool of options because they obstruct the use of a white cane. Based on my experience trying them, they can also be somewhat difficult to control with only one hand on the handlebars if the other is using a cane, though readers may want to do their own research.
These are all of the options that I have thus far discovered for manual wheelchair users. For some, however, none of these options will be suitable, even if they would be able to push a manual chair in the traditional way if they did not need to use a white cane, and in these cases it may indeed be necessary to move to a power chair. I have found that I and other blind wheelchair users have been pushed unnecessarily toward a power chair simply on the basis of white cane use without being given the chance to explore other options that may work perfectly well for us, but as I have hopefully driven home already in this guide, there will always be exceptions and edge cases for whom none of the other suggestions here will work. I believe in making sure your wheelchair meets your physical mobility needs before making changes based solely on the use of the white cane because, as we wheelchair users know, an ill-suited wheelchair can do more long-term damage to our bodies and our health.
But there may be situations in which the second-best option is preferable if the drawbacks are minor enough to make the ability to use the cane significantly more possible, which can sometimes mean using a power chair instead of a manual. Because every case can be so radically different from the next, however, I highly recommend requesting from your wheelchair OT to be able to physically test out various options with your white cane before making a final decision. Some wheelchair seating clinics can offer temporary loaner chairs that share some of the features of the chair you are considering, and if not, you may want to consider visiting the nearest-to-you mobility-aid showroom and spending several hours trying out options firsthand.
Finally, I want to share a few tips and tricks that may help you move more smoothly in your wheelchair with a white cane. You may not find a need for all of them, but I hope that they are helpful to you in developing your wheelchair cane technique.
This guide is by no means a complete instructional manual that can cover every aspect of using a white cane with a wheelchair, but I hope that it can serve as a valuable foundation for many blind wheelchair users to build on. I always recommend working with a trained orientation and mobility instructor if you can access such services, but I am also acutely aware how many in our community across the globe either do not qualify for O&M services or whose instructors know little to nothing about this topic themselves. My hope is that this guide can serve as a set of useful building blocks that you can expand and modify, as well as an introductory crash course for O&M instructors themselves who may be struggling to find information on this topic. And if you are a blind wheelchair user with something to share that I did not include here, I encourage you to submit your own article to the Braille Monitor to share your experiences and add even more perspectives to this very small body of literature.
When I first embarked on this journey of becoming a blind wheelchair user, the extreme lack of information on wheelchair-friendly O&M strategies led me to believe that those of us in this situation must just be incredibly rare and mythical, but since then I have met dozens and dozens of us that have proved that assumption wrong. Some of us had to figure it out on our own, some of us got training by an O&M instructor who was doing their best but felt underprepared, and many more were simply led to believe that using a cane in their chairs would be impossible and had been struggling to get by with vision alone. My hope is that this article will serve as just one of many that will raise greater awareness of the need for better wheelchair-inclusive O&M services and empower many more blind wheelchair users with the tools they need to achieve greater mobility than they had before. The system is failing us, but it doesn’t have to. And as we always say in the National Federation of the Blind, if they won’t teach us, then we will.
If you’d like to get in touch with me, you can find me on most social media platforms with the username @AskABlindPerson, or find my blog at https://askablindperson.wordpress.com. I have some expertise on other mobility aids as well and will be happy to answer any questions you may still have about using a white cane and a wheelchair at the same time.
by Kaleigh Brendle
On a scale of one to ten, how do you rate your pain? That might appear to be a very straightforward question. You take the amount of pain you’re experiencing and compare it to episodes of pain you’ve encountered in the past. But what if you experience intense pain all the time? How do you quantify the pain you’re experiencing in one given moment when pain has become your normal? When I’m asked that question now, I usually laugh it off and discuss my high pain tolerance, without explaining why I’ve had to develop such a high tolerance in the first place.
I’m twenty-three years old. I’ll be attending UC Berkeley Law School this fall. I’ve been involved with the Federation since I was seventeen, after the College Board revoked Braille as an accommodation for all blind Advanced Placement students and the Federation advocated for its immediate restoration. I learned from leaders like Tim Elder, Pam Allen, and President Mark Riccobono and cultivated my blindness philosophy through candid discussions with students who had found the organization years earlier.
I knew that I had another disability. As I pursued my undergraduate degree at Villanova University and held leadership positions in both the state and national student divisions, it sat comfortably in the background. It would pop up occasionally, but I could easily manage it with the appropriate academic accommodations and personal boundaries. My disability is called Hypermobile Ehlers Danlos Syndrome, which is typically characterized by overly flexible joints. People sometimes think of us as the ones who can execute really cool party tricks and excel in gymnastics, but that extra flexibility can lead to joint pain and frequent dislocations.
I didn’t fully realize how much my Ehlers Danlos Syndrome would affect my life until I began my pursuit of training at the Louisiana Center for the Blind (LCB). For the first time, I was the odd one out in a blindness space. I watched my peers of all ages progress through their classes with ease, while I ended up at the urgent care clinic so frequently that the receptionists all knew my name. I would barely be able to stand after my hours of preparing meals in the kitchen. I would come very close to fainting when performing travel routes on hot days. At night, I would experience intense temperature fluctuations, either feeling as though I was burning up with fever or so cold that I’d end up sleeping under multiple blankets in my heaviest winter coat.
The pain was the worst part. Every night I would lie perfectly still and feel it in my ankles, my knees, my hips, my wrists, my elbows, my shoulders, and my neck, hoping that sleep would grant me respite. I had the honor of developing my blindness skills under the direction of incredibly skilled instructors, but I was also learning what a life with Ehlers Danlos Syndrome meant.
But how could I prove it? I had one letter from a physical therapist stating that I had Ehlers Danlos, but that was it. The specialists I needed notes from were all completely swamped, if they were taking patients at all. We as Federationists contend that the world was not built with us in mind. The same is true for those with disabilities like Ehlers. When someone sees my cane, they immediately gather that I cannot drive. By contrast, some perceive the limitations created by chronic conditions as personal choices rather than concrete facts. When I say that I cannot walk a mile in heat or sit at a desk for long periods of time, that doesn’t mean I’m simply choosing not to because I don’t feel like it. It means I can’t or I’ll pass out or be in such pain that I’ll lose a night of sleep. Those fears are based on experiences of having had to ignore those boundaries and fighting through the subsequent repercussions.
All of a sudden, I was navigating two starkly different worlds. At LCB, my access technology instructor regularly incorporated stretch breaks into his lessons. Meanwhile, I was having to articulate to the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) why I “deserved” the accommodation of stretching during the LSAT. At LCB, my woodshop instructor would give me alternate assignments if I was in a significant amount of pain, assignments that would still allow me to learn through the Structured Discovery approach. On the other hand, the LSAC nearly made me sit for the LSAT with a concussion and the associated pain that my additional disability creates when my body experiences trauma.
