was originally reported by Kate Sosin of .Ìę

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 Tuesday that a Colorado ban on conversion therapy for youth violates the free speech rights of a Christian counselor, clearing the way for a practice that goes against the recommendations of every major medical association in the country.

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson .

“Today’s reckless decision means more American kids will suffer,” she said. “The Court has weaponized free-speech in order to prioritize anti-LGBTQ+ bias over the safety, health and wellbeing of children.”

Conversion therapy is a in which providers attempt to change a youth’s sexual orientation or gender identity, often through extremely harsh methods including acts of physical, psychological and sexual abuse against minors — , chemically induced nausea and hypnosis, among others.

The and recommended it be banned.Ìę Twenty-three states and Washington, D.C., have laws banning conversion therapy for minors.

The decision comes on , a global day celebrating transgender lives and culture every March 31.

Some LGBTQ+ advocates note that while the ruling favors a discredited practice, it leaves most avenues of regulating conversion therapy untouched.

“I think the most important thing to understand about the decision today is that it only takes one way of regulating conversion therapy off the table,” said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights.

Tuesday’s ruling throws out Colorado’s ban, but does not strike down bans in other states, which advocates feared could be a worst-case scenario. The case, Chiles v. Salazar, was brought by Christian counselor Kaley Chiles, who argued that the ban violated her free speech rights. Chiles says she only offers talk therapy and does not use physical interventions or prescribe medications.

The ruling does not declare conversion therapy safe or effective. It also leaves intact the ability of medical licensing boards’ to investigate conversion therapy practice as fraudulent.

Minter said in a statement that the ruling still leaves room to discipline providers in states where it is banned.

“This decision is narrowly about how conversion therapy can be regulated. It does not mean that conversion therapy is safe or legal. Conversion therapy is still medical malpractice and consumer fraud,” Minter said. “Every major medical organization in this country condemns it. Survivors can still bring malpractice and consumer fraud claims.”

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch argued that Colorado’s law applies beyond “physical interventions,” and restricts free speech.

“Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety. Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same,” the opinion read. “But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth.”

The majority held that the right to free speech applies equally to licensed medical professionals as to all Americans.

As the lone dissent, argued that the majority “failed to appreciate the crucial context” of Chiles’ case. “Chiles is not speaking in the ether; she is providing therapy to minors as a licensed healthcare professional,” she wrote.

Neither side disputed Colorado’s authority to regulate medical treatments and providers or claimed that a state doing so is unconstitutional, she said.

“So, in my view, it cannot also be the case that Colorado’s decision to restrict a dangerous therapy modality that, incidentally, involves provider speech is presumptively unconstitutional,” Jackson added. “In concluding otherwise, the Court’s opinion misreads our precedents, is unprincipled and unworkable and will eventually prove untenable for those who rely upon the long-recognized responsibility of states to regulate the medical profession for the protection of public health.”

This is the first of three LGBTQ+ blockbuster cases before the court this term. Two others, , were heard at the same time earlier this year.

Grace Panetta contributed reporting.

In the California case, , the conservative justices reinstated a December district court decision that temporarily blocked schools from keeping such information private or from changing names and pronouns when parents say it violates their religious beliefs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had granted Attorney General Rob Bonta’s request for an emergency stay while the district court hears the case, and Monday’s order overruled that stay.

The Supreme Court relied on last year’s ruling in in which the justices sided with religious parents who wanted to opt their elementary school children out of lessons related to LGBTQ-themed storybooks. 

“California’s policies will likely not survive the strict scrutiny that Mahmoud demands,“ the order said, adding that “parents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed” at the district court level. 

Referencing one of the families in the case, they wrote: “At the beginning of their daughter’s eighth-grade year, she attempted suicide and was hospitalized. Only then did her parents learn from a doctor that she had gender dysphoria and had been presenting as a boy at school.”

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon praised the decision. “Huge win for parental rights in education!” she on X. The administration agrees with many conservative groups that schools have kept parents in the dark about their children’s social transition and should proactively notify them when their child asks to use different pronouns or bathrooms. 

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez’s temporary injunction said that California schools can’t mislead parents about their children’s gender identity and must prominently display wording that says parents “have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence.” 

Bonta has argued that the state’s policies, including a 2024 law barring districts from forcing teachers to “out” students, don’t prevent schools from sharing information with parents. But he said Benitez’s blanket ruling — and the Supreme Court’s decision to keep it in place — puts students at risk if they’re not ready to disclose their gender identity. Advocates for LGBTQ students agree.

“In its rush to expand religious influence in public schools, the Supreme Court prioritized religious exemptions over children’s success and well-being and trampled on the rights and futures of transgender students without considering the full facts of the case,” Gaylynn Burroughs, vice president for education and workplace justice at the National Women’s Law Center, said in . 

‘The court is impatient’

That’s the same point that Justice Elena Kagan, one of the three liberals on the court, made in her dissent, which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined. Kagan agreed that “parents have rights” when it comes to their children’s “life choices,” but that the court should wait until the case plays out before the Ninth Circuit. 

“The court is impatient: It already knows what it thinks, and insists on getting everything over quickly,” she wrote. 

If the conservatives wanted to consider the “thorny legal issues” involved, she added, they should agree to hear a Massachusetts case, Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, that makes similar arguments for parental rights.

“By recent count, almost 40 cases raising due process and/or free exercise objections to similar school policies are currently in the judicial system,” she wrote. “By granting certiorari on one (or more) of those cases, the court could ensure that the issues raised by such policies receive the careful, disciplined consideration they merit.”

The court has repeatedly delayed its decision whether to grant or deny a hearing in the Foote case and another one from . Both are scheduled for consideration again this Friday.

In a separate statement concurring with the majority, which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined, Justice Amy Coney Barrett disagreed that the court was hasty in overruling the Ninth Circuit. 

“Under California’s policy, parents will be excluded — perhaps for years — from participating in consequential decisions about their child’s mental health and wellbeing,” she wrote. 

Teachers from the Escondido Union School District, near San Diego, originally filed the case in 2023, saying the state’s guidance violates their Christian faith. Parents later joined the case. Without giving a reason, the court denied the teachers’ request to set aside the Ninth Circuit’s stay, but Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have sided with the teachers as well. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she would have denied the relief for all of the plaintiffs.

David Mishook, an attorney with F3 Law, which represents California school districts, said that given the Supreme Court’s “strong language,” he wouldn’t be surprised if Bonta drops any challenge to Judge Benitez’s injunction.

While neither Benitez nor the Supreme Court come right out and say that teachers must proactively disclose a child’s gender identity to parents, the order “suggests that teachers, and by extension their employers, now stand at great risk if they do not discuss gender expression with parents.”

The court’s ruling follows a late January decision in which the Education Department that California’s policies violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which gives parents the right to inspect their children’s educational records. She pointed to instances in which schools used trans students’ preferred names and pronouns in school databases, but parents would see legal names when they logged in. 

The state risks losing over $5 billion in federal funds if it doesn’t comply with the department’s demands, including allowing districts to pass parental notification policies.

Bonta promptly the department, saying the penalty would cause “imminent and irreparable injury to California.” 

Now the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating whether three districts gave parents advance notice of lessons pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity so their children could be excused. Officials are also investigating whether the districts received any complaintsÌę“regarding sex-segregated bathrooms” and other spaces, indicating that the federal government is committed to ensuring “the safety, dignity, and innocence of our youngest citizens.”Ìę

On Wednesday, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon sent letters to the superintendents of the Detroit, Lansing and Godfrey-Lee school districts, asking for all materials that reference sex and LGBTQ-related terms as well as any complaints or inquiries the districts might have received related to those issues. 

“This Department of Justice is fiercely committed to ending the growing trend of local school authorities embedding sexuality and gender ideology in every aspect of public education,” she said in a statement. 

The letters to the district’s superintendents signal the Justice Department’s willingness to aggressively enforce last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in in which the justices sided with a group of parents who argued they should be able to opt their elementary school children out of lessons related to LGBTQ-themed storybooks for religious reasons. Michigan’s standards, Dhillon wrote, could be at odds with the court’s decision. 

If the districts don’t agree to the department’s demands, they could be at risk of losing federal funding, she wrote. Including school nutrition funds and Medicaid, the Detroit Public Schools Community District, for example, receives over $200 million, according to Jeremy Vidito, chief financial officer.

Officials with Detroit and Lansing districts did not return phone calls or emails, but in an email, Arnetta Thompson, superintendent of the Godfrey-Lee district, called the investigation a “standard review process.”

“We are fully cooperating with this inquiry and will provide any requested information,” she said. “The district is not facing any charges or findings of wrongdoing. We remain committed to complying with all applicable federal, state and local laws and have consistently operated in accordance with those laws.”

In a statement, Michigan state Superintendent Glenn Maleyko said his department supports the three districts that “have been targeted” by the DOJ and said Dhillon wrongly characterized the health guidelines as state requirements. 

Parents, he said, ”retain the right to decide whether their children should participate in sex education instruction. And state officials will work with the districts to “select a curriculum that best supports the needs of their students, consistent with state standards and guidelines.” 

The investigations reflect the Trump administration’s parental rights agenda, whose nearly singular focus has been to restrict lessons or policies related to gender identity. In a last September, Attorney General Pam Bondi said state and local officials have “ignored, dismissed and even retaliated against concerned parents who speak out against these morally and factually bankrupt ideologies.” One of President Donald Trump’s earliest rejected the Biden administration’s efforts to extend Title IX protections to transgender students. But some experts say it’s highly unusual for the Department of Justice to get involved in matters related to curriculum.

“These investigations depart from longstanding DOJ practice of not dictating or interfering with school curriculum,” said Johnathan Smith, chief of staff and general counsel at the National Center for Youth Law. A former deputy assistant attorney in the DOJ’s civil rights division, he said previously, the department “intentionally avoided” those issues.  

Brian Dittmeier, director of LGBTQI+ Equality at the National Women’s Law Center, added that the DOJ’s probe is a “blatant attempt to discourage inclusive education” and takes the Mahmoud decision too far. While that case focused specifically on books that the Montgomery County schools in Maryland added to its reading curriculum in the early grades, DOJ is looking at “content in any class” for pre-K through 12th grade.

But Jonathan Butcher, acting director of the Center for Education Policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the DOJ’s action appears “consistent with the degree of parent empowerment under Mahmoud.”

“Parents need a level of trust that schools will reflect their values, or at least not contradict their values,” he said. It’s likely, he added, that other districts will see similar investigations in line with “the Education Department and White House’s goals to protect students from explicit material.”

‘Capacity issue’Ìę

The fact that the DOJ is involved instead of the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights could reflect a “capacity issue,” Dittmeier said.

In December, Education Secretary Linda McMahon recalled more than 250 OCR employees to handle a growing backlog of complaints. They had been on administrative leave as a result of her attempts to downsize the department. 

