Which US Government Websites Fail Accessibility Standards? (2026 Report)

Published April 29, 2026 · 12 min read · By Accessalyze Research Team

The Americans with Disabilities Act was signed in 1990. More than three decades later, many of the websites operated by the US government still exclude millions of people with disabilities.

We used Accessalyze to scan 38 federal and state government websites against WCAG 2.1 AA standards — the same standard now required under the DOJ's finalized ADA Title II rule. The results expose a wide spectrum: some states have reached near-perfection, while high-profile federal sites are failing badly.

How We Scanned These Sites

All scans were conducted in April 2026 using Accessalyze's automated WCAG 2.1 AA scanner, powered by the axe-core accessibility engine — the same engine used by enterprise accessibility teams at Fortune 500 companies and major government contractors.

Each scan tested a site's homepage against the full WCAG 2.1 AA ruleset. Scores are calculated on a 0–100 scale based on the number, severity, and prevalence of violations detected. Violations are classified as:

• Critical — Blocks access for users with disabilities (e.g., images with no alt text, unlabeled form fields)
• Serious — Significantly impairs access (e.g., missing HTML language attribute, links without descriptive text)
• Moderate — Creates meaningful barriers (e.g., incorrect heading order, landmark structure issues)
• Minor — Best-practice violations with limited direct impact

The Worst Offenders

Four government websites scored below 50 — the threshold we consider a clear FAIL against basic accessibility standards.

Mississippi (ms.gov) — 15/100

Mississippi's state portal is the single worst-performing government site in our dataset. It carries 2 critical violations, 1 serious violation, and 5 moderate violations on its homepage alone. The most damaging: seven images with no alternative text (image-alt), an unlabeled button (button-name), and a missing main landmark. For screen reader users, this site is largely unusable.

US Senate (senate.gov) — 30/100

The website of the United States Senate — the body that writes the laws, including disability rights law — scores 30/100. It has 4 violations on the homepage: missing HTML language attribute, image without alt text, 5 links without discernible text, and 2 form elements without labels. This means a blind senator constituent using a screen reader literally cannot use the Senate's own contact forms.

Rhode Island (ri.gov) — 40/100

Rhode Island's portal carries 8 violations across the serious and moderate impact levels. The predominant issues are structural: list elements used incorrectly (16 <li> instances outside of proper <ul>/<ol> containers) and form labels that rely only on hidden or tooltip-style attributes rather than visible labels.

Michigan (michigan.gov) — 45/100

Michigan's state site scored 45/100. While the exact violation breakdown resembles structural landmark issues common across mid-tier state sites, the score puts it solidly in the failing range — particularly concerning given Michigan's population of over 10 million.

Full Data Table: All 38 .gov Sites Scanned

Scores represent the Accessalyze WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility score (0–100) as measured in April 2026. Higher is better.

The Most Common Accessibility Violations on Government Sites

Across all 38 sites, the same violation types appear again and again. These aren't obscure edge cases — they're fundamental structural issues that have been fixable for decades.

1. Region — Content Outside Landmarks (13 sites, 102 instances)

The single most prevalent violation. WCAG requires all visible page content to be wrapped in semantic landmark regions (<main>, <nav>, <header>, <footer>, etc.) so screen reader users can skip to relevant sections. 13 of the 38 government sites we scanned had content floating outside any landmark. With 102 total instances, this is by far the most prevalent problem.

13 of 38 sites affected (34%)

2. Link Name — Links Without Discernible Text (12 sites, 54 instances)

When a link contains only an icon (often a social media logo or arrow) with no text and no aria-label, screen readers announce it as "link" with no destination. This affects 12 government sites, including senate.gov which has 5 such links on its homepage. A screen reader user literally cannot tell where these links go.

12 of 38 sites affected (32%)

3. Landmark One Main — Missing Main Landmark (8 sites, 11 instances)

Every page should have exactly one <main> element. Screen reader users often jump directly to the main content area to skip navigation. Eight government sites are missing this entirely — meaning users must listen through every navigation link on every page load.

8 of 38 sites affected (21%)

4. HTML Has Lang — Missing Language Attribute (7 sites)

The lang attribute on the <html> element tells screen readers which language to use for text-to-speech. Without it, a screen reader might try to read English content with the wrong voice engine, producing unintelligible output. Seven government sites — including senate.gov — are missing this one-word attribute.

7 of 38 sites affected (18%)

5. Image Alt — Missing Alternative Text (6 sites, 22 instances)

Images without alt text are invisible to screen readers. ms.gov has 7 such images on its homepage. This is perhaps the most well-known accessibility rule — and it's still being violated on government sites in 2026.

6 of 38 sites affected (16%)

6. Heading Order — Incorrect Heading Hierarchy (6 sites, 18 instances)

Headings should follow a logical hierarchy (h1 → h2 → h3). When they skip levels (h1 → h3) or repeat levels incorrectly, screen reader users who navigate by heading lose their sense of document structure. ms.gov has 10 heading order violations on one page.

6 of 38 sites affected (16%)

Federal vs. State: Who's Doing Worse?