In my experience, people tend to approach chronic health-related matters transactionally rather than empathetically. The focus becomes either your ability to prove what you are alleging you live through, the subtle guilt trips that come with having to refuse a task or outing, or the inquiry of whether it’s all really as bad as you make it out to be. Statements like, “Well, you’ll have to figure this out when you have kids” neglect to acknowledge that I will likely parent differently than someone else. “Figure it out” won’t mean performing tasks that will put me at risk of injury. “Figuring it out” means finding alternative ways of doing something. It also might mean asking for help. People have balked when I’ve made that comment, but there is nothing wrong with asking for help when your disability necessitates it. Able people ask for help all the time. Reaching out when we truly cannot do something should never be something a disabled person is shamed for.
I have been shamed for asking for help by people of all ages. I have been mocked for my disability by other disabled people. I have cried that I’m hitting my limit and been met with an emphatic and unflinching expectation that I push harder. In so many spaces I’ve been in, no paper trail means you’re on your own.
My multiple disabled friends in and out of the Federation have been the biggest blessing. We support each other during the flare-ups and the difficult days. We share strategies for how we navigate the symptoms of our conditions. We listen, we empathize, we encourage, and we stand together.
For those who do not possess disabilities that cause chronic pain and other similar tribulations, I ask this of you: do not project your misconceptions in the advice you give. If you sprained your wrist once, that is not the same as having aggressive tendinitis. If your mom’s cousin’s friend has the same condition as the person you’re speaking with, that doesn’t mean that it manifests in the exact same way. If you are comfortable with and proud of your disability, understand that the person you’re speaking with may not be in the same stage of their journey. Finally, and most importantly, no means no. If someone is telling you that doing something will cause them pain or has attempted to do something and it is now causing them pain, their lived experience needs to take precedence in that moment. If you are concerned about the possibility of them faking a condition, ask yourself how you would feel if someone accused you of faking yours.
To anyone reading this who has a disability like mine, you don’t have to be proud today. You can cry. You can be angry. You can be nervous about what comes next. Just know that there will come a day when you’ve discovered strategies, therapies, supplements, or supports that make it easier. You will find people who believe you, who listen, and who won’t walk away when a flare-up strikes. I feel very lucky that I’ve found many people like that through the Federation, and I’m grateful for them every day. I won’t say that one day everything is going to be perfect. But one day, it will be better. We stand with you until that day comes and will be here to celebrate when it’s here.
Through the Federation, I learned that most of what I was taught to believe about blindness was untrue. Being blind wasn’t something to be ashamed of. Using my cane in public wasn’t weird. If I wanted to pick up my cane or my [guide] dog and walk somewhere, I could just do it because the fears of other people didn’t have to be my fears too. - Julie
Blind people across the United States are making powerful strides in education and leadership, but we need to continue helping people like Julie. For more than eighty years, the National Federation of the Blind has worked to transform the dreams of hundreds of thousands of blind people into reality. With support from individuals like you, we can continue to provide powerful programs and critical resources now and for decades to come. We hope you will plan to be a part of our enduring movement by including the National Federation of the Blind in your charitable giving and in your estate planning. It is easier than you think.
Below are just a few of the many tax-deductible ways you can show your support of the National Federation of the Blind.
We accept donated vehicles, including cars, trucks, boats, motorcycles, or recreational vehicles. Just call 855-659-9314 toll-free, and a representative can make arrangements to pick up your donation. We can also answer any questions you have.
General donations help support the ongoing programs of the NFB and the work to help blind people live the lives they want. You can call 410-659-9314, extension 2430, to give by phone. Give online with a credit card or through the mail with check or money order. Visit our online contribution page at: https://nfb.org/donate.
Through the Pre-Authorized Contribution (PAC) program, supporters sustain the efforts of the National Federation of the Blind by making recurring monthly donations by direct withdrawal of funds from a checking account or a charge to a credit card. To enroll, call 877-NFB-2PAC, or fill out our PAC Donation Form https://www.nfb.org/pac.
The National Federation of the Blind legacy society, our Dream Makers Circle, honors and recognizes the generosity and imagination of members and special friends who have chosen to leave a legacy through a will or other planned giving option. You can join the Dream Makers Circle in a myriad of ways.
You can specify that a percentage or a fixed sum of your assets or property goes to the National Federation of the Blind in your will, trust, pension, IRA, life insurance policy, brokerage account, or other accounts.
You can name the National Federation of the Blind as the beneficiary on a Payable on Death (POD) account through your bank. You can turn any checking or savings account into a POD account. This is one of the simplest ways to leave a legacy. The account is totally in your control during your lifetime and you can change the beneficiary or percentage at any time with ease.
If you do decide to create or revise your will, consider the National Federation of the Blind as a partial beneficiary.
Visit our Planned Giving webpage (https://www.nfb.org/get-involved/ways-give/planned-giving) or call 410-659-9314, extension 2422, for more information.
Just imagine what we will do in 2026, and, with your help, what can be accomplished for years to come. Together with love, hope, determination, and your support, we will continue to transform dreams into reality.
by Ismael Collazo
Izzy never planned to become an advocate. In his twenties, he was just trying to survive. Before the blindness, before the speeches, before the long drives across South Dakota to sit in front of lawmakers, he was a chef with burned forearms, tired feet, and a body running on too little sleep and too much determination.
He had been diagnosed with type one diabetes as a baby, so insulin was as natural to him as breathing. He grew up knowing it kept him alive. It wasn’t optional. It wasn’t something you could stretch or skip. But life in his twenties didn’t follow those rules.
He worked in kitchens where the heat never let up—ovens blasting, fryers hissing, pans clanging. He loved the rhythm of it, the pressure, the way everything came together in chaos. He loved feeding people. It made him feel like he had purpose. What he didn’t love was the paycheck.
Cooking paid enough—barely. Enough for rent most months, enough for groceries if he was careful, enough for gas if nothing went wrong. But it didn’t cover what diabetes demanded.
Insulin was about $300 a vial. And for Izzy, that wasn’t a monthly cost. It was a weekly one. There was no real insurance safety net. What was available was too expensive or didn’t cover enough to matter. So, he started doing the math that no one should ever have to do. If he delayed rent, he could afford insulin. If he skipped replacing something he needed, maybe another vial. If he just stretched what he had—just a little—he could make it to the next paycheck.
At first, he convinced himself it was temporary, that he was in control, that he knew his body well enough to manage. He started taking less insulin than he needed, guessing doses, waiting longer between refills. He learned how to push through the headaches, the exhaustion, the constant thirst. In a kitchen, there wasn’t space for weakness. Orders had to go out. No one cared if your blood sugar was high. But his body kept score.
At twenty-eight, everything changed. That was the year he met Heather. It wasn’t slow. It wasn’t cautious. It was immediate—real in a way that made both of them stop pretending they had time to waste. They met, and something clicked—not perfection, but recognition. Two months later, they were married. People told them it was too fast. They didn’t listen.
Two months after their wedding, the cracks began to show—blurry vision, missed details, numbers that wouldn’t focus. Izzy told himself it was exhaustion. But he knew. Heather knew too. When he finally told her about rationing insulin, she didn’t blame him. “This isn’t you failing,” she said. “This is a system failing you.” He wanted to believe that. But the damage had already started. Doctors said words he didn’t want to hear: retinopathy, progression, permanent.