While McMahon has moved to shift Education Department offices to other agencies, she has not yet announced where OCR would go. in Congress, however, would move OCR to the Justice Department. The Education and Justice departments also formed a last April to speed up Title IX investigations and “use the full power of the law to remedy any violation of women’s civil rights,” Bondi said in a statement.

While Detroit, with almost 49,000 students, is the state’s largest district, it’s unclear whether any specific complaints triggered the investigations. Lansing, the state capital,Ìędeclared itself last year.Ìę

In 2024, former state Superintendent Michael Rice honored Godfrey-Lee, a small, 1,700-student district south of Grand Rapids, for the state’s 21st Century Model School Library award. He recognized media specialist Harry Coffill for including “diverse books” on the shelves.

The letters to each district ask for an extensive list of materials, dating back to 2023, that include “slideshows, presentations, imagery, posters, signage, recordings and handouts” that reference a variety of terms like “gender spectrum,” “gender expression,” “puberty blockers” and “transitioning.” 

Dhillon wants leaders to turn over any forms, notices or permission slips that demonstrate how the districts notify parents when a lesson references sex and gender. She also asked for detailed records of any complaints or questions from parents related to topics such as “queer culture,” “LGBTQIA+,” “Pride Month” or “drag queen.” 

note that parents should receive prior notification of sex education classes and curriculum and that they have a right to “opt out their child from all or some” of those lessons. Lansing’s related to controversial issues, for example, says schools will “honor a written request” for students to be excused “for specified reasons.”Ìę

State Superintendent Maleyko said the “breadth and scope” of Dhillon’s requests “place a significant administrative burden on local districts and risk diverting time and resources away from the core mission of educating students.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta Wednesday as part of an ongoing dispute over whether schools should proactively notify parents if their children change their gender identity.Ìę

The lawsuit comes in response to Education Secretary Linda McMahon’sÌęa concluding that the state violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and in her words, “egregiously abused its authority by pressuring school officials to withhold information about students’ so-called ‘gender transitions’ from their parents.”Ìę Her letter cited a 2025 law that prohibitsÌędistricts from forcing educators to “out” students against their will.

The agency has threatened to revoke all of the state’s federal education funding, nearly $5 billion annually. But in the filing, Bonta said the department has “failed to demonstrate even a single violation of FERPA,” which gives parents the right to review education records. The potential loss of funding, he wrote, “presents an imminent and irreparable injury to California and infringes upon the state’s substantial interests.”

The Trump administration says California schools violated parents’ rights by pressuring schools to keep students’ gender transitions a secret.

In announced Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Education told state officials that they can resolve the dispute by treating any school “gender support plans” as education records available for parents’ inspection and let districts enforce “pro-parental notification approaches.”

“Under Gavin Newsom’s failed leadership, school personnel have even bragged about facilitating ‘gender transitions,’ and shared strategies to target minors and conceal information about children from their own families,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. The department referenced a public records request by a showing that six California districts changed the names or pronouns of 300 students in the 2023-24 school year. The announcement doesn’t spell out what penalties, if any, the state might face if it doesn’t comply.

But most student privacy experts say the department is misinterpreting the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act. While FERPA gives parents the right to inspect their children’s education records, it doesn’t compel districts to notify a parent if their child changes their gender identity at school.

The department launched last March, based on a request from Julie Hamill, a conservative attorney who argued that state policies and guidance amounted to a “scheme” to conceal students’ gender identity from parents. Now an assistant U.S. attorney, Hamill cited a Q&A document, later rescinded, that to consult students before deciding whether to share information on their gender identity, including with their parents. Some districts, she wrote, would change students’ names and pronouns in school databases, but parents would see legal names when they logged in. 

Federal officials also took aim at a California law, passed in 2025, which says districts can’t force educators to “out” students against their will. Liz Sanders, spokeswoman for the California Department of Education, said officials were reviewing the department’s findings and referred Âé¶čŸ«Æ· to previous statements. In October, the the new law, known as the SAFETY Act, doesn’t prohibit school staff “from sharing any information with parents” and doesn’t override FERPA. 

The department’s determination further escalates an ongoing, emotional debate between state leaders who say students have a right to privacy and an administration that holds such decisions are the responsibility of parents. Advocates for LGBTQ students and many educators say they’re trying to protect students who might face rejection or abuse at home. But others call such actions “parental exclusion” policies that violate parents’ constitutional rights to direct the upbringing of their children. 

“If a student is contemplating life-altering changes, the least a school can do is notify their parent or guardian,” McMahon .

Lydia McLaughlin, the parent whose experience Hamill cited in the letter to federal officials last January, called the news “bittersweet.” She seeking emails and schoolwork from the Hart Unified High School District, north of Los Angeles, that would demonstrate how school staff were socially transitioning her child from female to male. Administrators initially refused to meet with McLaughlin and cited a that protects trans students’ access to programs, sports and facilities that align with their gender identity. 

McLaughlin never filed a formal FERPA complaint with the Education Department’s Student Privacy Policy Office because she ultimately got the records she was seeking after threatening to sue the district. She told Âé¶čŸ«Æ· last year that she believed a lot of the communication between staff members using the student’s preferred male name wasn’t in writing.

Now in college, her child identifies as a girl, “loves feminine clothes again” and has returned to ballet dancing after a five-year break.

“It’s been a long road to this moment,” McLaughlin said. “I only dreamed that there would be some sort of justice for what the school district did.”

FERPA experts disagree with the department’s conclusion. Elana Zeide, a law professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, said officials didn’t point to a specific violation in which a parent was denied access to education records. And many districts still follow a legal precedent that doesn’t consider staff emails to be part of a student’s official record. 

“You could not like these policies at all. You can be vehemently opposed to them,” Zeide said. “But that doesn’t mean you can accuse the state of a violation when there aren’t the facts to support it .”

But Lance Christensen, vice president of the conservative California Policy Center, called the department’s announcement. a “big deal.”

“We’re thrilled that the federal government is finally taking federal law seriously and is interested in protecting the natural rights of parents,” he said.

Jorge Reyes Salinas, a spokesman for Equality California, an LGBTQ advocacy group, called the decision “part of a broader, deliberate campaign to attack transgender young people and undermine their ability to learn and thrive in school.”

Cases before the Supreme Court

The department’s demands come as the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether to hear three different cases, including one from California, focused on the same issues.

In a , U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez ruled in December in favor of two teachers from the Escondido Union School District, near San Diego, who said that requiring them to keep a student’s gender identity private violated their Christian faith. Parents later joined the lawsuit against the state. 

Benitez’s broad ruling said that California schools must prominently display wording that says parents “have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence” and that school staff also have a right to “accurately inform” parents. 

Attorney General Rob Bonta appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which blocked the ruling. The teachers are now asking the Supreme Court to overrule the lower court, but the justices have not yet said whether they’ll get involved. Florida, Montana and West Virginia filed a brief in support of the teachers and parents, saying the “Constitution places the burden on states to respect fundamental rights, not on citizens to claw back the right to parent their own children.”

But Bonta told the court that the consequences of compelling the disclosure of gender identity would be “irreversible” for many students. Benitez’s ruling, he said, would leave teachers and other school staff confused about what they can and can’t do.

The high court is also debating whether to hear two other cases in which parents allege that educators supported students’ gender identity changes at school without their knowledge. It takes only four justices to decide whether to hear a case. 

Jeff and January Littlejohn of Florida the Leon County district, alleging that Deeklake Middle School violated their rights by supporting their child’s gender transition from female to male behind their backs. 

Officials said educators were following guidance, which discourages “outing” LGBTQ students..

A federal district court dismissed the case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit also ruled for the school system, saying that educators’ actions did not “shock the conscience,” in a legal sense.

“Defendants did not act with intent to injure,” the court said. “To the contrary, they sought to help the child.”

The First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a in Foote v. Ludlow School Committee. In that case, parents said staff at Baird Middle School in Ludlow, Massachusetts, concealed that their 11 year-old identified as genderqueer at school and was using a new preferred name. 

The three-judge panel wrote that while they sympathized with the parents’ desire for information about their children, the law doesn’t “require governments to assist parents in exercising their fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children.”

One year ago today, Trump took the oath of office for a second time and set it all in motion. 

Through executive orders, layoffs and canceled contracts, he and McMahon carried out a frontal assault on a federal agency Congress created in 1979, the U.S. Department of Education.

The nation has experienced “some of the most rapid and likely consequential changes in education policy,” since the mid-1960s, when lawmakers passed the Civil Rights Act and the law creating Title I funding for children in poverty, said Jeffrey Henig, a professor emeritus at Teachers College, Columbia University. Under President George W. Bush, the No Child Left Behind Act further deepened Washington’s involvement in schools.

But those initiatives used the strength of the federal government to expand educational opportunities for poor and minority students, Henig said, while this administration is turning away from a focus on equity.

The gameplan hasn’t always gone smoothly. On three occasions, McMahon has called back staff she fired. The department has frozen and unfrozen funds for programs like afterschool care and suspended long-running research projects. To those who have lost their jobs or seen their civil rights complaints ignored, it’s been a . Others who believe in McMahon’s “” to make the department obsolete say the pain is necessary.

“I realize it has sometimes been messy, but that’s inevitable when the federal role has been built up by special interests over six decades,” said Jim Blew, an Education Department official during Trump’s first term and the co-founder of the conservative Defense of Freedom Institute. McMahon, he said, is “reversing that history by relinquishing power.”

The agenda is somewhat paradoxical. McMahon Washington bureaucrats should get out of the way so education can be “closest to the child.” But the administration has tried to exert more control over districts that resist Trump’s orders. The Office for Civil Rights has launched multiple investigations, threatened to pull funding from states and districts with gender-inclusive policies and curbed efforts to improve achievement among minority students.

Blue states, teachers unions and advocacy groups have fought back in court. A notes more than 20 active cases over the administration’s anti-DEI mandates and eight related to dismantling the department. Several more lawsuits challenge canceled grants and contracts.

Trump’s crackdown on immigration has been one of the more tangible ways the disruption in D.C. has filtered down to local districts. Some children are afraid to come to school or wait for the bus, while high school students have been swept up in immigration raids. 

Interruptions in funding made it hard for states and districts to plan ahead. But some experts say the long-term financial impact of the Trump 2.0 shake-up may be minimal. Superintendents are more concerned about declining enrollment than which federal department is distributing their money, said Marguerite Roza, the director of the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University. 

“The second grader still goes to school. The teacher is still there. The district budget looks pretty much identical to what it did before,” she said. 

In addition to firing staff, McMahon is moving the department’s major functions to other agencies. But the transition of career and technical education programs to the Labor Department has not been without complications, and that program represents just a fraction of the $18 billion budget for Title I, making some state leaders wary of what will come this year.