The data reveals an interesting divide. Several high-profile federal agencies cluster in the concerning 65/100 zone — including whitehouse.gov, cdc.gov, nasa.gov, ssa.gov, and transportation.gov. These are agencies with large budgets and dedicated IT teams.

Meanwhile, the state-level picture is more varied. Some smaller states — Montana (98), South Dakota (98), Vermont (95), Delaware (100), Massachusetts (100) — consistently outperform the federal government. Others, like Mississippi (15) and Michigan (45), are in crisis.

Federal Sites — Average Score: 73

Sites scanned: senate.gov (30), whitehouse.gov (65), cdc.gov (65), nasa.gov (65), ssa.gov (65), transportation.gov (65), fda.gov (80), hhs.gov (83), energy.gov (90), irs.gov (90), medicare.gov (90).

State/Local Sites — Average Score: 77

A wider range: from ms.gov (15) to illinois.gov, mass.gov, delaware.gov, charlottenc.gov, and columbus.gov (all 100). The best-performing states demonstrate that perfection is achievable — making the worst performers' failures inexcusable.

The April 2027 ADA Title II Deadline: What Government Sites Must Do

In April 2024, the DOJ finalized its long-awaited ADA Title II web accessibility rule. For the first time, WCAG 2.1 AA compliance is explicitly required by federal regulation for:

• All state and local government entities with a population over 50,000 — deadline: April 26, 2027
• State and local government entities with a population under 50,000 — deadline: April 26, 2028
• Special district governments — deadline: April 26, 2028

Federal agencies are separately governed by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, which has required WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA compliance since the 2018 Section 508 refresh. Yet our scan data shows major federal agencies still falling well short.

What Happens to Non-Compliant Government Sites?

Enforcement of the ADA Title II web rule happens through:

• DOJ investigations — The DOJ can investigate complaints and issue compliance letters or enter consent decrees requiring remediation plans
• Private lawsuits — Individuals can sue government entities under the ADA for web accessibility failures, seeking injunctive relief
• Federal funding consequences — Section 504 linkage means accessibility failures can risk federal grant funding for state agencies
• Reputational and press pressure — Reports like this one draw public attention to the gap between government's obligations and its reality

Who's Getting It Right — And What They Did

Five government sites scored a perfect 100/100 in our April 2026 scan: illinois.gov, mass.gov, delaware.gov, columbus.gov, and charlottenc.gov. Two more — montana.gov and sd.gov — scored 98/100.

What do the top performers share?

• Semantic HTML structure — Proper use of <main>, <nav>, <header>, <footer> landmarks throughout
• Complete alt text coverage — Every image has a descriptive alt attribute (or empty alt for decorative images)
• Descriptive link text — Links use meaningful text rather than "click here," icon-only buttons, or empty anchors
• Proper form labeling — Every input field has a visible, associated <label> element
• Language declaration — The <html lang="en"> attribute is present on every page

Methodology Notes and Limitations

This report covers automated scanning only. Automated tools detect rule-based violations but cannot assess:

• Keyboard navigation flow and focus traps
• Screen reader compatibility (JAWS, NVDA, VoiceOver)
• Cognitive accessibility (reading level, layout complexity)
• Color contrast in dynamic or interactive states
• Video/audio accessibility (captions, transcripts)
• PDFs and downloadable documents linked from the site

A site scoring 100/100 here has passed automated WCAG checks on its homepage — it may still have manual testing failures. A complete WCAG 2.1 AA audit requires both automated scanning and manual expert review.

Scans were conducted on each site's primary homepage. Internal pages, agency subdomains, and linked applications may have different scores.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which US government website has the worst accessibility score?

Mississippi's state portal (ms.gov) scored 15/100 in our April 2026 scan — the lowest of all 38 government sites we tested. Among federal government sites, the US Senate (senate.gov) scored lowest at 30/100.

Does whitehouse.gov meet WCAG 2.1 AA?

Based on our automated scan, whitehouse.gov scored 65/100 — indicating it has meaningful accessibility gaps that likely keep it from full WCAG 2.1 AA compliance. It joins cdc.gov, nasa.gov, ssa.gov, and transportation.gov in the same score range.

What is the ADA Title II compliance deadline for government websites?

The DOJ issued an interim final rule on April 20, 2026 extending the compliance deadline. State and local government entities with a population over 50,000 now have until April 26, 2027. Smaller entities and special districts have until April 26, 2028. Federal agencies have separate Section 508 requirements in effect since 2018. See our full breakdown of the DOJ deadline extension.

Which government websites scored 100/100?

Five sites earned perfect scores in our April 2026 scan: illinois.gov, mass.gov (Massachusetts), delaware.gov, columbus.gov (Ohio), and charlottenc.gov (Charlotte, North Carolina).

How was this report created?

All sites were scanned using Accessalyze, powered by the axe-core accessibility engine. Scans ran against each site's primary homepage in April 2026 and tested against WCAG 2.1 Level AA criteria. Scores reflect the number, severity, and distribution of detected violations on a 0–100 scale.

How often will this report be updated?

We plan to update this report quarterly. Government sites can rescan at any time using Accessalyze to track their progress.

Related reading: ADA Website Compliance 2026 Guide · Section 508 Compliance Checklist · Automated vs. Manual Accessibility Testing