Six months after their wedding, Izzy went blind. Not all at once—but steadily, until there was nothing left to see. He stopped driving. He stopped working in kitchens. He learned to navigate a world that suddenly didn’t match the one he remembered.
That first year of being blind was the hardest. It wasn’t just about losing sight—it was about losing identity, losing independence, losing the life he thought he was building. He fell into a dark place, one he didn’t know how to climb out of. Heather was the one who pulled him back. She refused to let him stay there. She sat with him in the silence, in the frustration, in the anger—and then she pushed him forward. “There has to be resources out there,” she told him.
That belief led him to the Lighthouse for the Blind of Southwest Florida. There, for the first time since losing his vision, he began to see a path forward again—just not with his eyes. He learned skills, built confidence, and connected with the idea that blindness didn’t mean the end of independence—it just meant learning a different way.
Eventually, he and Heather made the decision to move to South Dakota. It was another fresh start—but this time, he wasn’t starting from nothing. He trained at the Rehabilitation Center for the Blind. That’s where he found woodworking. At first, it sounded impossible—working with saws, blades, measurements, and fine detail… without sight. But step by step, piece by piece, he learned. He learned to measure by touch, to listen to the sound of tools, to trust his hands, and to build. And through that process, something else came back too—purpose.
From that training, Izzy went on to open his own business: Blind Guy Boards LLC. What started as rebuilding his life turned into creating something of his own—something tangible, something meaningful, something that proved to himself and others that blindness didn’t define his limits.
By the time he was thirty-one, Izzy and Heather’s life had found a rhythm again. That same year, their daughter was born. She was everything. Izzy learned her through sound and touch—the rhythm of her breathing, the way her small hands held onto him, the way her laugh filled a room. For three years, she was just their joy.
Then came the signs. And then came the diagnosis: type one diabetes. She was three years old. That moment didn’t just hurt—it changed something in Izzy. Now everything he had gone through wasn’t just his story anymore. It was hers.
But the shift toward advocacy had already begun—quietly, before that moment. It started when Izzy found the National Federation of the Blind. At first, it was just a place to learn, to connect, and to understand how to live as a blind person without limits placed on him by others. But what he found there was more than resources—it was belief. Belief that blindness didn’t have to define his future, belief that systems could change, belief that his voice mattered.
He became more involved, more present, and eventually stepped into leadership—becoming the president of the National Federation of the Blind of South Dakota. And it was in that role that he made his first trip to Washington, DC. At the time, there were serious threats to defund programs administered by the US Department of Education—including vocational rehabilitation programs that had helped Izzy rebuild his life through self-employment. So, he went—not just as someone learning to advocate, but as a leader. He walked the halls of Congress. He sat in meetings. He told his story—not polished, not perfect, but real. He spoke about what those programs meant—how they gave blind people a path to independence, to work, to dignity. How without them, people like him wouldn’t have the chance to rebuild after losing everything. That trip deepened something in him. He saw clearly that his experiences—his struggles, his losses, his rebuilding—weren’t just personal. They were evidence. They were power.
From there, he kept going. He became more vocal, more determined. He worked on issues affecting the blind community at every level—federal, state, and local. He spoke up about access, employment, technology, and independence. All the while, in the background, another fight was building—his daughter, her diabetes, the cost of insulin, and the lack of accessibility in medical technology. He hadn’t fully stepped into that advocacy yet—but it was coming. Because now, it wasn’t just about what had happened to him. It was about what could happen to her.
Izzy never planned to become an advocate. But his life—every challenge, every loss, every moment—kept pushing him in that direction. He hadn’t chosen rationing. He hadn’t chosen blindness. He hadn’t chosen the cost of insulin. He hadn’t chosen his daughter’s diagnosis. But he was choosing what came next: to speak, to lead, to build something better. And step by step, he was becoming the voice he once needed—so that one day, his daughter might not have to tell the same story.
Each year, thousands of Federation members and friends contribute before and during the National Convention to funds that support blind people across the country. In 2026, your generosity continues to power our movement. When you give $25 or more between May 15 and July 7, 5:00 p.m. Central, you will be entered into the Keep NFB Advancing: Connections, Community, and Opportunity Give $25 drawing. Each $25 increment is another chance to win.
Your gift strengthens connections, grows our community, and expands opportunities for blind people nationwide. Together, we keep the National Federation of the Blind advancing by raising expectations and removing barriers so blind people can live the lives they want. A past winner, Ali Colak, shared, “This was my second time entering, and I didn’t think I would win anything. Just participating in helping the NFB in its cause was wonderful, but winning was a pleasant surprise.”
Your support fuels programs that bring blind people to National Convention, foster education and mentorship, and create opportunities for the next generation. Our members and partners count on our expertise and our resolve. We will never shy away from the effort to surmount obstacles and achieve full participation, independence, and equality for blind people.
When you contribute to the Keep NFB Advancing: Give $25 drawing, you will be entered to win the following:
Or
And you can double your dollars up to $25,000, thanks to a gift from AIRA, the visual interpreting service.
Be a Federation Connector. Friendly competition energizes our movement, and this year your connections can go even further.
Invite your friends and family to give $25 or more before the National Convention and indicate that you prompted their gift. If at least four people contribute in your honor, you will be entered into a special drawing to win a BrailleNote Evolve from HumanWare. You do not need to be present to win.
Use your connections to Keep NFB Advancing. By bringing others into this effort, you help expand our reach, strengthen our community, and increase opportunities for blind people across the country.
The campaign supports several important funds:
To qualify for the drawing, you must specify a fund when making your contribution. You can give in multiple ways:
Your donation will be counted for the drawing regardless of which fund you choose. If you’re unsure, please select the White Cane Fund for maximum flexibility.
The winner will be announced July 8, 2026, at our national convention banquet. You do not need to be present to win. Together, we keep the National Federation of the Blind advancing through connections, community, and opportunity. Thank you for your generosity and for being part of this movement.
by Will Hendrick
From the Editor: Will Hendrick serves on the board of the Greater Baltimore Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Maryland. I serve as president of that chapter. Will wrote this article in response to the “Myth of the SuperBlind” episode of the Nation’s Blind Podcast, which we excerpted in last month’s issue of this magazine. Here is what he shares:
Hello friends! Thank you for another great episode. When I participated in my first vocational rehab, unfortunately, some of the blindness professionals that assisted me gave me bad impressions of the National Federation of the Blind—professionals that helped me quite a bit, I might add, which is why I was inclined to listen to their opinions. I remember one comment in particular: “Those Federationists!” My opinion at the time was that if the professionals that get paid to inform me about the existence of the Federation don’t think it is all it is cracked up to be, then I don’t think I want to get too close. But I will still go, learn, and see what the organization has to offer. These blindness professionals were blind, I might also add. But nine years later, I am happy to say I am glad that I made up my own mind and gave the Federation a chance.
