The Premier Source for Propaganda: How 'Disability Scoop' Exemplifies Neocolonial, Neoliberal, and Neoconservative Agendas
The recent article from Disability Scoop about President-elect Donald Trump’s plan to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education provides a stark example of how so-called “news outlets” can soft-sell harmful policies under the guise of neutrality. Disability Scoop brands itself as “The Premier Source for Developmental Disability News,” a tagline that suggests authority and reliability. However, a closer look at its framing reveals how easily it aligns with narratives that downplay the devastating consequences of regressive proposals. The article presents a collection of “expert” opinions on the implications of eliminating the Department of Education, but the balance of voices and the understated tone of the piece subtly shift the narrative away from the gravity of what this policy change represents. Instead of a firm critique of how such a move could erode civil rights and harm disabled students, it normalises the idea as an administrative adjustment, sidestepping the profound risks involved.
As the nation transitions into a second Trump administration, it is vital to approach media critically, especially outlets like Disability Scoop that appear to cater to niche audiences but may, in reality, serve as conduits for propaganda. The far-right’s neocolonial, neoliberal, and neoconservative agendas often rely on such reporting to subtly embed their harmful ideologies into mainstream consciousness. These agendas thrive on deregulation, decentralisation, and the erosion of protections for the most vulnerable, all whilst being marketed as efficiency or state-level empowerment. The Disability Scoop piece serves as a case study in how such agendas can be packaged in seemingly benign reporting, obscuring their true nature. For disabled people and other marginalised groups, this type of coverage sets the stage for normalising policies that will only deepen inequality and reduce access to essential rights and services. Recognising and resisting these narratives is a critical step in countering the broader agenda at play.
What Does the Far-Right Agenda Really Look Like?
The far-right’s agenda is deeply rooted in three interconnected ideologies: neocolonialism, neoliberalism, and neoconservatism. Historically, these ideologies have driven exploitation and oppression across the globe, but now, the far-right turns its focus inward, targeting marginalised groups within their own borders. Each of these frameworks plays a distinct but complementary role in advancing policies that widen inequality whilst presenting themselves as solutions.
Neocolonialism thrives on exploiting marginalised groups for profit under the guise of equity or independence. In this context, the privatisation of public education serves as a prime example. Policies marketed as “school choice” or “state-level control” mask the reality of resource extraction from public systems to benefit private interests. This model echoes historical colonial practices, where systems of power extracted wealth and labour whilst maintaining a veneer of autonomy for the oppressed (e.g., the massive wealth transfer from south Asia by the British). The proposal to dismantle the Department of Education aligns with this framework, as it opens the door to further privatisation and uneven access to resources for vulnerable students, particularly those with disabilities.
Neoliberalism, meanwhile, prioritises “market-based solutions,” deregulation, and decentralisation, often at the expense of public goods. It frames public services like education as inefficient and burdensome, advocating instead for decentralised state control and private sector involvement (e.g., the neoliberal agenda for post-Soviet Russia that created its oligarchs). The Disability Scoop article reflects this ideology in its downplaying of the potential consequences of closing the Department of Education, implying that states will seamlessly step up to fill the void. This rhetoric conveniently ignores the historical failures of state governments to protect the rights of disabled people and other marginalised groups. Deregulation and decentralisation have consistently resulted in a patchwork of protections, where vulnerable populations in conservative states face far worse outcomes than those in more progressive areas.
Neoconservatism complements these economic and structural shifts by reinforcing cultural and moral hierarchies. It thrives on moral panic, targeting trans individuals, disabled people, and others who challenge traditional norms (e.g., the neoconservative record of creating new enemies to defeat). The far-right’s focus on dismantling equity initiatives in education, including those protecting LGBTQ+ students and disabled individuals, is a direct extension of this agenda. The Disability Scoop article’s subtle endorsement of “state control” reflects this ideology, as states with far-right leadership are most likely to roll back protections under the guise of moral governance and "family values."
Together, these ideologies create a perfect storm of exploitation and control. Neocolonialism extracts resources, neoliberalism dismantles protections, and neoconservatism enforces compliance through moral and cultural dominance. For disabled people, trans individuals, and those in poverty, the far-right’s agenda exacerbates inequality at every turn, leaving them with fewer rights, fewer resources, and greater vulnerability. The Disability Scoop piece, by failing to interrogate these dynamics, serves as a microcosm of how such agendas are normalised and advanced.