“If this is some form of experimental policymaking, I know of no parent who wants their child to be used in an experiment,” Eric Davis, chair of the North Carolina State Board of Education, said at a meeting. “This self-inflicted disruption runs counter to the many decades in which the Department of Education was instrumental in improving the education and academic achievement of millions of Americans.”

Here are eight areas where the Trump administration has radically recast the federal role in education in its first 12 months:

The rapidly shrinking Education Department

Eliminating the Department of Education has been a goal of Republicans since President Ronald Reagan first took office in 1981.

They’re closer than ever to reaching it. The agency is now less than it was a year ago as the administration aims to drastically reduce education’s federal footprint.

In addition to the more than 1,300 jobs she cut in March, McMahon slashed 450 positions during the seven-week government shutdown in the fall. Congress and a federal judge forced her to reinstate them. But the moratorium on those layoffs runs out Jan. 30, and some who were targeted by that action expect she’ll try to terminate them again. 

“We’ve never seen an administration so actively hostile to career civil servants,” said one current employee who asked to remain anonymous to protect her job. With more than a decade at the agency, she’s among those who have been reassigned to handle basic tasks. Some with “20-plus years of professional experience are doing things like scheduling rooms.” 

McMahon and others who back the administration’s goal of abolishing the agency say those staffers won’t be missed. But blue states are challenging the layoffs in court, saying the department performs essential functions, from increasing opportunities for disadvantaged students and protecting civil rights to gathering on the state of the nation’s schools. 

As she continues to transfer jobs to other agencies, McMahon will hear from early next month on plans to move services for American Indian and other Native students to the Department of the Interior. Advocates are battling to keep her from moving oversight of special education as well, but at a meeting in December, McMahon maintained, “Nothing shall remain,” said Jennifer Coco, the interim executive director of the Center for Learner Equity, who attended the meeting.

Unless Congress makes those moves stick through legislation, a future administration could reverse them. It’s also unclear whether attempts to reduce staff and rearrange federal oversight “will pass court muster with the many legal challenges underway,” said Patrick McGuinn, a political science and education professor at Drew University in New Jersey.

The year culminated with an event in a small Iowa town in which McMahon granted the state more flexibility to spend $9 million in federal funds. It’s a preview of how the administration wants to distribute all federal education funds, “through no-strings-attached block grants,” said Blew, of the Defense of Freedom Institute.

The department is expected to grant more waivers, and whether Democratic or Republican, most state and local education chiefs are relieved that McMahon wants to reduce paperwork, Blew said. Gustavo Balderas, superintendent of the Beaverton, Oregon, schools, agreed.

“I don’t think you’re going to find a superintendent who’s going to say, ‘Give me more reporting,’ ” he said. 

But some found the news from Iowa underwhelming.

“After all of last year’s public posturing and back-and-forth, it felt like weak sauce,” said Dale Chu, a consultant who focuses on assessment and accountability. It was a “symbolic win for Iowa,” he said, “but the jury’s out as to whether it ultimately makes a difference on student outcomes.”

— Linda Jacobson

Immigration

While the drama unfolds in Washington, Trump’s immigration enforcement actions have hit closer to home. He rolled back longstanding that kept federal immigration agents off school grounds, making K-12 campuses fair game. And despite the Department of Homeland Security’s claims that it is not targeting students or schools, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol officers have been on or near K-12 campuses across the country ever since, arresting and deporting parents and kids — often at drop-off and pick-up times.

A federal-agent inspired melee at a Minneapolis high school earlier this month — hours after an ICE agent fatally shot an unarmed motorist nearby — prompted a two-day districtwide shutdown. Absenteeism has skyrocketed in heavily patrolled areas throughout the country, and many families have chosen to . Others have joined a nationwide resistance movement.

“Since January 2025, the administration has blanketed communities with ICE agents, which — predictably — has only brought chaos, cruelty and violence to our schools,” said Alejandra VĂĄzquez Baur, a fellow at The Century Foundation, a progressive think tank. “And we anticipate this is just the beginning. This year, education leaders will need to be even more bold to defend their students and the sanctity of the learning environment.”

In some cases, schools and other groups that serve undocumented students have gone underground, scrubbing their locations off their websites and using secure messaging to communicate, fearing any attention from the Trump administration could jeopardize their funding or tax status.

The gutting of the Education Department has left the nation’s 5 million English learners with little oversight — or as to their . The president, who has espoused an English-only agenda, at one point sought to to support these students.

Undocumented immigrants, banned from Head Start, career and technical education programs and adult education last year, have received a temporary reprieve as related lawsuits are decided. Some states, including Florida and Texas, have rescinded in-state college tuition for those here illegally, keeping education — the reason so many immigrants cite for coming to America — out of reach. 

— Jo Napolitano

Students with disabilities 

As the department shrinks, education leaders are especially concerned over how McMahon plans to adhere to the many congressional mandates for oversight of disability services for children in schools.

In December, she told advocates that the Department of Health and Human Services and the Labor Department would most likely be tasked with oversight going forward. That pronouncement means continued uncertainty for schools, said Coco, of the Center for Learner Equity. 

“There is a sense of fear and chaos in schools,” she said. “They’re already operating on razor-thin margins. What they can neither handle nor sustain is more delays. Or the notion that federal reporting is now getting spread across multiple agencies with multiple streams of paperwork.” 

McMahon said she hoped eventually to let states seek waivers freeing them from guidelines on how funding meant for children with disabilities is to be spent, and how school systems will be held accountable for meeting those children’s needs. Adding to the uncertainty: In October, numerous department staffers with the hard-to-acquire expertise needed to oversee services for students with profound disabilities and particular needs were fired. 

Once the on those mass layoffs lifts at the end of this month, advocates hope they won’t be terminated again.

“There is a real disconnect between what’s mandated in law and what’s happening,” said Coco. “People are anxious the other shoe is going to drop.” 

— Beth Hawkins

Civil rights

No area of education policy has been upended more by the Trump administration than civil rights. McMahon gutted the office dedicated to resolving discrimination complaints and has focused its remaining resources on fighting antisemitism and restricting transgender students’ access to women’s sports and bathrooms. 

The department has of racism against Black students, advocates say, even as it an investigation into the Green Bay, Wisconsin, school district for allegedly denying tutoring services to a . Meanwhile, the department is tied up in litigation with and that allow trans students to compete on teams and use facilities consistent with their gender identity. 

Conservatives cheered McMahon’s aggressive posture.

“Parents are overjoyed,” Nicole Neily, president of the advocacy group Defending Education, said on in February, after the Office for Civil Rights launched an investigation into Denver Public Schools for creating . “For this to be a priority of the administration, I think, really sets the tone from the top down.”

But others say the move has left victims of discrimination, bullying or sexual assault without a place to turn. 

The department closed seven of 12 regional OCR offices, including Boston’s, which was handling a complaint against a Massachusetts district where a teacher held a involving two Black fifth graders in 2024. 

The district placed the teacher on leave, but “more should have been done for these children, including assemblies to educate all teachers and children on the horrific impact of slavery,” said Marcie Lipsitt, a Michigan-based advocate who filed the complaint. “It’s been radio silence since.”

McMahon brought back more than 250 laid-off OCR employees in December, but some think their job now is closing complaints rather than investigating. Lipsitt said five that she filed on behalf of students with disabilities have been dismissed in the past month. Sandra Hodgin, CEO of Title IX Consulting Group, said when she asked OCR about cases she was working on, she was told ‘We’re no longer looking at those.’ “

McMahon hasn’t said where she would move OCR if she continues to offload offices to other federal agencies. One calls for the Department of Justice’s civil rights division to absorb it, but Johnathan Smith, chief of staff and general counsel at the National Center for Youth Law and a former DOJ official, sees ahead.

“There’s no staff there, either,” he said.

— Linda Jacobson

LGBTQ and DEI issues

Trump’s policies have affected local school staff as well. His executive orders against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and environmental justice-related work resulted in the elimination of more than $1.5 billion in “divisive” and researching educator effectiveness and retention. In many diverse school systems, the loss of funding meant the immediate shuttering of programs that were graduating large numbers of new educators of color.  

Under the guise of outlawing “gender ideology or discriminatory equity ideology,” the orders also called for limiting LGBTQ students’ rights and eliminating classroom materials referencing slavery, Native American history and sexual harassment and abuse. U.S. law specifically prohibits federal interference in schools’ choice of classroom topics and materials.

The Department of Education followed up with guidance saying race-conscious policies or initiatives are considered illegal discrimination. Federal officials did not appeal a court order declaring the letter unlawful.   

With 2026 marking the nation’s 250th anniversary, it’s likely the administration will become more deliberate about trying to reshape history curricula, said Andre Perry, a senior Brookings fellow. 

“The first year was about dismantling policy structures,” he said. “The second year will be about putting in place things they deem important. [And] schools are going to have to do a lot of these things.”    

The White House also made good last year on Trump’s campaign promise to curtail the rights of transgender students, issuing an order declaring “sex as an immutable binary biological classification.” The administration then demanded that several states stop letting transgender students play sports, and . Last week, OCR launched into 14 school districts, along with three colleges and the state of Hawaii, over those policies.

“The breadth and scope of what this administration did in just one year was pretty astonishing,” said Naomi Goldberg, executive director of the Movement Advancement Project. “What’s really critical to recognize is how much of it is outside of what agencies typically can do without legislation from Congress, and so much of it violates established case law.”

In 2025, more than 700 anti-LGBTQ bills were introduced in states throughout the country — but just 90 were enacted, according to the organization’s .

That relatively low legislative success rate may be one reason the groups behind the push appear to be focusing on state-level ballot measures in 2026, said Goldberg. Measures curtailing trans youth access to medical care and sports will potentially go before voters in Colorado, Maine, Missouri and Washington. 

— Beth Hawkins

Head Start

Head Start, the federally funded preschool program, hasn’t been immune to funding disruptions and the administration’s anti-DEI agenda. Officials initially a temporary federal funding freeze. The move led to confusion and closures and served as a warning shot: The early education and support program for low-income children and their families would become a target of Trump’s second term.

Over the next 12 months, the administration continued to delay funding, shuttered five regional offices, fired scores of employees and issued a number of rule changes leading to an ongoing lawsuit. Of particular concern: A ban on any practices perceived to be DEI-related and an unprecedented edict barring enrollment to thousands of kids based on their immigration status. During the prolonged government shutdown, roughly 10,000 kids across 22 programs lost access to services.

Causing further alarm was a  â€” ultimately scrapped — that zeroed out funding for Head Start.

Providers got some relief through court orders pausing some policies, but they say the program’s future under Trump remains precarious. The right-wing Project 2025 playbook, by the president, calls for Head Start’s elimination. Program foes argue that its $12.2 billion budget is bloated, local centers have been caught up in scandal and Head Start does not produce .