It took me years of participation in the National Federation of the Blind before I got to know people I clicked with or experienced actual friendship. That is mostly because I am picky! I don’t want to be close friends with just anyone or just because someone is blind. Blindness doesn’t mean someone is a good person. After making the effort to observe and participate, relationships have developed that I am proud to have. And I believe I am a better person for having them.
My “super-blind” experience was when I first tried to participate in Dinner and a Play at the Maryland State Convention about five years ago. Each year at the state convention, a cast of Braille readers performs a play while the audience enjoys dinner. The cast is not always the same and is recruited each year, but the group always goes by the name of The Braille Is Beautiful Players. I received an email stating participants were needed for the play and that experience did not matter. I had recently been discharged from my Braille class at the Workforce and Technology Center in Baltimore. I knew I needed to practice to maintain my skills, but I wanted to practice in a fun way. So, I responded to the email stating that I wanted to be in the play. So far, so good. But I did not receive my copy of the script until the day before the first rehearsal. I was unable to practice on my own with such short notice, but the email had said experience did not matter.
At the first rehearsal, on Zoom, I experienced how amazing blind people can be. The play we were performing was extremely long. In fact, it took us about an hour to read it through one time. Therefore, the cast was anxious to begin. These seemingly professional Braille readers took off like racehorses, SWOOSH! My part was ten pages into the play, so I did not have anything to read for several minutes. When the cast reached my segment of the play, I had no idea where they were. I was so embarrassed! I felt like I was letting the cast down. I certainly did not think I was an experienced Braille reader and knew I needed more practice, but my teacher had discharged me, so I must know something, I thought. Full of shame and embarrassment, I asked the cast to skip me and said that I would try to do better at the next practice.
In between rehearsals, I tried to practice, but our play was about Louis Braille, so some of the words and names were French. I could barely read English words, let alone French ones. At the next rehearsal, again the “Super-Braillers” took off. I tried to follow along, but after several page turns of the play, I lost my place. When it was my turn to read, again I was lost and asked the cast to skip me. It was looking bad. I wanted to be a part of the cast but felt that if experience truly did not matter, some kind of consideration should have been taken for a novice like I was at the time. The other cast members were laughing and bantering with one another, and I felt alone. The director, Debbie Brown, and another cast member, Sharon Maneki, called me individually to offer me help, but I was in my feelings by then and too proud to ask for assistance.
With only two rehearsals left, I realized I had to go to plan B. I stopped trying to practice the whole play and just focused on my lines. I only had two. Therefore, I memorized my lines and the lines immediately before them as a cue. At the third rehearsal, I was able to perform with the cast. By the fourth rehearsal, my solution had worked and I had no problems performing.
On the evening of the performance, when the cast sat together for the first time, I was hoping to get to know someone. Maybe that would have happened if I had chosen to have dinner with the cast, but I did not have a room at the hotel. I commuted from home to save my money. When I arrived for the play, most everyone had a seat already and was familiar with the person they were sitting next to. The person I sat next to when I performed did not say one word to me at the play. This was clearly not an intentional snub, but as I said, I was hoping to get to know someone and I thought more people would appreciate the courage it took for me to get on the microphone and perform with more experienced Braille readers. I did not feel the love.
As the saying goes, perception is reality. I think most of this was in my head and I was just in my feelings because I was embarrassed. I am now proud to call the person I sat next to at the play five years ago one of my closest friends. Her name is Melissa Riccobono, and she is, among other things, the co-host of the Nation’s Blind Podcast.
by Anna Claire Vollers
From the Editor: The following article originally appeared on Stateline.org and is reprinted under the terms of the Creative Commons License CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We have edited for style and have changed the title of the article. Just before this issue went through final proofreading and layout, we learned that the state of South Dakota has also dropped out of the lawsuit.
Charlotte Cravins’s son, Landry, turned two in January. He’s a smiley little boy who loves singing “Itsy Bitsy Spider” and recently got his first pair of glasses.
Landry was born with Down syndrome and has low vision. He receives publicly funded therapies that have helped him learn to crawl, to pull himself up to stand, and to use American Sign Language.
Landry lives with his parents and sister in Louisiana, one of the eight states whose attorney general has chosen to remain in a lawsuit challenging a federal rule that protects accommodations for people with disabilities. States are asking a federal court in Texas to declare unconstitutional a part of federal law that requires states to provide services to disabled people in their communities, rather than in institutions, when appropriate.
Cravins, an attorney, has followed the case with increasing concern. If the states succeed, that could strip disabled people like her son of the right to publicly funded services that allow them to live in their own homes and neighborhoods and instead push them into institutions such as state hospitals and nursing homes.
“Landry is a part of our family, a part of the community,” she said, “and to present his involvement in our family and in our community as a burden is unconscionable.”
The lawsuit is unusual. It began in 2024 with 17 Republican-led states suing the Biden administration over its inclusion of gender dysphoria as a protected disability under a portion of federal law known as Section 504. The states also challenged the constitutionality of Section 504 itself.
But the suit has since morphed into something different.
After President Donald Trump was reelected and his administration made clear it would not enforce the Biden rule protecting gender dysphoria, eight states pulled out of the lawsuit. Their attorneys general scrambled to distance themselves from it amid a swift backlash from the disability community that warned the suit imperiled federal protections for all people with disabilities.
But in a surprising move, nine states chose to stick with the lawsuit anyway, and in January amended their complaint.
They’re now asking the court to strike down a part of Section 504 that requires states to provide disabled people with services in their communities whenever possible, rather than in institutions such as state hospitals and nursing homes.
It’s a maneuver that has shocked many in the disability rights community. Those who spoke with Stateline said they have not received answers from public officials about why the states are still pursuing the lawsuit after the Trump administration removed federal protections for gender dysphoria.
The Republican attorneys general from the states involved either did not respond to Stateline’s requests for comment or referred Stateline to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is leading the lawsuit. Paxton did not respond to Stateline’s request for comment.
Last week, a few days after Stateline reached out, Indiana dropped out of the lawsuit, leaving eight states remaining.
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, a Republican, said he remains concerned about “federal overreach into traditional state matters” but felt that Trump’s move in December to officially exclude gender dysphoria from Section 504 protections meant the lawsuit’s core objective had been reached.
“Our goal in this lawsuit was to remove President Biden’s ridiculous addition of gender dysphoria as a disability, which risked jeopardizing services for those who truly need them most,” Rokita said in a statement. He noted he has a child with a disability; his son has Angelman syndrome, which causes developmental delays.
But eight other states are pushing forward with the lawsuit: Alaska, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, South Dakota and Texas.
Cravins, Landry’s mom, said she feels misled by Louisiana Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill, because Murrill initially framed the case as being about the inclusion of gender dysphoria and has not responded to questions about why her state remains involved after that’s no longer an issue.
“Other states left the lawsuit. Louisiana didn’t. Why?” Cravins asked. She said she’s written an open letter to Murrill about the case, with no response. “At this point, it seems that her issue is people with disabilities living in the community.”