Argentina as a Case Study of Neocolonial Looting
Argentina’s recent experience under neoliberal governance offers a stark illustration of how far-right policies can devastate a nation’s population while enriching a select few. Over the past year, the country has faced record-breaking poverty rates and soaring unemployment, accompanied by severe cuts to public services. Whilst the majority of Argentinians struggle to make ends meet, the ruling class and their business allies thrive, consolidating wealth and influence. This sharp economic divide is emblematic of neocolonial economic stratification, where the elite extract resources and benefits while leaving the majority to bear the consequences of austerity and exploitation.
Under neoliberal policies, Argentina’s government slashed funding for social programmes, gutted public services, and embraced privatisation. Public institutions that once provided critical support, including healthcare and education, were hollowed out or eliminated in favour of “market-based solutions.” The result was predictable: an underfunded public sector unable to meet the needs of the population, alongside a thriving private sector that catered exclusively to those who could afford it. Businesses celebrated record profits and demanded further tax cuts and deregulation, even as poverty reached unprecedented levels. These policies created a chasm between the haves and have-nots, with millions of Argentinians living in precarity whilst the elite amassed greater wealth and power.
This dynamic is alarmingly similar to the far-right’s plans for the United States, particularly in their approach to dismantling federal oversight in education. The push to eliminate the Department of Education mirrors Argentina’s privatisation spree, where public institutions were left gutted and ineffective. Just as Argentina’s central government relinquished responsibility for equitable service delivery, the far-right in the US advocates for state-level control, knowing full well that this will lead to uneven protections and resources. Wealthier states may maintain some semblance of support, but poorer states, especially those already controlled by far-right regimes, are likely to abandon marginalised populations altogether.
The parallels extend beyond economic policies. In both Argentina and the US, cultural oppression and moral panic serve as powerful tools to distract from economic looting. Argentina’s regime fostered social divides through polarising rhetoric, scapegoating marginalised groups to shift attention away from economic inequality. Similarly, the far-right in the US weaponises cultural battles—targeting trans individuals, disabled people, and women’s rights—to keep the public focused on moral outrage rather than systemic exploitation. These tactics not only deepen social divisions but also create an environment where marginalised groups bear the brunt of oppressive policies.
For disabled people, women, and trans individuals, these policies are particularly devastating. In Argentina, austerity measures disproportionately affected those reliant on public services, exacerbating inequality for already vulnerable populations. The US far-right’s agenda threatens to do the same, dismantling federal protections and leaving disabled individuals and others to navigate an increasingly hostile system. Meanwhile, the ruling class benefits from deregulation and tax cuts, demanding even greater concessions as the gap between rich and poor widens. Argentina serves as a cautionary tale, a clear warning of what happens when neoliberalism, neocolonialism, and neoconservatism converge to prioritise profit and control over equity and justice.
‘States’ Rights:’ Easier Looting for the Far-Right
The rhetoric of “states’ rights” has long been a convenient tool for advancing far-right agendas, allowing for the fragmentation of oversight and accountability whilst cloaking regressive policies in the language of local empowerment. In practice, this rhetoric enables the looting of public resources and the erosion of rights for the most vulnerable. States like Oklahoma, Florida, and Texas are already prime examples of how this plays out. In Oklahoma, the Heritage Foundation has effectively written much of the state’s current legislative agenda, exemplifying how far-right think tanks use "states' rights" as a vehicle for advancing their broader goals. Following the recent elections, spikes in GoFundMe appeals from families attempting to flee these states illustrate the human cost of these policies, as marginalised communities face increasing hostility and declining access to services.
In education, decentralising oversight poses severe risks to equity and access. Federal protections like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Title IX are designed to ensure equal rights nationwide. Fragmenting these responsibilities to the states creates a patchwork system where enforcement depends on local priorities and resources, leaving students in conservative states with little to no protection. Without federal oversight, the principle of “equal protection under the law” collapses, replaced by uneven implementation that further entrenches disparities. Wealthier states like California may initially maintain some protections, but poorer states like Mississippi and Alabama will rapidly deteriorate. Even so, can we stand by while the far-right continues to loot the public purse across the Midwest and South, stripping already underfunded systems of their remaining resources?