Last year was meant to be a 60th anniversary celebration of the War on Poverty-era program, which has reached more than and their families since its inception. Instead, Head Start has weathered the administration’s “death-by-a-thousand-cuts approach,” said Katie Hamm, deputy assistant secretary for early childhood development under former President Joe Biden.

She worries that in the coming year, “the attacks on Head Start will continue,” pointing to a number of already-delayed January grants and ramped-up child care fraud investigations in Minnesota and other states. 

— Amanda Geduld

Research

Others are concerned about losing valuable education data and statistics that guide efforts to improve schools. 

In February, with the Department of Government Efficiency’s help, officials canceled dozens of contracts through the Institute for Education Sciences, effectively shutting down the department’s primary knowledge-gathering agency. The following month brought the news that nearly 90% of IES’s workforce had been terminated. 

A year later, plans to restore that research infrastructure are still murky.

The impact on the world of K–12 research was swift, with major federal contractors and dozens of scholars the return of funds and jobs. Dan Goldhaber, a professor at the University of Washington and frequent recipient of federal research support, said that while he believes the department’s data collection needed to be brought up to date, the “tearing down of the institution” had made improvement harder.

“Best-case scenario, this has been incredibly disruptive,” he said. “Even if you’re not facing cuts, and your project hasn’t just disappeared, there’s a lot of uncertainty about the future of this work.”

After the barrage of withdrawn funding and reductions in force, Washington issued conflicting messages about the future of IES, with Congress proposing the budget for the organization that the White House requested. Researcher Amber Northern was also to help guide a modernization process, suggesting that the razing may be complete.

Mark Schneider, who led IES during the Biden and first Trump administrations and has become one of the agency’s most prominent critics, said that while it was easy to void contracts, the true challenge for Trump’s team would be to design a modern system for K–12 research and development. No plan was yet in evidence, he added.  

“My biggest disappointment is not that DOGE and the department cleaned out the detritus at IES, it’s that there’s no evidence that they thought enough about how to rebuild,” Schneider remarked. “That, to me, is the loss.”

— Kevin Mahnken

School choice

To the administration, the best judges of school quality are parents. That’s their chief reason for advancing a bold .  

In July, Trump signed the first national tax credit scholarship program into law, a “” that school choice advocates have long sought. Because it’s intended to reach students in public schools as well, even prominent Democrats like former Education Secretary Arne Duncan have gotten behind it and urged governors in blue states to participate.

The Educational Choice for Children Act, which kicks in next year, gives taxpayers a $1,700 dollar-for-dollar tax credit when they donate to a nonprofit that awards scholarships. It’s unlike education savings accounts, which allow parents to use state dollars for tuition or homeschooling expenses. 

But depending on taxpayers to fund the program means scholarship groups will need to recruit multiple donors just to cover private school tuition for one student, said Michael McShane, director of national research at EdChoice, an advocacy organization.

“That is a lot of donors and outreach and accounting,” he said. Overall, he gives the administration “an incomplete” on its school choice agenda, adding that the Treasury Department’s upcoming regulations tied to the program “will matter a great deal.”

Choice advocates don’t want governors to add their own rules, while others want strict accountability on how the funds are spent. Further details of how the program will layer on top of existing private school choice programs will emerge in the coming months. But Norton Rainey, CEO of ACE Scholarships, an organization already operating in multiple states, said the tax credit scholarships will ideally complement state-funded ESAs.

“For families,” he said, “the experience should feel additive rather than confusing.”

If the program primarily serves students already in private schools and opens doors to tutoring and afterschool programs for public school kids, it might not be to public education that some fear. 

“However, it is also possible that this program may prompt a portion of public school students to seek enrollment in private schools,” said Kristin Blagg, a researcher at the Urban Institute, a left-leaning think tank. If that’s the case, she said, states could see “substantial public school enrollment declines.”

The administration’s support of private school choice is one way it has aligned itself with Christian conservatives who want religious schools to maintain their admission criteria even if they accept public funds. Many religious schools don’t accept LGBTQ students, children with disabilities or those from a different faith.

But that’s not the only way Trump is trying to blur the line between church and state. He supported Oklahoma Catholics in their failed effort to open the nation’s first religious charter school. The religious right, a key faction of the MAGA movement, has been working to inject the Bible into K-12 public curriculum in several states, and the president announced in September that the Education Department would issue guidance on , which some experts expect to emphasize Christianity.

In mid-May, McMahon supported Trump’s school choice agenda by announcing an additional $60 million for charters, funds from programs like family engagement centers and educational TV for preschoolers.

She often showcases private and charter schools in her tour stops across the country, like the with a classical model she visited in March.

“School choice,” afterwards, “is crucial for students and parents to access learning environments that best fit their needs.” 

— Linda Jacobson

But while political activism is linked to positive mental health outcomes for most young people, the picture is more complex for LGBTQ teens and young adults. Two in five reported having at least one concern impacting their lives, prompting them toÌęconsider whether to move to a different state or cross state lines to obtain health care.Ìę

“It’s a complex situation in that LGBTQ+ youth might feel more motivated to be engaged with political conversations or be civically engaged because they’re also more impacted by those anti-LGBTQ+ policies,” says Tiffany Eden, lead researcher on the report. “But at the same time, they’re also living with the repercussions.” 

The survey was administered between the fall of 2022 and fall 2023, before President Donald Trump’s inauguration and his immediate attempts to roll back LGBTQ rights, Eden notes. More recent data, including dramatic increases in the number of calls to suicide prevention hotlines, indicate politics’ negative impact on queer youth has likely spiked since then. 

Transgender and nonbinary youth were more likely to say they were motivated to take action than their cisgender peers: 63% versus 55%. Half of gender nonconforming youth reported having at least one LGBTQ-related political concern, compared to 35% of cisgender young people. 

These political concerns can lead to mental health challenges, the survey showed. About 70% of those with at least one LGBTQ-related political concern reported recent anxiety, versus. 63% of those without worries. More than half of those with concerns, 56%, reported recent depression, compared to 50% of those without.  

The problems were more significant for young people who said they were unable to meet their basic needs, with 52% harboring concerns compared to 43% whose needs are met.. Half of transgender and nonbinary young people had political concerns, versus 35% of cisgender peers.

Researchers also found geographic differences that frequently mirror the country’s political landscape, with 54% of those in the South saying they have concerns, vs. 47% in the Midwest, 37% in the West and 30% in the Northeast. 

Differences in young people’s ability to get their needs met shows up in the data regarding specific types of civic engagement. For example, the vast majority of LGBTQ 18- to 24-year-olds were registered to vote, but the proportion drops for those facing barriers. 

“That might be because they’re having more challenges or obstacles obtaining identification that aligns with their gender identity so that they can register to vote, and things like that,” says Eden. “That is probably one of the most important takeaways: That it looks different in LGBTQ+ youth in general, but even within that we see disparities and different groups that might need more support in order to be more engaged in the civic process.” 

Political engagement among those too young to vote was lower at 55%, compared to 64% of 18- to 24-year-olds. But even with more limited opportunities for engagement, the impact of recent policy changes is disproportionately felt by queer youth, says Eden. 

“When you think about anti-LGBTQ plus policies that would impact young people, they’re impacting kids that are actually in schools,” she says. “These are bills about using bathrooms that align with your gender identity and playing on sports teams — things like that.” 

Policies enabling in-school support are particularly important to LGBTQ youth. Slightly more than half say they are accepted by peers or teachers at school, compared with 40% who are supported at home.

The report is part of a series of analyses of longitudinal data Trevor compiles — which have taken on a more critical importance as some states ban or opt out of LGBTQ youth welfare data collections such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey. 

At the same time, the number of young people affected has risen sharply in recent years. Estimates vary depending on how data is tabulated, but in a recent Gallup survey, almost 2 million — or 9.5% — of teens ages 13 to 17 now identify as something other than straight or cisgender. That’s nearly twice as many as in 2020. 

He began opening monthly board meetings with a Christian prayer, released a about protecting children from transgender students, and at odds with his agenda. The next two and a half years were marked by a steady stream of edicts, incendiary statements and disruptions that included , funding delays and conflicts with .

“Every seven days you could expect something coming. It was almost like clockwork,” said Robert Franklin, a former associate superintendent of Tulsa Tech, a district that offers career and technical education programs. 

As Walters leaves his post as state superintendent to head the Teacher Freedom Alliance, a national anti-union organization, Oklahomans say his turbulent administration offered a preview of the Trump administration’s “” approach to overhauling education. Despite about educators “closest to the child” knowing what’s best in the classroom, Education Secretary Linda McMahon, like Walters, has embraced an aggressive, top-down approach that frequently targets teachers for an assortment of perceived ills, from equity policies to protecting the rights of LGBTQ students.

In February, an Oklahoma City called his state a “testing ground for Project 2025,” the conservative Heritage Foundation’s 920-page strategy document that federal agencies are closely following. In the same way Walters welcomed like David Barton and Dennis Prager to influence a rewrite of the state’s social studies standards, the Trump administration has assembled dozens of conservative leaders and organizations to shape a for the nation’s 250th birthday.

In both cases, improving schools took a backseat to a singular — some might say, relentless — focus on the culture war. Walters’ grip on the state’s schools was “a microcosm of what we’re now facing at the federal level,” said the Rev. Shannon Fleck, executive director of Faithful America, an online community that seeks to counteract Christian nationalism. 

In Oklahoma, where she led an interfaith network, educators grew fearful for their jobs as Walters teamed up with , who created , to monitor teachers’ social media. In Washington, McMahon laid off 1,300 staffers and officials told districts nationwide that they would lose federal funds if they didn’t eliminate programs aimed at closing racial achievement gaps. 

To some right-leaning groups, Walters was a champion for parental rights whose “courage” deserves respect. “He showed that it’s possible to push back against the machine,” a supporter on Facebook. 

In part due to his use of to get himself on conservative media, Walters’ actions drew attention far outside his state. But the visibility also made him fodder for . Stephen Colbert called out the Oklahoma chief’s mandate that every classroom have a Bible and teachers incorporate scriptures into their lessons.

“Our kids have to understand the role the Bible played in influencing American history,” Walters said in a video from behind his desk last year after spending on 500 Trump-endorsed Bibles for AP Government courses. “It’s very clear that the radical left has driven the Bible out of the classroom. We will not stop until we’ve brought the Bible back to every classroom in the state.”

For Oklahoma superintendents, the mandate was no joke. 

“Most of my colleagues across the state are in the front row at their local church every Sunday, and here’s this guy forcing the Bible on them,” said Craig McVay, who retired in 2022 as superintendent of the El Reno district, outside Oklahoma City, and is now for state superintendent. 

accused Walters of trying to local curriculum, noting that students were already allowed to bring their own Bibles to school. “Especially in the smaller communities of this state, it’s very difficult to stand up against Jesus, and that’s what he forced them to do.”