States say in their revised complaint that updates to Section 504 unfairly restrict how they’re able to spend money and prevent them from deciding how best to care for their own residents. They say their budgets, strained by rising costs and workforce shortages, can’t always accommodate expensive service changes required by the law, and that with smaller Medicaid budgets they’re having to make hard choices. Removing the law’s “integration mandate” would give them more flexibility.
Disability rights advocates respond that if the court strikes down the integration rule, it will be harder for people with disabilities to get services in their communities. States won’t be required to provide those as a condition of receiving federal money.
And they worry the states’ efforts signal a return to darker times, when disabled people were hidden away, warehoused in institutions and far from family and friends.
“The reality is, the world was not built with us in mind, and there are people who would rather us not be here,” said Kaleigh Brendle, an advocate and college student who launched a nonprofit to push back against efforts to defang Section 504. “Us existing in the world makes people uncomfortable, with our braces, our canes, our wheelchairs, our differences.”
For decades, disability issues were largely nonpartisan. The two most consequential landmark federal disability rights laws were signed by Republican presidents: Richard Nixon signed the Rehabilitation Act—which includes Section 504—in 1973; George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990.
The requirement that states provide services for disabled people in their communities comes from the landmark 1999 Olmstead v. L.C. ruling by the US Supreme Court. Advocates hailed that decision as a civil rights victory that has helped shift disability care from institutional “warehousing” to integrating disabled people into the fabric of their communities.
“Now the states’ lawsuit seeks to upend all of that,” said M. Geron Gadd, a senior attorney with the National Health Law Program who focuses on disability rights cases.
Gadd said that as a litigator, she’s seen states shift how they fight disability-related cases:
Instead of disputing how laws apply in specific situations, states are increasingly challenging the thrust of the laws themselves.
“States seem to be much more offended by having to conform their programs and services to basic requirements of disability law,” said Gadd. And, she added, “It seems to have become politicized in ways that it had not been for decades.”
State efforts have echoed those at the federal level.
The Trump administration has been pushing a rule change that would penalize disabled adults who live with their families and deduct the value of their bedroom from the amount they receive in federal benefits. Last year, Trump administration officials abandoned a proposal to cut disability benefits for older workers after news reports and public outcry. The efforts have been made in the name of government efficiency and reducing red tape, particularly in safety-net programs.
And in April, the US Department of Justice delayed a Biden-era deadline—based on the Americans with Disabilities Act—for state and local governments to update their web content to make it accessible for people with disabilities.
Disability rights advocates say the conservative-led states and the US Department of Health and Human Services they are suing feel like two sides of the same coin, with disabled people and their families caught in the middle of the case, without a champion.
When Kaleigh Brendle was seventeen, she joined four other blind high school students in challenging a decision by the College Board—which administers Advanced Placement tests—to replace hard-copy Braille exams with a digital format during the COVID-19 pandemic.
They were successful. Brendle’s experience then, as well as her experiences pushing to get the accommodations she needed in school, drove her to advocate for disability rights nationally.
She named her new advocacy nonprofit Judy’s League, for Judy Heumann, a legendary disability rights activist known as the “Mother of the Disability Rights Movement.” Brendle likes to quote Heumann, who often said that disability can happen to anyone at any time.
Families and students with disabilities also worry the Republican states’ lawsuit could erode Section 504 protections for students if states were no longer required to provide services in public schools and could instead direct students to institutions.
As a student, Brendle received services locally that helped her learn to use a cane, to read Braille and to use accessible technology needed to complete school coursework.
At times she had to push for the accommodations she needed.
“But at least 504 gives you a leg to stand on,” she said. “It gives you something to fight back with.”
Similarly, Cravins worries her son Landry could have a hard time receiving services at his local school when he’s old enough to attend, even though he would be able to go to school with his peers with the right support.
National disability rights groups—including the National Federation of the Blind, the National Down Syndrome Society, and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund—have continued urging the public to speak out about the possible loss of rights.
“It feels like it’s up to us as individuals to try and convince these people in these positions of power to stop attacking us,” Brendle said.
On Monday, [May 4, 2026], the states asked the judge to decide the lawsuit without a trial. Over the next few months, the states and feds will file briefs with the court. Disability community groups and allies will have the chance to file briefs as well.
If the states prevail, it’s hard to say what the cascading legal impacts could be. A win could trigger further litigation. Other courts might interpret the law differently.
A number of state laws, programs, and other efforts have been built on the integration mandate and could be affected as well, said Mike Oxford, a retired director of an independent living center in Topeka, Kansas, who has been a longtime disability rights advocate.
“I’ve seen people with significant disabilities become great lawyers, academics, corporate leaders, on and on,” he said. “That would not have happened” without the integration mandate.
Oxford said he has not gotten a response from Kansas Republican Attorney General Kris Kobach when he asked about the case. He doesn’t think that the attorneys general remaining in the case believe it’s still about gender dysphoria.
“It’s just totally ridiculous,” he said. “They’re lawyers. They signed the new complaint. They know what it does and doesn’t say.”
If the court strikes down the integration mandate, that doesn’t mean the entire law is invalidated or in-community services automatically cease.
But it does mean that if a family were denied services outside of an institution, they’d likely have to pursue litigation each time to fight the decision, Cravins said.
“I think it’s important for the average citizen to realize that laws only work when there is enforcement behind them,” she said.
by Chris Danielsen
From the Editor: The following is an updated version of an article that originally appeared on the Braille Monitor Early Access blog. It has been revised to reflect additional developments since first publication.
On April 20, 2026, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), as we feared, published an interim final rule (IFR) in the Federal Register extending the compliance dates for the recently adopted web accessibility rule under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We first learned of this on April 17, when a pre-publication version of the IFR was posted on the DOJ’s website. The now-delayed rule, originally finalized in 2024, requires state and local governments to ensure that their websites, mobile applications, and other digital services are accessible to people with disabilities, including blind and deafblind users who rely on screen readers and other nonvisual access technology.
The DOJ had been signaling this move for at least the last few months, but we had hoped to forestall it. Prior to the issuance of the Interim Final Rule, the Federation submitted a detailed letter to then-Attorney General Pam Bondi urging the Department not to weaken or postpone the requirements. That letter explained that blind people had already waited decades for enforceable, uniform digital accessibility standards and that further delay would undermine both the intent and the effectiveness of the ADA. Prior to that, we had sent a similar but shorter letter to the director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), where the Interim Final Rule, at that time not public, was under review. We had also met with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Civil Rights. So, we were disappointed, but not surprised, when the bad news came.
The April 2026 IFR delays the compliance deadlines—one for cities and counties with populations of 50,000 or more and a later one for those with fewer than 50,000 people—that were intended to ensure timely access to critical government services online. The first deadline was originally April 24, 2026, with the other roughly a year later, but now they have both been moved back a year, so that the smaller entities will not need to comply until the spring of 2028. There is also language in the IFR ominously signaling that further rulemaking may be forthcoming. Given that the Interim Final Rule already delays compliance, we expect nothing good to come from further efforts to substantively alter the 2024 regulations.
