Words Matter Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX-17]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 26, 2026
Bottom line
The Words Matter Act of 2025 updates federal statutes to use respectful, person-first language for individuals with intellectual disabilities, without changing substantive policy or benefits.
What it actually does
This bill systematically amends numerous federal laws across various U.S. Code titles to replace outdated and stigmatizing terms such as "mentally retarded" and "mental retardation" with modern, person-first language like "intellectual disability" or "individuals with intellectual disabilities." It also provides explicit guidance for federal agencies on how to interpret and update regulations to reflect these new terms, while clarifying that the changes are linguistic and do not alter existing rights, coverage, or responsibilities.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is a vital step in promoting dignity and respect for individuals with intellectual disabilities by eliminating offensive and outdated terminology from federal law. They contend that language significantly impacts societal perceptions and treatment, and this modernization reflects current medical, social, and advocacy standards, fostering a more inclusive environment for all citizens.
Opponents contend
No direct opposition is typically raised against bills solely focused on updating terminology to be more inclusive and respectful, especially when they explicitly state no change in coverage or rights. Potential, though unlikely, critics might view such changes as primarily symbolic or a low legislative priority, but generally acknowledge the positive intent.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it very accessible for a reader to understand its purpose and specific changes within a short timeframe.
Section 2(a)
Updating Terminology in Military Medical Care
This provision amends Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which governs the Armed Forces, to replace the phrase "is moderately or severely mentally retarded" with "has a moderate to severe intellectual disability" in the context of medical care contracts for spouses and children of service members. This ensures that military healthcare provisions align with modern, respectful terminology.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this change is essential to ensure that federal benefits for military families use language that is respectful and consistent with current understanding of intellectual disabilities, thereby reducing stigma for service members and their dependents.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision, as it is a linguistic update intended to promote dignity without altering substantive benefits.
Tradeoffs
There are no apparent tradeoffs, as the bill explicitly states that the changes do not alter coverage, eligibility, or rights.
Section 2(b)
Modernizing Housing Act Terminology
This section updates the National Housing Act by replacing the phrase "the mentally retarded or developmentally disabled" with "individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities." This change applies to provisions concerning mortgage insurance for facilities such as nursing homes, intermediate care facilities, and board and care homes, ensuring respectful language in housing policy.
Sections 2(j) through 2(o)
Comprehensive Terminology Update in Social Security and Healthcare Acts
This extensive set of amendments updates numerous titles and sections of the Social Security Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It systematically replaces all instances of "mentally retarded" and "mental retardation" with "individuals with intellectual disabilities" or "intellectual disability." This includes provisions related to criminal penalties in federal healthcare programs, long-term care facilities, grants for comprehensive action to respond to the needs of individuals with intellectual disabilities (including updating a title heading), skilled nursing facilities, and State medical assistance programs (Medicaid).
Section 3
Guidance for Regulatory Updates
This section provides specific instructions for federal agencies regarding how to handle existing regulations and how to amend them to comply with this Act. Before a regulation is formally amended, any reference to "mental retardation" must be considered a reference to "an intellectual disability," and "the mentally retarded" or "individuals who are mentally retarded" must be considered "individuals with intellectual disabilities." When agencies do amend regulations, they are required to clearly state that the new terms were formerly known by the old terms.
Section 4
Clarification of Intent and Scope
This section serves as a rule of construction, explicitly clarifying that the Act's purpose is solely to remove outdated terminology. It states that the amendments are not intended to change the coverage, eligibility, rights, responsibilities, or definitions referred to in the amended provisions. Furthermore, it clarifies that states are not compelled to change their own laws to match the new federal terminology, respecting state legislative autonomy.
This section mandates how federal agencies must interpret existing regulations (before formal amendment) and how they must amend them, including a requirement to clearly state that the new terms were formerly known by the old terms.
Section 3
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for implementation details, ensuring a smooth transition and preventing legal ambiguity during the period when regulations are being updated to reflect new statutory language.
Case for: Ensures consistency and clarity in the application of federal law and regulations during the transition period, preventing confusion for agencies and affected individuals. The requirement to explicitly state the former terminology helps maintain historical context and understanding.
Case against: No specific case against, as it is an administrative directive aimed at effective implementation.
Estimated impact: Ensures the linguistic changes are consistently applied across all federal regulations, affecting the clarity and accessibility of countless government documents.
This section explicitly clarifies that the Act's amendments are solely for terminology and do not change existing coverage, eligibility, rights, responsibilities, or definitions in federal law. It also states that states are not compelled to change their own laws.
Section 4
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to prevent unintended consequences and provide legal certainty when making widespread statutory changes. It explicitly limits the scope of the bill to linguistic updates.
Case for: Crucial for preventing legal challenges, reassuring stakeholders that substantive rights and benefits are preserved, and respecting state legislative authority by not imposing unfunded mandates for terminology changes.
Case against: No specific case against, as it is a safeguard against misinterpretation and overreach.
Estimated impact: Provides legal certainty for all federal programs and state governments affected by the terminology changes, ensuring no alteration to substantive policy or state autonomy.