He largely failed.

Most districts have no plans to change current practices, while both the and the blocked Walters’ plan to purchase 55,000 Bibles.

Trump hasn’t conditioned federal funds on Bible reading in public schools, but the federal department is expected to issue new guidance on what he called “total protection” for . Some worry the administration will over other religions in violation of the First Amendment. 

‘Trumpier than Trump’

After Trump’s November victory, Walters created a special committee to help the state comply with the president’s education agenda. In a letter to parents, he called Trump “a fearless champion of efforts to eliminate the federal bureaucracy that has shut local communities and parents out of the decisions that impact their students’ educations.” Some speculated that Walters, who did not return calls or texts to comment for this article, was for a job in Trump’s cabinet, particularly the one the president ultimately gave to McMahon. 

His frequent social media posts continue to voice unwavering support for Trump on issues such as , , and even .

Leslie Finger, an assistant professor of political science at the University of North Texas, said she wondered if Walters’ strategy toward achieving “political prominence” was to be “Trumpier than Trump.” 

She pointed, for example, to Kari Lake, the former TV news anchor and Trump ally who that former President Joe Biden won Arizona in 2020. She sued, unsuccessfully, to overturn a gubernatorial election she lost to Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs in 2022 and still denies she lost her in 2024.

But while Trump chose Lake to lead, and , the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which runs Voice of America, Walters never got the nod. To Derek Black, a constitutional law professor at the University of South Carolina, that’s surprising.

“His brazenness seems to be a character trait the administration values, which begs the question of why he stayed in Oklahoma,” Black said. It’s “somewhat likely,” he added, that Walters “lacked the insider network to get a position high enough to suit him.”

Once Trump was re-elected, Walters advanced policies that seemed to stay one step ahead of his hero. He pushed through that expect students to “identify discrepancies in 2020 elections results,” even though ruled there was no evidence that the Biden campaign “stole” the election. , the standards present the “full and true context of our nation’s founding and of the principles that made and continue to make America great and exceptional.” The Oklahoma Supreme Court the state from implementing them after parents, teachers and faith leaders sued, arguing the standards require teaching from the Bible. 

Over 1,300 miles away, the Trump administration is undergoing a similar overhaul of the Smithsonian museums in Washington, D.C., to replace “ideological indoctrination or divisive narratives that distort our shared history.” Exhibits, , focus too much on “how bad slavery was” and offer “nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future.”

In line with Trump’s immigration policy, Walters to round up undocumented students at school and instructed districts to collect parents’ citizenship status when they enrolled their children. The state legislature opposed the plan.

The federal government has attempted to bar undocumented children from attending Head Start and issued that prohibits students, including those in high school, from receiving tuition assistance for career and technical education.

‘Christian patriot’

To Black, the law professor, Walters was “so far out of bounds” that he “cared even less about rules 
than the current administration.”

He required teachers from New York and California, seeking to work in Oklahoma, to take a to screen out “woke” applicants — a move said would discourage efforts to recruit teachers. But as with Trump, his boundary pushing endeared him to Christian nationalists, who maintain a strong foothold in Oklahoma. One group, the Tulsa-based City Elders, considers Walters a “Christian patriot” who worked to advance their mission of “establishing the kingdom of God” on earth and infusing government with Christian principles.  

“This is a war for the souls of our kids,” Walters in 2022. “The brilliance of our founders and the acknowledgement of almighty God — that’s where our blessings come from. That’s where our rights came from 
 and the left wants us to take that out of schools.”

Last August, when GOP lawmakers called for investigations into Walters’ management of state education funds, members of the group school board meetings and were the first to sign up to speak. 

City Elders hosted him again at a gala in March, but , organized by groups that oppose Christian nationalism, gathered outside the Tulsa-area conference center. Some waved signs that said “Impeach Walters,” calling him a “danger” to education.

A month later, he came face-to-face with critics during a “town hall” event organized by the Turning Point USA chapter at Oklahoma State University, considered one of the colleges in the country. Co-founder Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated Sept 10 in Utah, founded the organization to mobilize college students around conservative ideas and encourage open debate.

But Walters couldn’t finish his sentences amid the angry chants about his and his following the death of a nonbinary student last year. He called Nex Benedict’s death, later determined to be a suicide, a tragedy. But he also used the moment to voice opposition to schools that allowed students to use facilities that don’t align with their sex assigned at birth. His administration, he said, would not “lie to students” about being able to change their gender. 

At the time, he was still a potential candidate for governor. In June, suggested that while Walters trailed frontrunner Attorney General Gentner Drummond by 27 percentage points, a path to the Republican nomination wasn’t impossible. Some question why a politician with Walters’ ambition would walk away for a new position with an uncertain future. He was also eligible to run again for state superintendent.

“It’s pretty rare for someone to resign [during] their first term in a position when they’ve got another one available,” , a civics and voting rights advocate, said on a Thursday.Ìę

While Walters and were once close, observers say the superintendent had no chance of getting the . They had a series of on issues ranging from Walters’ attempt to take over the Tulsa schools to his support for immigration raids at school. Walters’ allegiance to Trump may have worked against him, said Jeffrey Henig, a professor emeritus of education and political science at Teachers College, Columbia University. 

“There’s an odd lack of symmetry in the politics around Trump,” he said. “Crossing him is close to political suicide for Republicans, but trying to read from his script does not confer equal and proportionate success.”  

When McMahon visited the state in August, she a charter school tour with the governor’s office, not Walters — a move widely viewed as a political snub. 

In a farewell letter to parents, he counted eliminating “woke indoctrination” and teacher recruitment efforts among his accomplishments. He that 151 special education teachers, including 34 from out of state, would receive signing bonuses of $20,000. It was Kirk’s death, he r, that inspired him to take the job at the Teacher Freedom Alliance and that “national leaders” recruited him for the position.

“We have to have more people step up on the national stage to protect this country’s values,” he said. “We’ve got to get rid of the teachers unions.” 

In typical outsized fashion, Walters didn’t just pay his respects to Kirk. He mandated that schools hold a moment of silence on Sept. 16 at noon — at a time when students would be eating lunch or enjoying recess. 

He followed up with a declaration that all Oklahoma high schools would open a Turning Point USA club, even though leaves those decisions up to local school boards.

To Franklin, who took opposite sides with Walters on issues like Christian charter schools, the moment was telling. The former Tulsa Tech official said it underscored why Walters, despite the backing of right-wing groups like the Heritage Foundation and Moms for Liberty, might struggle outside ofÌęOklahoma.

As Walters assumes a new national position, Franklin said that unlike Kirk, the former chief never sparked a “groundswell of ‘Oh my God, we need to listen to this guy,’ ” Kirk’s organization had over 900 college chapters prior to his death and has since to establish thousands more. His campus appearances could draw thousands.

“The Charlie Kirk phenomenon only strikes every once in a while, and I don’t think Walters has that kind of following.”

The Trump administration demanded that New York City scrap policies designed to protect transgender students by Tuesday evening or it will discontinue millions in grant funding earmarked for magnet schools.

That would affect about $15 million city officials were expecting from the federal government next fiscal year, which the city has used to support . City officials say they expected $36 million for the remaining duration of the grants. Federal officials said they would not revoke funds that have already been distributed.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for Âé¶čŸ«Æ· Newsletter

If the city doesn’t change its policies regarding transgender students, “the Department’s Office for Civil Rights cannot certify they are in compliance with all civil rights laws, and therefore cannot award the magnet school assistance program funding for the next fiscal year,” U.S. Department of Education spokesperson Madison Biedermann wrote in a statement Tuesday morning.

On Sept. 16, federal education officials that they were “deeply concerned” with policies allowing transgender students to participate in sports and use bathrooms and other facilities in accordance with their gender identity.

On Friday, city officials requested 30 days to consider whether to appeal the Trump administration’s decision to withhold the grant funding, though federal officials appear to have rejected that request in favor of a Tuesday evening deadline. Biedermann said the tight timeline was because the federal government must certify compliance with civil rights laws before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.

The move represents one of the first known threats from the federal government to withhold funding from New York City’s Education Department in line with its contested interpretation of federal civil rights laws. The Trump administration has mounted an aggressive push to roll back protections for transgender students and has targeted districts in , , and .

Mayor Eric Adams in line with the Trump administration’s wishes. His comments appear to have opened an unusual rift with schools Chancellor Melissa Aviles-Ramos, who recently said the current rules are consistent with the city’s values.

Craig Trainor, the U.S. Department of Education’s acting assistant secretary for civil rights, asserted in the Sept. 16 letter that the city’s policies violate Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination at education institutions that receive federal funding. The letter singled out the magnet school grant program and was sent to at least three school districts, .

Shortly thereafter, Adams in public appearances and interviews, drawing strong rebukes from state education officials and civil rights groups who noted that state law and city guidelines forbid denying access to facilities based on a person’s gender identity.

Liz Vladeck, the city Education Department’s top lawyer, requested a month to consider challenging the Trump administration’s move holding up the grant funding.

In a , she asked the federal Education Department to “please explain the nexus between your interpretation of Title IX and the [magnet school] grant funding that is being discontinued.” The letter also asserts that the move “deprived the NYCDOE of the procedures and due process required by federal regulations.”

Adams has denied that the funding threat motivated his recent comments about bathroom policies and acknowledged he has little power to directly change them because they are enshrined in state law. But he has held to his position.

“I don’t know what parent of a little girl would be comfortable with a boy walking into the shower where their baby is,” he said in a Monday . “I’m just not going to support that.”

A spokesperson for Adams did not respond to a question about what showers the mayor was referring to, or if there were any examples of the city’s policies for transgender students causing problems in schools.

The Trump administration has in a bid to get him out of the mayoral race to help former Gov. Andrew Cuomo defeat Zohran Mamdani, a Queens assemblyman and the current frontrunner. A City Hall spokesperson previously denied that Adams’ new interest in reconsidering the city’s policies was related to a potential job in the Trump administration.

Aviles-Ramos, the schools chancellor who was appointed by Adams, has suggested city policies would not change, a rare instance of the schools chief diverging from the mayor’s messaging.

“To date, you know, those policies remain in place, and we’re going to continue to uphold them as part of our values here in New York City Public Schools,” Aviles-Ramos said during a .

City Hall and Education Department spokespeople denied there was any rift between the mayor and chancellor.

“Withholding funding that benefits all students — simply because of a specific policy we have no power to change — is unwarranted and wrong,” Kayla Mamelak Altus, an Adams spokesperson, wrote in a statement.

“While Mayor Adams may not agree with every rule or policy, we will always stand up to protect critical resources for our city’s 1 million students. On this issue, the mayor and chancellor are fully aligned: we must follow the law, support our students’ identities, and keep them safe at all times.”