The National Federation of the Blind responded swiftly, releasing a video message underscoring the real-world consequences for blind Americans on the day that the unpublished version of the IFR came out and following up with an official press statement condemning the delay. Here is a transcript of the video released on Friday, April 17:
I’m Mark Riccobono, President of the National Federation of the Blind, and I’m here—in our empty computer lab—to talk about our outrage. The United States Department of Justice, Office of Civil Rights, has released an interim final rule related to ADA Title II web accessibility and digital regulations.
Why am I here in this empty room? Because the government has said it’s okay for blind people to continue to wait to get equal access to state government, to education, and to other forms of digital access through Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
But wait! We have already been waiting.
We’ve been waiting for two years since this rule was announced. Two years. So we’ve been waiting—already. Outrageous that we should have to wait longer.
But it gets even worse. Because it hasn’t just been two years. The original advance rulemaking was sixteen years ago—in 2010. Blind people have been waiting to get access to paying our taxes, to education, to so many government services. Waiting.
But it’s been even longer than that. The Americans with Disabilities Act—this promise—was given to Americans with disabilities in 1990, 1990!
America is celebrating this year our 250th anniversary—the promise that this nation makes for equal access. And we’ve been guaranteed this promise not just in the Constitution, but through the Americans with Disabilities Act, starting in 1990. Outrageous that the Department of Justice wants us to wait even longer.
The National Federation of the Blind is prepared to continue to advocate—and to continue to push forward—to make sure that blind people no longer have to wait for the doors to be opened for us to have equal access to the digital services provided by our state and local governments.
Here is the statement issued on April 20, the day of official publication of the IFR:
BALTIMORE, MD (April 20, 2026) — The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) today expresses outrage in response to news that the US Department of Justice has issued an interim final rule regarding ADA Title II website and mobile application accessibility that delays implementation and accountability for state and local government digital accessibility.
The Title II website accessibility regulation, issued on April 24, 2024, was scheduled to take effect on April 24, 2026. We urged the Department to protect the rule, and we opposed any attempt to delay, rescind, or otherwise undermine it. Accessible digital services are essential for blind people to access education, pay taxes, obtain public benefits, and participate fully in civic life.
Title II has required since 1990 that state and local governments ensure communications with blind and other disabled people are “as effective as” communications with nondisabled individuals, and the Department of Justice has long made clear that this includes web and mobile communications.
The 2024 regulation provides the clarity public entities have requested by setting a recognized technical standard, allowing equivalent facilitation, and including targeted exceptions and phased-in timelines. It was announced on April 20 through the interim final rule published in the Federal Register that the Department is delaying implementation of the rule, without going through advanced notice to the public and opportunities for public comment.
“After more than a decade of advocacy for clarity on website accessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), we finally have a Title II regulation that provides the roadmap public entities need to make their digital services accessible to blind people in the United States. The effort to weaken and delay this rule is a betrayal of the promise America made when it enacted the ADA, which guaranteed our rights to participate fully in the mainstream of American life,” stated Mark A. Riccobono, President of the National Federation of the Blind. “The organized blind movement will not stand idle while the Department of Justice undermines the very regulation we fought so hard to achieve. Blind Americans deserve timely access to government services.”
Delaying digital accessibility has real consequences for blind people at every stage of life—from students and working professionals to seniors accessing public services. An immediate concern is the impact on blind students who are among those most directly harmed when public entities rely on inaccessible websites and mobile apps for course materials, assignments, and student portals.
When information is not accessible, blind students are excluded from the same curricula as their peers, face delays in completing coursework and degrees, and encounter unnecessary barriers to entering the workforce and participating fully in society.
The bad news did not stop there. On May 8, 2026, the Department of Health and Human Services delayed the implementation of rules enforcing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which among other things would have required accessible digital services from healthcare entities that receive federal funds. This action was also disappointing but not surprising; the regulatory processes for both ADA Title II and Section 504 had been paralleling each other for some time, and in anticipation of just such a possible delay, we had already expressed our objections to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
The Federation is calling on our members and allies to make their voices heard. We encourage members to submit their stories of unequal access to state and local governments or to healthcare to the email address [email protected]. Members can also submit stories over the phone by calling 410-659-9314, extension 2444, and leaving a detailed voice message. Further information will be forthcoming about additional actions our movement will take in opposition to this further delaying of our rights.
The promise of our nation’s laws is clear: blind people are entitled to full and equal participation in all aspects of society. In today’s world, that participation depends on digital access. Extending compliance deadlines does not move the nation closer to equality; it moves us further away.
The National Federation of the Blind will continue to advocate for strong, enforceable accessibility standards and to oppose any action that delays or weakens them. Blind and deafblind people have waited long enough!
by Mark Riccobono and Eve Hill
From the Editor: The following piece appeared on the Expert Analysis page of the website Law360.com on April 23, 2026. It is written by President Riccobono and Eve Hill, general counsel to the National Federation of the Blind. The footnotes that appeared in the original have been omitted.
The bipartisan Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), signed into law in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush, has existed nearly as long as the internet. Since its enactment, which Bush touted as his greatest achievement, government entities—specifically state and local governments—have moved online. Applying for benefits, getting an education, paying taxes, accessing public records, and participating in civic life increasingly happens through websites and mobile applications. For those with disabilities, the ADA promises that those digital doors should be open to them. However, state and local governments claimed that they needed more regulatory direction. In April 2024, they got it when the US Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a final regulation governing the accessibility of state and local governments’ web information and services.
Then, ahead of the regulation’s April 2026 and 2027 compliance dates, the DOJ announced on April 20 that it was moving the compliance dates back a year. This delay negatively affects all involved and is not necessary.
The 2024 rule was hardly a surprise to Title II covered entities. It was published in April 2024 after fourteen years of public process and consideration, and nearly 1,000 comments from stakeholders. Notably, the rule provided a series of exceptions—for archived content, preexisting documents, individualized password-protected documents, and third-party content—that do not currently exist under the effective communication requirement of the ADA. It also provided delayed compliance dates of two and three years from its issuance, depending on entity size. So rather than burdening state and local governments, the rule actually reduced the burdens on those entities.
For disabled Americans who have waited decades for reliable access to government services online, the 2024 rule represents long-overdue progress. It also provides the exact regulatory clarity that public entities spent years requesting. For example, it spells out the precise technical standard that is to be used to determine if and when a website or mobile app is fully accessible, thus giving entities a firm benchmark to measure against and a legal defense if the resource’s accessibility is called into question. Nonetheless, the National Association of Counties and the National League of Cities asked that the deadline be extended to mid-2027. The DOJ’s new interim final rule grants an extension of an additional year for entities with populations of 50,000 or more to comply and extends the deadline to 2028 for entities with smaller populations.
The DOJ is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on the interim final rule until June 22. And on top of the unjustified delay, the DOJ indicated that it might not be done undermining or eliminating the 2024 rule. Without further specification, it stated that “the Department plans to engage in future rulemaking processes related to the substantive requirements of the 2024 final rule.”
