Trump Called Digital Equity Act ‘Racist.’ Now Internet Money for Rural Americans Is Gone. – KFF Health News

Report on the Termination of the Digital Equity Act and its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Executive Summary

A federal initiative, the Digital Equity Act, designed to bridge the digital divide in the United States, has been abruptly terminated. This action directly impedes progress on several key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to reducing inequality, promoting good health, ensuring quality education, and building resilient infrastructure. The cancellation of the $2.75 billion program jeopardizes efforts to provide essential internet access and digital literacy to vulnerable populations, thereby widening the gap in social and economic opportunities.

2.0 The Digital Equity Act’s Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

The program was structured to directly support the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by targeting systemic barriers to digital inclusion.

1. SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The Act’s primary objective was to reduce inequality by providing resources to specific populations, including low-income households, older residents, rural Americans, veterans, and members of racial or ethnic minority groups. By ensuring equitable access to digital tools, the program aimed to dismantle barriers to social and economic participation.
2. SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): The initiative was critical for advancing public health. Digital navigators assisted individuals in accessing healthcare portals and telehealth services. Research indicates a correlation between high-speed internet access and improved health outcomes, with analysis showing that residents in nearly 200 counties with poor internet access live sicker and die earlier on average.
3. SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): The program provided devices and training essential for modern education and employment. Case studies include students requiring tablets for online classwork and unemployed individuals needing digital skills to complete job applications, directly contributing to lifelong learning and economic productivity.
4. SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure): As part of a $65 billion infrastructure law, the Act was fundamental to building inclusive and sustainable digital infrastructure. It focused not only on physical connectivity but also on the human capacity required to utilize it, a key component of resilient infrastructure.

3.0 Program Implementation and Impact

The Act’s implementation relied on a network of “digital navigators” and comprehensive state-level planning, demonstrating a commitment to inclusive development.

• Community-Level Intervention: Digital navigators, such as Megan Waiters in Alabama, provided direct, on-the-ground support. This included distributing hundreds of devices (laptops, tablets) and conducting digital skills classes for diverse populations at libraries, senior centers, and workforce development programs.
• Participatory Governance (SDG 16): All 50 states engaged in extensive community outreach, including focus groups and surveys, to develop state-specific digital equity plans. This process was described by a program director as a significant demonstration of participatory democracy.
• Health System Integration: State plans actively sought to integrate digital equity with public health improvement goals. For example, Mississippi’s plan incorporated strategies from the state university and another agency’s health improvement plan to leverage broadband for better health outcomes.

4.0 Termination of Funding and Reversal of SDG Progress

In May, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) abruptly terminated the program’s funding, citing concerns over “unconstitutional racial preferences” following a political social media post. This decision has immediate and far-reaching consequences for SDG advancement.

4.1 Immediate Consequences

• Loss of Critical Funding: Awarded but undistributed grants were rescinded. The city of Phoenix, for example, lost a planned $11.8 million grant intended to provide internet access to 37,000 residents.
• Disruption of Services: Nonprofits and community organizations that relied on this funding to support digital navigators and literacy programs now face an uncertain future. The National Digital Inclusion Alliance, which was awarded nearly $26 million to support programs in 11 states, received no funds and has filed a lawsuit to compel their distribution.
• Exacerbation of the Digital Divide: The termination halts momentum in connecting millions of underserved Americans, directly undermining the goals of SDG 10. The concurrent failure to renew funding for the Affordable Connectivity Program, which served 23 million low-income households, further compounds this issue.

5.0 Conclusion: A Setback for an Inclusive Digital Future

The cancellation of the Digital Equity Act’s funding represents a significant setback for achieving an inclusive and equitable society in line with the Sustainable Development Goals. By defunding a program proven to connect vulnerable populations with essential health, education, and economic services, the action threatens to deepen existing inequalities (SDG 10) and reverse progress in public health (SDG 3) and economic opportunity (SDG 8). The digital divide remains a critical barrier to sustainable development, and the loss of this targeted initiative makes its closure a more distant goal.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • The article explicitly connects digital access to health outcomes. It mentions teaching a 91-year-old to “check health care portals,” the challenges of accessing “modern telehealth services” due to poor internet, and research finding that “residents live sicker and die earlier” in areas with internet “dead zones.” It also cites a study that found “access to high-speed internet correlated with fewer covid deaths.”

2. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • The need for digital access in education is highlighted by the story of a “7-year-old who couldn’t do classwork online without a tablet.” The work of digital navigators teaching classes on how to use the internet also supports lifelong learning and skills development.

3. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • The article links digital skills to economic participation, noting that digital navigators help people like “laid-off factory workers fill out job applications” and learn to use the internet for “work and personal needs, like banking.” This demonstrates the importance of digital equity for participating in the “modern economy.”

4. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

   • This is a central theme, as the article focuses on programs like the Digital Equity Act and the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program, which are part of a “$65 billion to build high-speed internet infrastructure and connect millions without access to the internet.”

5. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • The article directly addresses inequality by focusing on the Digital Equity Act, which was designed to benefit specific vulnerable groups, including “low-income households, older residents, some incarcerated people, rural Americans, veterans, and members of racial or ethnic minority groups.” The cancellation of the program is presented as a setback to reducing the digital divide for these populations.

6. SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

   • The article touches on issues of governance and institutional effectiveness. It describes the abrupt cancellation of a federally funded program following a political social media post, the subsequent notification to recipients that grants were terminated due to being “unconstitutional,” and the legal and political challenges from officials and non-profits seeking to “force Trump and the administration to distribute the money.” It also highlights the “participatory democracy” involved in creating state-level digital equity plans.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all.

   • The article supports this target by emphasizing how internet access is becoming essential for healthcare. The ability to “check health care portals” and use “modern telehealth services” are components of modern universal health coverage. The program aimed to provide this access to underserved communities.

2. Target 4.4: By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship.

   • This is directly addressed through the work of “digital navigators” like Megan Waiters, who was “teaching classes on how to use the internet for work and personal needs.” The article mentions she conducted “117 two-hour digital skills classes.”

3. Target 9.c: Significantly increase access to information and communications technology and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the Internet.

   • This is the core objective of the programs discussed. The Digital Equity Act and the BEAD program were created to “build high-speed internet infrastructure and connect millions without access to the internet,” directly aligning with the goal of universal and affordable access.

4. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.

   • The Digital Equity Act explicitly targeted inclusion by listing its intended beneficiaries as “low-income households, older residents, some incarcerated people, rural Americans, veterans, and members of racial or ethnic minority groups,” which directly reflects the language and intent of this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Number of households with internet access

   • The article provides specific numbers that serve as indicators. It mentions the Affordable Connectivity Program had enrolled “about 23 million low-income households,” and the canceled funding for Phoenix “would have helped 37,000 residents get internet access.” These figures directly measure the reach of internet access programs.

2. Number of devices distributed

   • Progress in providing the tools for digital access is quantified. The article states that digital navigator Megan Waiters “has distributed 648 devices — laptops, tablets, and SIM cards.” This is a direct indicator of program output.

3. Number of people trained in digital skills

   • The article implies this indicator by describing the work of digital navigators. It states Megan Waiters “helped hundreds of clients through 117 two-hour digital skills classes,” providing a measure of educational outreach and skills development.

4. Health outcomes in connected vs. unconnected areas

   • The article implies health-related indicators by citing research that “access to high-speed internet correlated with fewer covid deaths” and that in about 200 rural counties with internet dead zones, “residents live sicker and die earlier on average.” This suggests that morbidity and mortality rates could be used as indicators to measure the health impact of digital inclusion.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: kffhealthnews.org