City officials did not indicate how they plan to respond to the Trump administration’s latest demand that they change their policies by Tuesday evening.

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at .

The Fairfax and Arlington school districts in Virginia sued Education Secretary Linda McMahon Friday over her move to classify them as “high-risk” over their transgender policies.

Their complaint noted that the additional oversight of spending came just two days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in a , reaffirmed its ruling in Grimm v. Gloucester County Board of Education, which gives trans students the right to use restrooms that align with their gender identity.Ìę

That decision “remains the law in Northern Virginia as well as the rest of the Circuit,” they wrote.ÌęÌę

In a statement, Fairfax County Public Schools Superintendent Michele Reid called the lawsuit a step toward ensuring “that hungry children are fed and that student access to multilingual, special education, and other essential services is not compromised.”

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin has tried since 2022 to get the suburban D.C. school districts in his state to end their policies accommodating transgender students.

Last week, the Trump administration offered considerable firepower to his cause when it announced it would require the five districts to justify every dollar they spend in order to receive federal funding. In a stern , Education Secretary Linda McMahon said Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William — the five northernmost districts closest to the nation’s capital  — are “choosing to abide by woke gender ideology in place of federal law.” 

But even as McMahon placed them on “high-risk” status, their leaders policies that allow students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity, meaning the Republican governor might leave office in January without accomplishing his goal.

Grace Turner Creasy, president of the Virginia Board of Education, said it’s “anyone’s guess” whether the department’s move will change the outcome. District leaders say they are following state law and the most current federal court opinion on the issue. 

The state’s position on the matter might also shift in the next few months with Youngkin ineligible to run again in November. Democrat Abigail Spanberger, who is , hasn’t addressed the controversy, while  Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears has , much as Youngkin did in 2021 when he appealed to parents angry over pandemic school closures and “critical race theory.” 

The department’s action against the Virginia districts is part of an effort by President Donald Trump to force states and districts to comply with his stating that the federal government only recognizes two sexes. Following that move in January, the Education Department said it wouldn’t enforce the Biden-era Title IX rule, which expanded protections for transgender students.

On Thursday, Trump to pull all federal funding from “any California school district that doesn’t adhere to our Transgender policies.” The administration is already suing and on trans students’ participation in women’s sports. 

The conflict with the Virginia districts has been building since February when the department launched a probe into their policies. In July, officials found them in and gave them 10 days to change their rules and “adopt biology-based definitions of the words ‘male’ and ‘female’ in all practices and policies relating to Title IX.”

They refused, and with roughly $50 million for low-income students, special education and other programs at risk, last week’s move escalated the dispute to a new level.  

“You’re going to continue to see the Trump administration put 
 pressure in a variety of ways that affect funding. It feels like all options are on the table,” said W. Scott Lewis, managing partner with TNG Consulting, which trains districts across the country on Title IX. He added that where the Education Department directs its enforcement “may vary by state, depending on gubernatorial and state house control.”

‘Totally atypical’

The penalty is severe, experts said. The high-risk label is usually reserved for districts or states in serious financial trouble. 

In 2006, the Education Department slapped that designation on the for mismanaging money, including federal grants and charter school funds.

In another example, the Michigan Department of Education placed the in high-risk status after a found the district misused over $53 million. The district spent Title I funds, for example, on equipment and building improvements the state didn’t approve, paid vendors more than the amount of their contracts and couldn’t produce invoices and receipts for multiple transactions. The district remained under federal oversight for five years. 

In this case, the added layer of scrutiny isn’t because of suspected mismanagement of the grant funds themselves; it’s an ideological disagreement. David DeSchryver, senior vice president of Whiteboard Advisors, a consulting firm, called the action “totally atypical in terms of scale.”

With the school year just starting, the question is whether any “new hurdles” might slow down the reimbursement process, said Dan Adams, spokesman for the Loudoun County Public Schools. In a statement, the Virginia Department of Education said it “will closely scrutinize any future requests” for funding. 

At least one of the five superintendents, Arlington’s Francisco DurĂĄn, told the public at a that he’s prepared to take legal action if the district’s funding is challenged. 

But conservatives view McMahon’s approach as accountability for districts that are defying the president. 

“By refusing to reverse your reckless policies, you are failing our daughters and risking losing millions of dollars in funding,” Earle-Sears said at Arlington’s board meeting. “As governor, I will not stand by while political correctness tramples over science, fairness and safety.”

The district has faced criticism over in which a registered sex offender identifying as a transgender woman used a women’s locker room at Washington Liberty High School. The school’s indoor pool is open to the public after school hours, and DurĂĄn said officials were unaware the person was a registered offender. 

Ginny Gentiles, an Arlington parent and a school choice expert at the conservative Defense of Freedom Institute, said the districts are “clinging to activist-drafted policies that allow males to self-ID into female spaces,” but that she hopes officials will listen to those concerned about women’s and girls’ safety.

She urged community members to closely monitor expenditures.

“School board leaders clearly intend to spend taxpayer dollars on inevitable court cases and likely expensive legal fees,” she said. 

Earle-Sears also joined on Wednesday, where district officials threatened to suspend two boys for sexual harassment and sex discrimination. They complained last spring when a student identifying as a trans boy used the locker room to change and videotaped them.

‘Federal overreach’

Some observers say the battle between Washington and its neighboring districts is more than a culture war. Kristen Amundson, a former Democratic state lawmaker and Fairfax County school board member, said the administration is trying to exert control over blue cities. 

“This is not about trans kids; this is about federal overreach,” she said. She cited patrolling Washington and of the Kennedy Center Honors as further examples. “Do you see the pattern here?”

The impasse also comes at a difficult time for the state’s Republicans, which tend to elect governors from the party that’s . Northern Virginia already votes predominantly blue, and residents, Amundson said, are especially angry at Washington. 

“They have seen thousands of parents lose their jobs” because of and “parents snatched off the streets” in , she said. 

For Earle-Sears, a , the debate over trans students is a key campaign issue. In contrast, Spanberger, who has three school-age daughters, has an focused on improving instruction in public schools and addressing teacher shortages. 

Anne Holton, former secretary of education under Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe, called the issue a distraction “from the issues that parents really care about,” like employing high-quality teachers and preparing kids well for college or a career. 

For now, districts say they are complying with the . Enacted in 2020, it allows anyone to use facilities that align with their gender identity.  In addition, the Trump administration’s policies, they say, conflict with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s opinion in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board. 

That’s been their position since 2022, when Youngkin issued stating that students must use bathrooms and locker rooms that match the sex they were assigned at birth. A year later, Jason Miyares, the state’s attorney general, that the governor’s rules didn’t violate state or federal anti-discrimination laws. Yet district policies remain unchanged.

In Grimm, the court ruled that the district’s transgender bathroom ban was unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2021 in that case. In its upcoming term, the Supreme Court will hear lawsuits from West Virginia and Idaho that test whether states can ban transgender girls from competing in female sports.

Those cases “will further clarify Title IX’s application,” Arlington’s DurĂĄn said at last week’s board meeting. “But in the meantime, our policy will remain in place in alignment with state and federal law, and we are prepared to defend it and our federal funding if challenged.” 

In a 6-3 ruling, the conservative justices said the Montgomery County Public Schools must reinstate its opt-out policy. The opinion puts districts nationwide on notice that parents should have a greater say over whether their children are exposed to views that conflict with what they learn at home. 

“We conclude that the parents are likely to succeed in their challenge to the board’s policies,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. “A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill.”

The case, , now returns to a lower court, which will consider whether the district violated the parents’ First Amendment rights. Eric Baxter, an attorney with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the parents, said he expects the district to settle.

“The court’s ruling clearly will extend through the end of this case,” he said. “I don’t think there are any facts the school board can produce that will change the court’s mind.” 

In , the district said it “will determine next steps and navigate this moment with integrity and purpose.”

‘The assault on books’

In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed sympathy for district officials’ decision to stop allowing families to opt out. 

“The result will be chaos for this nation’s public schools” and “impose impossible administrative burdens on schools,” she said in the minority opinion, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. What would happen, she asked, if a school had to alert parents any time a lesson or story might contradict what parents believe. “Next to go could be teaching on evolution, the work of female scientist Marie Curie, or the history of vaccines.”

PEN America, a free speech organization that advocates against restrictions on books, criticized the ruling, saying that it lays the “foundation for a new frontier in the assault on books of all kinds in schools.” 

The case reflects an ongoing clash between efforts to represent LGBTQ families in the curriculum and the rights of religious parents. The families who sued — Muslim, Catholic and Orthodox Christian — argued that simply having the books in the classroom offended their beliefs. But rather than demanding the district remove them outright, they asked that their children be allowed to leave class when teachers read the books. The Trump administration, 26 GOP-led states and 66 members of Congress sided with the parents.

“This ruling is more than just a legal win. It is a moral and spiritual triumph that acknowledges the sacred responsibility entrusted to parents,” said Billy Moges, a Christian mother of three and board member for Kids First, an advocacy group that formed to oppose the district’s move.

In a call with reporters Friday, Baxter called the ruling “a win-win” because it shows parents with religious disagreements “don’t get to veto everyone else’s practices.”

In 2022, the 160,000-student Montgomery district added LGBTQ inclusive books like “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” about a girl’s uncle who marries another man, and “Born Ready,” about a transgender boy, to its elementary curriculum. In March 2023, officials announced they would end their policy of allowing parents to opt their children out of listening to the stories and any classroom discussions about the books. They argued that the policy applied to all parents, not just those wanting opt outs for religious reasons. 

The books were not intended to influence students’ beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity, officials argued, but to reflect the diversity of the community. That didn’t satisfy the parents who sued, some of whom left the district over the issue.

“I would have loved to keep my children in public school, 
 but I just didn’t have that choice,” Moges told Âé¶čŸ«Æ· before the oral arguments in April. 

‘Need not wait for the damage’

The conservatives rejected the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s opinion that there was insufficient evidence of how teachers were actually using the books in the classroom to determine whether students were coerced into adopting the views they represented. 

“When a deprivation of First Amendment rights is at stake, a plaintiff need not wait for the damage to occur before filing suit,” Alito wrote. The books, he said, “are designed to present the opposite viewpoint to young, impressionable children, 
present same-sex weddings as occasions for great celebration and suggest that the only rubric for determining whether a marriage is acceptable is whether the individuals concerned ‘love each other.’ ” 

The ruling came a day after the of the court’s landmark ruling in that made gay marriage legal nationwide. Alito, along with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented from the majority in that case. 

In the Mahmoud ruling, the court also shot down the suggestion — one that Jackson elaborated on during oral arguments — that parents who don’t like what public schools teach can put their children in private school or homeschool them.