The DOJ says that its primary reason for issuing the interim final rule is cost; it cites the arguments of lobbyists and its purported internal findings that governments simply don’t have the resources to meet the regulatory requirements. But the legal obligations won’t actually change in the absence of the regulations, as the DOJ itself acknowledges. Instead, covered entities will simply have to dedicate resources toward other ways of maintaining effective communication with disabled residents. For example, in the absence of an accessible website, they will need to staff phone lines so that blind people who cannot access their services online can do so over the phone, and that will likely require hiring more employees. This won’t save money; it will likely cost even more than making websites and mobile apps accessible.
Furthermore, delaying the regulation does nothing to decrease the legal exposure of these entities, which can still be sued by private individuals or the federal government for denying access to people with disabilities, which is already required by the ADA. Finally, as the DOJ also acknowledges, disabled citizens will be forced to request that individual documents and resources that are inaccessible be made accessible during the delay. Local governments may well find themselves inundated with such requests, which means that rather than focusing on overall compliance, as the DOJ claims to hope for, they will be spending their limited staff and resources putting out accessibility fires. In short, rather than relieving costs and burdens, the delay simply imposes more.
At the same time, the cost to people with disabilities is already high, and the consequences of delay are implacable. For instance, delay is not an abstraction for a blind college student who cannot submit an assignment because a university website is inaccessible. Will the university grant an extension of the assignment deadline? Likewise, for a disabled resident who is trying to apply for benefits, pay taxes, or access public records, inaccessible websites mean exclusion from essential services. Will their tax deadline be excused because the online payment system is inaccessible or because they are waiting for the city or county to remediate the inaccessible tax bill they received?
The legal obligation is not new. The ADA’s requirement for equally effective communication has existed for more than thirty years and the 2024 rule clarified how that obligation applies to the modern digital world. The compliance delay and the very real possibility that the rule will be further undermined or eliminated ultimately benefit no one. The cost to disabled Americans is clear, but state and local governments do not benefit either, as nothing about the delay changes their legal obligations or materially diminishes the risk of costly litigation. Likewise, covered entities should not take any comfort in the idea that the DOJ may substantively change the regulation, as that process will take more time and create more uncertainty. The interim final rule should therefore be rescinded, and governments should get down to the work of collaborating with their disabled citizens to create an online environment that is accessible to everyone. If they do, the end result will be better for all concerned.
From the Editor: The following is recent correspondence from the President of the National Federation of the Blind to the United States Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services. Both letters are official comments regarding regulatory actions that have been taken by these officials. The letter to the Assistant Attorney General is presented without the footnotes and reference links that were in the original version. To see the document in its original form, visit https://nfb.org/advocacy, then click on Policy Statements.
April 30, 2026
The Honorable Harmeet Dhillon
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
United States Department of Justice
150 M Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
RE: RIN 1190-AA82
Dear Assistant Attorney General Dhillon:
The National Federation of the Blind, the transformative membership and advocacy organization of blind Americans, appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Interim Final Rule (IFR) regarding the regulation to establish specific requirements for web and mobile apps offered by state and local governments to the public, in accordance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We were pleased to see the Department of Justice (DOJ) moving forward with the regulation addressing website and mobile application accessibility after fourteen years of rulemaking and public comments. However, this IFR delaying the rule’s implementation for a year, while also proposing to consider further changes to the final rule, is deeply concerning.
First and foremost, as we stated in our June 2025 and two March 2026 letters to the administration, any delay of the compliance deadline for the rule is utterly unnecessary. The DOJ even referenced our 2025 letter in the IFR, noting that we argued the rule “went through fourteen years of consideration, public input, and adjustment, and the Department accurately estimated the costs and burdens of the rule.” To contest our point, the Department argued in the IFR “the length of time spent considering the issues covered by the 2024 final rule is irrelevant to whether covered entities can comply with the deadlines.” We respectfully disagree with this assertion.
Covered entities have known for more than a decade that a digital accessibility rule was in the works, that the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA—an internationally recognized consensus standard for digital accessibility—was published in June 2018, and that the WCAG 2.1 AA standard was proposed in the August 2023 NPRM. No matter how we choose to look at this, covered entities have had a minimum of three years to familiarize themselves with a set of guidelines that has existed since 2018. Delaying implementation or enforcement for another year only acknowledges that covered entities knew the law, did not meet it, and are now being given a pass rather than being held to the standards they could have been meeting for years.
Furthermore, the Department of Justice itself has been requiring WCAG 2.1 Level AA compliance in settlements and Project Civic Access agreements for years. There is, quite literally, no need to delay the compliance dates when the DOJ, private attorneys, and courts are already using the standard. Additionally, the tools, techniques, and expertise needed to implement WCAG 2.1 are well established and commercially available, and thousands of organizations, including many state and local governments, have already achieved compliance. Far from underestimating the burden of coming into compliance, given the rapid development of simple and inexpensive tools for making existing and new content accessible, if anything, the final rule overestimated the cost and difficulty of compliance.
Moreover, the ADA already provides two general defenses to deal with any burden: (1) undue burden and (2) fundamental alteration. Both of these longstanding exceptions are well-recognized by Americans with disabilities and by the United States legal system. The IFR explicitly acknowledges this. To be frank, the relevance of the undue burden defense is being mitigated through the advancement of technology. We are living in an era where digital accessibility is already relatively easy to attain, and it is only getting easier. Therefore, there is simply no basis for an assumption that covered entities will face a significant burden to make their websites and mobile apps accessible.
However, the final rule goes further; adding five new classes of exception to the requirement to make web and app content accessible. These exceptions relieve covered entities of the need to make much pre-existing content accessible, thus further reducing any burden. As we indicated in our 2023 comments on this subject, the proposed exceptions go far beyond the current undue burden and fundamental alteration defenses and therefore substantively decrease the obligations of existing law. The proposed exceptions exempt broad swaths of new and existing content regardless of how easy the content is to make accessible, regardless of the resources available to do so, and regardless of whether a covered entity ever actually raised and defended an affirmative defense in the first place. These exceptions allow covered entities to focus their efforts on making new content accessible—which is inexpensive and simple to accomplish.
Two to three years was more than enough time for covered entities to develop processes and procedures to ensure new content is accessible. Any delay in compliance does not “lead to greater accessibility for individuals with disabilities because more time and resources will be devoted directly to compliance with the substantive requirements of the 2024 final rule” as the IFR claims. It compounds the problem by allowing for the creation of more new and inaccessible content. Providing accessibility for new web content is neither unduly burdensome nor costly, and covered entities should not be able to avoid providing accessibility for new content unless they can demonstrate that doing so would actually constitute an undue burden or fundamental alteration. Requiring still another year before being in compliance with the law is an outrageous admission that the civil rights of Americans with disabilities are not a priority.
