Argentina’s National Disability Agency (ANDIS) has come under intense criticism after publishing an official document that used outdated and offensive terms such as “idiot,” “imbecile,” and “mentally retarded” to classify individuals with intellectual disabilities.
The document, Resolution 187/2025, was published in the Official Gazette on January 16 and sparked widespread outrage among disability rights advocates, mental health professionals, and the general public.
The resolution, part of President Javier Milei’s cost-cutting policies, aimed to adjust disability benefits for over a million Argentines. However, an annex to the document categorised individuals based on IQ ranges using terminology long abandoned by modern medicine due to its discriminatory nature.
Specifically, it labeled people with IQs of 0-30 as “idiots,” those with IQs between 30-50 as “imbeciles,” and used variations of “mentally handicapped” for higher IQ ranges.
Each classification included descriptions of functional abilities, such as the capacity to read, write, or manage basic needs.
Accountability issues
The use of such language has been condemned as a violation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), an international treaty that holds constitutional status in Argentina. Disability rights organisations argue that the resolution perpetuates harmful stereotypes and undermines the dignity of people with disabilities.
ANDIS issued an apology on February 27, nearly six weeks after the document’s publication, stating that the use of offensive terms was “an error derived from the use of concepts belonging to obsolete terminology” and was not intended to discriminate. However, the timing of the apology has raised questions, as formal complaints had been lodged weeks earlier.
The agency’s director Diego Spagnuolo, whose signature appeared on the controversial document, announced from Israel—where he was on an official trip—that “the people responsible for what happened have already been dismissed.” This statement has drawn further criticism, with many questioning how Spagnuolo could dismiss others while his own signature authorised the document.