“Public education is a public benefit, and the government cannot ‘condition’ its ‘availability’ on parents’ willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise,” Alito wrote.

The ruling means that schools will have to give parents, especially those with young children, more advance notice when lessons are planned that touch on religious beliefs.

“The court drew a clear line: simple exposure to ideas is allowed, but instruction that pushes a particular moral viewpoint — especially without room for dissent — can cross into a constitutional burden,” said Asma Uddin, a Georgetown University law professor who focuses on religious liberty.  

Some faith leaders argue the books never should have been viewed through a religious lens and that the court’s decision will further marginalize LGBTQ students and families at a time when the Trump administration is seeking to remove their legal protections.  

The ruling “is just the latest example of religion being used as a tool of discrimination and misappropriated to harm our neighbors,” Rev. Shannon Fleck, executive director of Faithful America, a Christian social-justice organization, said in a statement. “The truth is that there is no scripture or religious doctrine that denies the existence of LGBTQ people.”

The Trump administration announced Wednesday that it plans to end support services for LGBTQ+ youth who call a federal 988 Suicide & Crisis Hotline.

Currently, those who call 988 and press 3 are connected with counselors who are specifically trained to assist LGBTQ+ youth. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration said in a statement that it would no longer fund this service beginning July 17. The hotline will continue, but without dedicated support for the LGBTQ+ community.

“Everyone who contacts the 988 Lifeline will continue to receive access to skilled, caring, culturally competent crisis counselors who can help with suicidal, substance misuse, or mental health crises, or any other kind of emotional distress,” said the statement.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for Âé¶čŸ«Æ· Newsletter

The statement said it will no longer “silo LGB+ youth services” — dropping the “T” of the acronym, which stands for “transgender.”

In the last year, the service provided help to over 45,000 callers each month who pressed 3 — or about 1,500 calls a day, according to federal data. The number of LGBTQ+ calls surged to over 61,000 in November 2024. It has served approximately 1.3 million callers.

The federal government began this service as a pilot in 2022 in partnership with the Trevor Project, a West Hollywood-based nonprofit founded to support LGBTQ+ youth experiencing a mental health crisis. Six other groups joined to create a network for LGBTQ+ youth nationwide.

CEO Jaymes Black called the decision “devastating” and called on Congress to reverse the decision.

“The administration’s decision to remove a bipartisan, evidence-based service that has effectively supported a high-risk group of young people through their darkest moments is incomprehensible,” Black said in a statement. “The fact that this news comes to us halfway through Pride Month is callous — as is the administration’s choice to remove the ‘T’ from the acronym ‘LGBTQ+’ in their announcement.”

The Trevor Project continues to offer crisis counselors on its own hotline 24/7 at 1-866-488-7386, via chat at TheTrevorProject.org/Get-Help, or via texting START to 678678.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a potential landmark decision, upheld Tennessee’s law prohibiting gender affirming care for minors, saying children who seek the treatment don’t qualify as a protected class.

In United States v. Skrmetti, the high court overturning a lower court’s finding that the restrictions violate the constitutional rights of children seeking puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria. The U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the district court’s decision and sent it to the high court.

The court’s three liberal justices dissented, writing that the court had abandoned transgender children and their families to “political whims.”

Tennessee lawmakers passed the legislation in 2023, leading to a lawsuit argued before the Supreme Court last December. The federal government, under the Biden administration, took up the case for the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and three transgender teens, their families and a Memphis doctor who challenged the law, but the U.S. Department of Justice under President Donald Trump dropped its opposition.

In its ruling, the court said that the plaintiffs argued that Senate Bill 1 “warrants heightened scrutiny because it relies on sex-based classifications.” But the court found that neither of the classifications considered, those based on age and medical use, are determined on sex.

“Rather, SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor’s sex,” the ruling states.

The ruling says the application of the law “does not turn on sex,” either, because it doesn’t prohibit certain medical treatments for minors of one sex while allowing it for minors of the opposite sex.

The House Republican Caucus issued a statement saying, “This is a proud day for the Volunteer State and for all who believe in protecting the innocence and well-being of America’s children. Tennessee House Republicans are pleased by the court’s courage to stand firm against ideology that denies biological reality. The sterilization and disfigurement of children will no longer be normalized. As we celebrate the precedent set by this decision, we remain committed to leading the nation in safeguarding the health, safety and future of all children.”

Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, who sponsored the bill, said he is grateful the court ruled that states hold the authority to protect children from “irreversible medical procedures.”

“The simple message the Supreme Court has sent the world is ‘enough is enough,’” Johnson said in a statement.

The Tennessee Equality Project, an LGBTQ advocacy group, expressed dismay at the decision: “We are profoundly disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to side with the Tennessee legislature’s anti-transgender ideology and further erode the rights of transgender children and their families and doctors. We are grateful to the plaintiffs, families, and the ACLU for fighting on behalf of more than across the nation.”

The group said gender-affirming care saves lives and is supported by medical groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association.

The court also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the law enforces “a government preference that people conform to expectations about their sex.” 

The court found that laws that classify people on the basis of sex require closer scrutiny if they involve “impermissible stereotypes.” But if the law’s classifications aren’t covertly or overtly based on sex, heightened review by the court isn’t required unless the law is motivated by “invidious discriminatory purpose.”

“And regardless, the statutory findings on which SB1 is premised do not themselves evince sex-based stereotyping,” the ruling says.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com.

While scrolling through Instagram, the mother noticed her child’s friends also called the teen Toby. So she began digging for further evidence of something she had started to suspect — that the ninth grader, with the school’s support, was transitioning from female to male.

“I’m like ‘Hey, you can’t deny it anymore’ ” said Lydia, who did not want to use her last name out of a desire to protect her child, now 17.

The school’s principal, following guidance that allows students to decide whether to inform parents of their gender identity, refused to meet with her. But she found clues elsewhere — an alternate ID card with the name Toby stuffed in a backpack, and emails between district staff discussing which name to use in the yearbook.

Over time, she discovered her child’s transition was an open secret at school — one kept by staff, administrators, a district equity officer, the superintendent, even the president of the local teachers union.

“They were strategizing against me,” Lydia said.

Her experience now lies at the center of a major push by the U.S. Department of Education to clamp down on policies that allow schools to conceal changes in students’ gender identity from parents.  

In a March press release announcing an investigation into , Education Secretary Linda McMahon said teachers and counselors should stay out of “consequential decisions” about children’s sexual identities. Officials are probing similar allegations in and .

In an unprecedented move, the department is threatening to pull millions of dollars in federal education funding from all three states. 

But it’s putting all schools on notice. In , federal officials warned states and districts that their support of student “gender plans” had become a “priority concern.” For educators, the message was as stunning as its rationale. The department is relying on a novel, and according to some critics, incorrect, interpretation of a 50-year-old student privacy law known as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA.

The law is typically used to safeguard student records and allow parents to inspect them. But it doesn’t compel schools to inform parents how their children identify in the classroom. If schools link a record to a student, “the parent has a right of access to it if they request it,” said LeRoy Rooker, who oversaw compliance with FERPA at the Education Department for over 20 years. But “the school doesn’t have to be proactive and call and say ‘Hey, we did this.’ ”

Department leaders appear to be stretching the reach of the law in an attempt to bolster conservative arguments that schools are meddling in deeply personal decisions that should be left to parents. In response to the Washington investigation, state Superintendent Chris Reykdal said in a statement that his state is the “latest target in the administration’s dangerous war against individuals who are transgender” and that officials are twisting student privacy laws “to undermine the health, safety and well-being of students.” 

To Julie Hamill, a Los Angeles-area attorney who to investigate, Lydia’s story demonstrates that a law designed to keep parents informed is now working against them.

”The parents are in the dark,” said Hamill of the conservative California Justice Center. “Parents will not know student records are being withheld unless they’ve somehow discovered it on their own.”

In tackling the role of schools in student gender transitions, the department is dipping into one of the more emotionally fraught issues in the culture war, one that President Donald Trump campaigned on and weaponized once he was back in the White House. 

In one of his first , Trump said, without evidence, that schools are “steering students toward surgical and chemical mutilation.” In March, who reversed their gendering processes. She criticized the “lengths schools would go to in order to hide this information from parents.”

To many experts, the administration’s scrutiny is out of proportion to the scope of the issue. In the overwhelming majority of cases, schools and students are just navigating preferred names and pronouns, and even those situations are infrequent. Multiple estimate that about 3% of teens are transgender. Far fewer are likely to approach school officials with a request for a name or pronoun change, said Brian Dittmeier, the director of public policy at GLSEN, which advocates for LGBTQ students.

Loretta Whitson, executive director of the California Association of School Counselors, said it is “rare” for school officials to discuss transitioning with students, and that her group’s members say the only gender plans they’ve completed were done at the request of parents. 

At the same time, most Americans agree that schools should get parents’ permission before changing a child’s pronouns in school records. Polls in and found that roughly three-quarters of adults support mandatory parental notification.

‘This is not real’

Lydia’s story exemplifies that loss of trust in the system.

The artist and former ballerina she thought of as her daughter began identifying as transgender upon entering Academy of the Canyons, a public high school in Santa Clarita, an upscale suburb of Los Angeles. Homeschooled since kindergarten, the teen wanted to pursue art and take advantage of options in their district. The school is located on a college campus where students can attend post-secondary classes while earning their high school diplomas.

“I thought it would be a good opportunity,” Lydia said.

In the fall of 2021, while cleaning the ninth grader’s bedroom, Lydia flipped through some art journals. But instead of schoolwork, she found disturbing sketches of bloody body parts and notes about wanting a chest binder, top surgery and a new name. 

“Shocked and scared” that her child might be suicidal, her thoughts turned immediately to a friend of her son’s who’d recently taken his own life, apparently without warning. 

“No suicide notes. No threats,” she recalled. “The ones that never use it as a weapon are the ones that follow through.”

She began searching for answers online. Initially, she only found sites about supporting a child’s transition  — advice she rejected.

Unlike many parents in her shoes, she’s neither conservative nor religious. In fact, she quipped, an outsider might have assumed she was  “the poster mom for transitioning my kid.”

She described her own parents — a Black father and a Jewish mother — as “hippie artists” who raised her to be a “free thinker” without religion. Lydia’s mother changed her name to Michael in the 1960s because it was easier to make it in the art world with a man’s name. A lifelong Democrat, Lydia voted against a ban on gay marriage when it was on the state ballot in 2008.

But when it came time to have kids of her own, she embraced more conservative values, wanting to “protect their childhood.”

Speaking as a liberal, Lydia said, “I really should have been like ‘Yeah, sure, explore your transgenderism.’” But instead, she did the opposite, taking a hard line against the shift. “I said ‘ I love you, but I’m not affirming you. This is not real.’ ” 

That view belies a that some children can identify differently as young as 3 or 4. Other research shows children can experience due to gender dysphoria — feeling that their sex was misassigned at birth — starting at age 7. 