It is true that some existing content may properly be subject to an exception because it may arguably be presumed that it will be burdensome in most instances. However, new content should never be presumed to be burdensome to make accessible in the absence of some unusual constraint on the resources of the particular covered entity. The entity is in the best position to determine what those constraints are, to document them in real-time, and to respond affirmatively to assertions of liability. People with disabilities should not lose access to important government information, including new content by large entities, simply because some small entities may, for reasons unique to them, have difficulty complying. Those entities already have an additional year to comply and a defense available to them.
Here again, failing to implement and enforce the rule now because of the Department’s belief that entities will fail to comply only serves to provide a pretextual justification for continuing to deny people with disabilities the access guaranteed by law. It is preposterous for the Department to say simultaneously that the law already protects people with disabilities, that the law must be enhanced because it is not actually protecting people with disabilities, and also that such enhancements will come eventually, but not today, not this year, but maybe next year or the year after that, all because some entities may have an undue burden that they have yet to raise or support.
Although the Department says that covered entities were surprised by how difficult it was to remediate barriers using AI, did not have the resources to provide manual remediation, and did not understand the relevant technical guidelines, we remind the Department that the National Federation of the Blind did raise each of those issues in its comments in 2023. Covered entities who failed to be in compliance could have, but chose not to, collaborate with us and other affected parties to attend proactively to each of those issues across the past three years. Failing to attempt to comply with the law is not an appropriate defense to breaking it.
Third, as the IFR states, “If the 2024 final rule’s compliance dates take effect before the covered entities have had sufficient time to make their web content and mobile apps comply with the terms of the rule, those entities would face significant litigation risks. Congress created a private right of action in Title II.” This is only partially true. As the IFR notes, a private right of action is already available under the ADA. The thousands of lawsuits that get filed every year, targeting digital accessibility specifically, are not dependent upon this rule. For example, in 2025 3,117 ADA Title III website accessibility lawsuits were filed in federal courts. Note that statistic is for ADA Title III website accessibility suits, and that rulemaking for Title III has not progressed beyond an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) published on July 26, 2010, coincidentally the same exact date as the Title II ANPRM. Lawsuits regarding digital accessibility under both Title II and Title III of the ADA proceed directly under the ADA statute and the existing regulations.
If anything, further delaying the compliance deadline does not reduce litigation risk; it increases it by removing the one clear, predictable technical standard and exceptions that Title II covered entities could rely on. Without the rule’s compliance framework, courts will be at leisure to continue applying the ADA’s general effective-communication standard for digital content without defined benchmarks for compliance. The Department posits, somewhat incorrectly, that letting covered entities “face lawsuits for failure to comply with such unreasonable compliance deadlines would conflict with one of the foundational precepts of law, that no one is bound to do what is impossible.” We would counter with another foundational legal precept: ignorance of the law is not a valid defense.
Finally, in what is by far the most concerning part of the IFR, the Department states: “... the Department plans to engage in future rulemaking processes related to the substantive requirements of the 2024 final rule. During the extension period, the Department will consider issuing an NPRM providing members of the public with an opportunity to comment on the substance of the 2024 final rule and any changes proposed by the Department.” This sentence transforms the IFR from a mere delay into a staging action for a far more consequential attack on the rule itself. The National Federation of the Blind is categorically opposed to further limiting the scope of the final rule as published in 2024. As we have repeatedly pointed out, the rule offers covered entities five additional exemptions beyond those provided by undue burden and fundamental alteration. This watering down of our rights is wrong enough. Any additional reduction in our rights is not merely a subtraction of those rights, but an exponential decrease. The National Federation of the Blind would stand in direct opposition to such degradation and would work tirelessly to ensure it does not come to fruition.
In closing, the National Federation of the Blind again appreciates the opportunity to comment on the ADA Title II Website Accessibility Interim Final Rule. We urge the Department of Justice to let the rule go into effect with no further delay. We further urge the Department of Justice to immediately cease any plans or efforts toward additional rulemaking on this regulation. We look forward to the entire rule being implemented and enforced. If there are any further questions, or if we can be of assistance in any way, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Mark A. Riccobono, President
National Federation of the Blind
May 5, 2026
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Secretary
Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue
Washington, DC 20201
RE: RIN 0945-AA30
Dear Secretary Kennedy:
The National Federation of the Blind is the transformative membership and advocacy organization of blind Americans. Throughout our more than eighty-five year history, we have sought to advance the lives of all blind people in the United States. A major driver of that advancement during our existence has been equal access to information, particularly digital information.
It is for this reason that we oppose any attempt to delay, rescind, or otherwise undermine the effectiveness of the Final Rule regarding Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance (89 FR 40066) that is set to take effect on May 11, 2026.
The Section 504 final rule, published on May 9, 2024, pertains to entities that receive HHS funding under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 including public and private schools, public and private colleges, hospitals, and social service agencies.
While reflecting a compromise between the needs of people with disabilities and the resources of covered entities, the clarity provided by the final rule is important to the lives of people with disabilities. The inaccessibility of digital materials is one of the most significant barriers to blind people being able to achieve their full potential and make their rightful contribution to American society.
Moreover, the final rule provides exactly the clarity that covered entities have been requesting regarding their obligations under Section 504 to make their websites and mobile applications accessible. Since 1973, Section 504 has required covered entities to ensure their communications with individuals with disabilities are “as effective as” communications with nondisabled individuals.
In the more than five decades since, the Department has made it clear that this standard also applies to websites and mobile applications and has issued guidance documents providing technical assistance to covered entities.
The final rule clarifies what is required to meet Section 504’s equally effective communication requirement in the context of digital information. It provides a clear technical standard based on an internationally recognized and widely adopted consensus standard.
It also provides flexibility by allowing covered entities to achieve equivalent facilitation and preventing liability for inaccessible elements that do not substantively affect the usability of a website or mobile application.
Notably, the rule also provides a series of exceptions, presumably implemented at the behest of covered entities, establishing web and mobile application elements and content that do not have to be made accessible. These exceptions are not available under the pre-existing equally effective communication requirement.
Although the equally effective communication requirement has been in effect for decades, the final rule also provides delayed effective dates of two or three years, depending on the size of the covered entity. Thus, rather than burdening those entities, the rule actually reduces their burdens.
The final rule reflects exactly what public entities have been seeking for years—a clear, transparent shared understanding of the applicable legal requirements. The final rule is clear and comprehensible, does not stray from legislative intent, and provides additional exceptions beyond what was established in the law.
There is no basis for reconsidering the Section 504 final rule, which has already gone through the traditional process of public input and adjustment, and which is based on a requirement in existence for nearly fifty years.
Additionally, public entities have had numerous years to prepare for the requirements that have been actively requested by stakeholders on all sides. Conversely, delaying or amending the regulation at this point would severely harm blind and other disabled Americans by denying us access to critical information. We urge that you withdraw the Interim Final Rule immediately.
Thank you for your attention to this important issue.
Sincerely,
Mark A. Riccobono, President
National Federation of the Blind
I pledge to participate actively in the efforts of the National Federation of the Blind to achieve equality, opportunity, and security for the blind; to support the policies and programs of the Federation; and to abide by its constitution.
(contents)