The Disability Scoop article reflects how this decentralisation is being normalised. It frames these changes as mere “administrative shifts,” implying that the redistribution of responsibilities from federal to state systems is harmless. However, these shifts are not neutral. The federal system, though imperfect, is not fully captured by far-right interests. By contrast, many state systems are already under complete far-right control, enabling unchecked implementation of regressive policies. The article fails to interrogate this reality, presenting decentralisation as benign whilst ignoring its devastating consequences. “States’ rights” is not about empowerment; it is a tool for exploitation and inequality, and its consequences will be borne by those with the least ability to resist.
A Call for Media Literacy: Recognising Propaganda in Disguise
In an age where information is more accessible than ever, the dangers of consuming “news” from sources aligned with harmful agendas are both subtle and pervasive. Outlets like Disability Scoop, which claim neutrality and expertise, are often anything but neutral. Instead, they frequently reflect the perspectives and interests of those outside the communities they report on, framing narratives in ways that prioritise external views over the lived experiences of those directly affected. In the case of disability-focused media, it’s often parents, siblings, or caregivers—particularly those with financial or ideological stakes—who dominate the discourse, centring their own experiences, hopes, and desires rather than those of disabled individuals themselves. This dynamic creates a distorted representation of disability issues, one that is not only incomplete but can actively harm the very communities it purports to support.
This problem is further compounded by algorithms and media platforms that amplify these narratives whilst silencing or demonetising disabled and marginalised creators. Social media algorithms often favour sensationalised or emotionally charged stories—particularly those from the perspectives of caregivers—over nuanced reporting or first-hand accounts from disabled people. At the same time, genuinely marginalised journalists and creators face systemic barriers, from demonetisation to outright censorship, leaving their voices underrepresented and undervalued. In the case of Disability Scoop, the outlet’s ownership and editorial direction reflect this imbalance, prioritising a detached, external viewpoint over one grounded in disability justice.
During periods of political transition, such as the return of the Trump administration, this imbalance becomes especially dangerous. Propaganda aimed at normalising regressive policies will be widespread, and even ostensibly neutral outlets will play a role in softening the blow of devastating changes. It is therefore crucial for readers to critically evaluate the news they consume. Checking the “About Us” section, inspecting the credentials of reporters, and questioning the sources of funding or influence behind an outlet are essential steps in identifying biases. Alarmingly, many articles today are not even written by real journalists but are generated by large language models (LLMs), which further erodes accountability and authenticity in reporting. Discovering that many “reporters” are fabrications, created to lend credibility to AI-generated content, should give readers pause and prompt greater scrutiny.
The antidote to this onslaught of biased and often artificial narratives lies in centring disabled voices and amplifying outlets that genuinely advocate for equity and justice. Platforms like The AutSide, which prioritise first-hand perspectives and place marginalised communities at the heart of their reporting, are crucial for countering harmful propaganda. Disabled individuals must be recognised as the experts in their own experiences, and their voices must guide the conversations about policies and issues that affect them. By seeking out and supporting these authentic sources, readers can resist the normalisation of oppressive agendas and foster a media landscape that truly serves justice and equity. In this moment of transition, media literacy is not just a skill; it is a necessity.
Final thoughts …
The Disability Scoop article exemplifies how propaganda works to soften the perception of devastating policies, presenting radical shifts as neutral or administrative changes. By framing the potential dismantling of the Department of Education in measured tones and highlighting voices that downplay the consequences, the piece functions as a subtle endorsement of the far-right’s agenda. The danger lies in uncritically absorbing such narratives, which disguise harmful policies as reasonable adjustments, leaving readers ill-prepared to recognise or resist the broader implications. Propaganda like this is not an anomaly but a deliberate tactic to normalise oppression and distract from systemic exploitation.
This moment fits within a larger pattern of neocolonial, neoliberal, and neoconservative exploitation. From Argentina’s economic stratification to the far-right’s invocation of “states’ rights” in the U.S., the blueprint is the same: dismantle public protections, privatise essential services, and enrich the ruling class whilst marginalised communities bear the brunt of inequality and resource deprivation. By fragmenting oversight and accountability, these policies target the most vulnerable whilst ensuring that the looting of public systems remains largely unchecked.
Disabled people and their allies must see these narratives for what they are: a calculated effort to normalise exploitation and maintain control. Recognising propaganda is the first step toward resisting it. Together, we must reject the narratives that serve the powerful and demand policies that prioritise equity, justice, and human dignity over profit and control. The stakes are too high to accept these stories at face value.