A 336-page federal research roadmap for autism has ignited a fierce debate among researchers, advocacy groups, and scientific organizations. Concerns are mounting that the plan, recently crafted under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., could divert crucial federal funding toward unproven therapies and away from essential genetic research.

This controversial draft strategic plan, developed by the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, was opened for public comment recently. If adopted, it stands to reshape autism policy for years to come.

Critics have raised alarm bells over Kennedy’s decision to overhaul the committee, replacing well-established experts with individuals linked to anti-vaccine movements. Many of these new members advocate therapies like chelation and even industrial bleach, which have been widely discredited.

“So much of the plan is fringe science that is absolutely not ready for prime time,” stated Helen Tager-Flusberg, a former Boston University professor who served on the IACC prior to its reconfiguration by Kennedy.

One of the most contentious elements of the draft is the proposed allocation of $15 million for research into folate biology connected to leucovorin. This therapy was promoted by Trump and Kennedy recently, despite minimal evidence supporting its efficacy for autism.

Self-advocates within the autism community are particularly worried about the plan’s mention of “supported-living models,” which include “farmstead or campus-based communities.” They fear this could signify a troubling return to institutional confinement.

The Autistic Self Advocacy Network criticized the draft, stating it proposes changes that would force more autistic individuals into institutions. “Farmsteads are still institutions,” they emphasized, arguing that such models segregate autistic people from their non-disabled peers.

Compounding these fears, a recent memo from the Justice Department suggested states may no longer be required to provide community-based services for people with disabilities.

This shift, according to the American Association of People with Disabilities, could hurl the nation back into a past plagued by ignorance and cruelty toward disabled individuals.

Questions surrounding potential conflicts of interest have also emerged. Dr. Dan Rossignol, an IACC member with financial ties to leucovorin therapies, has come under scrutiny for his role in shaping the funding suggestions within the plan.

Despite the controversy, Rossignol insisted he follows federal ethics guidelines and did not personally determine the funding amount included in the draft.

Additionally, the plan advocates for “rigorous testing” of fecal microbiota transplants for addressing gastrointestinal issues related to autism. This comes despite a 2019 FDA safety alert tied to a patient death associated with such procedures.

The draft also supports “partner-assisted communication” for non-speaking autistic individuals, a method criticized by the rival Independent Autism Coordinating Committee. They assert that this approach often reflects the views of the partner rather than the actual thoughts of the autistic person.

In defense of the strategic plan, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services asserted that it aims to capture the “scale and complexity” of autism while aligning evidence with federal authority.

As the public comment period comes to a close, the reactions from the autism community and its advocates are both vocal and resolute, highlighting the deep divisions over the future of autism research and support in the United States.

The decisions made in the wake of this draft plan could have lasting effects on funding priorities within autism research, steering resources toward areas that many claim are scientifically unsound.

As advocates brace for potentially sweeping changes, the fate of future autistic research—and the individuals it aims to support—hangs in the balance.

With upcoming discussions set to occur in the political arena, the ongoing debate will likely intensify as various stakeholders seek to influence the direction of autism policy in America.