In attempting to explain what was happening with her child, Lydia turned to a controversial theory of researcher Lisa Littman. In a , the former Brown University scientist described the rise in rapid onset gender dysphoria among  as a “contagion” driven by peer pressure and social media.

“I did what every parent did during the pandemic — let their kid be online way too much,” Lydia said. 

Littman’s research methods from her own university and the broader research community because she based her conclusions largely on reports from self-selecting parents recruited from online forums that were unsupportive, or at least skeptical, of gender transition. They included , which labels itself as “a community of people who question the medicalization of gender-atypical youth.” 

Littman later published an amended of the paper, responding to the controversy and clarifying that the behavior she observed did not amount to a formal diagnosis. Her work, however, continues to drive trans-inclusive policies in school and the views of the Trump administration — and Lydia.

“There is no such thing as a trans child,” Lydia said. 

‘A lot of weight’

It is a debate where the voices of kids directly affected are often absent. J.J. Koechell, a Wisconsin 20-year-old, transitioned in sixth grade after a suicide attempt. He now advocates for other LGBTQ students he says are “entitled to some privacy and consent.”

“They’re trying to figure things out and they don’t want to get it wrong. To disappoint parents is a lot of weight on a struggling youth.”

He watched the school district he attended, Kettle-Moraine, and “safe spaces.” In 2023, as the result of , leaders stopped allowing staff to refer to students by different names and pronouns without parents’ permission. Some staff members over the controversy, including a librarian Koechell trusted. Koechell dropped out and is now finishing high school online.

“My teachers were all I had at school. I didn’t have any friends,” he said. “Coming out was a matter of life and death for me. My identity wasn’t and still isn’t optional.” 

Protecting students like Koechell is the purpose of a new California law — , also known as the “SAFETY Act.” It prohibits schools from requiring staff to disclose a child’s gender identity to their parents. 

In announcing the Department of Education’s investigation of the state, Secretary McMahon said the law “appears to conflict with FERPA.”ÌęBut GLSEN’s Dittmeier highlighted that the legislation still requires schools to comply with the federal privacy law — and honor parents’ requests for records.Ìę

One department staffer is worried where the investigation could lead. 

“This is irregular, based on our history — to take up an allegation [with] no official complaint, but one that is motivated by an attorney group that is bending the department’s ear about something,” said an employee familiar with the case who asked to speak anonymously to protect his job. He said the administration’s goal is to pressure states and districts into rescinding policies that allow students to decide when to go public with their gender identity. “This will result in districts adopting forced outing and will result in harming children.”

‘Life-altering decisions’

In , the was raging long before the current controversy. 

, police removed state Superintendent Tony Thurmond from a meeting in the Chino Valley Unified School District after a tense exchange with board members over the district’s parental notification policy. He warned the board that their policy could “put our students at risk because they may not be in homes where they can be safe.” The state later against the district as well as others that passed similar measures. 

Continuing its battle with Thurmond, Chino Valley is now the state over the SAFETY Act, saying that minors are “too young to make life-altering decisions” without their parents. 

National data show that of trans and nonbinary students say their home is gender-affirming. found that transgender adolescents assigned female at birth were more likely than other teens to report being psychologically traumatized by parents or other adults in the home. 

“There have been kids whose parents have physically abused them and kicked them out of the house when this information is disclosed,” said Amelia Vance, president of the Public Interest Privacy Center and an expert on student privacy. 

Even before California passed the SAFETY Act, the state education agency and the urged schools to get students’ permission before informing parents about changes in their gender identity.  When officials at Hart Unified High School District refused to meet with Lydia, they cited a that protects trans students’ access to programs, sports and facilities that align with their gender identity. 

On the advice of an advocacy group, Lydia initially filed a public records request in search of a “secret social transition” plan she believed Academy of the Canyons maintained. She also asked for communications between her child and teachers using the “non-birth name.”

The district turned her down.

Contacted by Âé¶čŸ«Æ·, Hart Unified spokeswoman Debbie Dunn declined to answer questions about the investigation or Lydia’s experience, but said officials would “continue to follow the laws and procedures applicable to the district.”

In January 2023, Lydia spoke at a school board meeting about being shut out by the district. Her story caught the attention of Board Member Joe Messina, a conservative radio talk show host.

“She came up to the podium one night and she was crying,” he said. “She looked at the superintendent and said, ‘I’ve reached out to you. You’ve not called me back’. She looked to the trustee who handles her area and she said, ‘I’ve left you four messages. You’ve never called me back.’ ”

Messina and Lydia talked after the meeting, and he connected her with the Pacific Justice Institute, a right-leaning law firm.

He noted that the issue transcended their political differences. “Lydia’s a lifelong Democrat, and I’m an outspoken Republican,” Messina said. “For her and I to come together — the rest of the world would say, ‘What’s wrong with you people?’” 

Even with advocates on her side, Lydia continued to face obstacles. For months, the Academy of the Canyons declined to release an autobiographical English essay written by her child under the name Toby.

The district finally turned it over on advice from their lawyers. The essay revealed the child’s trepidation about coming out to Lydia. The piece recounted a moment before the pandemic, when the student, then 11, broached the subject of being queer. Lydia said her child was first exposed to LGBTQ issues while participating in a homeschool theater group. 

“The weather was overcast, and we were driving home from theater rehearsal,” the then-10th grader wrote. “Once again summoning all my courage, I mentioned to her that one of my friends had confided in me about their attraction to girls, and that I too might be queer. Unfortunately, my mom’s immediate response was dismissive and critical.”

As parent-child confrontations often go, Lydia remembers it differently. She said she treated the declaration as a teachable moment.

“We talked about what that word meant,” she said, “and why I felt she had time as she grew up to really know what sexual orientation she would be.”

In a memo, the district’s lawyers also named the elephant in the room — that officials had been withholding the essay out of a desire to shield the child’s shifting gender identity.

“In general, parents have the statutory right to review a student’s classwork/homework,” the memo stated. “This issue becomes clouded 
 if the classwork could reveal a student’s gender identity/expression.”

Despite refusing to accept that her child was transgender, Lydia said she tried to stay connected. In 2023, they attended over a dozen concerts together, seeing Hozier, Bastille and Penelope Scott — experiences that Lydia called “part of the healing process.” The two went on a long-promised trip to Europe, during which Lydia gave her child an ultimatum: stop identifying as a boy or go back to being homeschooled. That fall, the school agreed to honor Lydia’s wishes to cease social transitioning, but her child still resisted, asking teachers to continue using the name Toby.  

This time, the district let Lydia know. 

Lydia did not make her child available for an interview, saying “she isn’t ready to tell her side of the story.”

Nearly two years later, she says her child, who graduated from high school last week, “wants to put it all behind her.” While the teen identifies as a girl, the changes have been subtle. There are days when she dresses in what her mom called “oversized, ugly boy shirts” and others when she does her makeup and wears more feminine clothes. Recently, she switched back to her birth name on all of her social media accounts.

“I get a little choked up,” Lydia said, “but that’s pretty huge.” 

PROTECT Kids

The story might have ended there, but Lydia’s two-minute plea to the Hart school board, across social media, reached other parent rights advocates just as Trump renewed his campaign for the White House. When the president took office, Hamill, with the California Justice Center, seized the opportunity to file a complaint with an administration guided by , the right-wing Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for the president’s second term.

Requiring schools to notify parents if a student changes their gender identity, which already do, is one of the tenets of the plan. Heritage expert Lindsey Burke, who joined the department Friday, also wants Congress to give FERPA more teeth by allowing parents to sue under the law. Currently, parents can only file a grievance with their state or the Education Department’s privacy office — for years. 

Privacy laws “are a core part of [the administration’s] arguments for how parental rights need to be respected and strengthened,” said Vance, the privacy expert. But the potential for lawsuits under FERPA, she added “would be extremely messy and expensive for schools.” 

In April, the House education committee advanced a bill —  the — that would require elementary and middle schools to secure parental consent before students change their pronouns or preferred names or use different bathrooms or locker rooms. 

The committee debate demonstrated the deep divisions over gender identity and how schools should accommodate LGBTQ students. Rep. Mark Takano, a California Democrat who is gay, offered a personal story.

“When I came out to my parents, it was at a time, place and manner of my own choosing,” he said. “I would not have wanted anyone else to make that decision for me.”

To Hamill, gender transition is much more than “coming out” because it can lead to physical changes that later regret. Research shows that figure is , a fraction of those who undergo surgery. Even so, she said California’s policies add up to an elaborate “concealment scheme” that pits children against their parents. 

“If you suspect the parents are abusive and they’re going to harm the child, you have to report that to [child protective services],” she said. “But the government cannot by default assume that every parent is harmful and is going to reject and hurt their children.”

was originally reported by Orion Rummler of . .

On Thursday, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a of research on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, as directed by President Donald Trump. The agency used the release of the report to that available science does not support providing gender-affirming care to trans youth. LGBTQ+ advocacy groups worry the report will be used to further restrict gender-affirming care and to change medical guidelines in ways that harm trans youth.

The president mandated the report in an condemning the medical treatment — without evidence — as a form of mutilation, amid a broader push by the administration to from public life. Trump’s order asked the health agency to review the “best practices for promoting the health of children who assert gender dysphoria,” while to halt treatment or lose federal funding.

Now, the HHS has produced that report. The agency combed through research on the outcomes of puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy, social transition, psychotherapy, and the rare cases of surgeries on adolescents and young adults diagnosed with gender dysphoria. 

Gender dysphoria, the reason that most trans people undergo , is a strong and persistent distress felt when one’s body is out of sync with their gender identity. Without treatment, gender dysphoria can lead to severe negative impacts in day-to-day life. 

The agency states in its of the report that the document is not meant to provide clinical practice guidelines or issue legislative or policy recommendations. However, the report does imply that health care providers should refuse to offer gender-affirming care to adolescents and young adults on the basis that such care comes with the potential for risk — despite little evidence for that risk actually being found in the report. 

“The evidence for benefit of pediatric medical transition is very uncertain, while the evidence for harm is less uncertain,” the executive summary states. “When medical interventions pose unnecessary, disproportionate risks of harm, healthcare providers should refuse to offer them even when they are preferred, requested, or demanded by patients.”

In its research review, the HHS determined that evidence measuring the effects of gender-affirming care on psychological outcomes, quality of life, regret and long-term health is of “very low” quality. This conclusion ignores decades of research, as well as a recent survey of in the United States that found an overwhelming majority report more life satisfaction after having transitioned. Access to gender-affirming care has been linked to and depression in trans youth, while gender-affirming surgeries have been found to for adults.

Even when analyzing research that the administration deemed low-bias, the HHS found “sparse” to no evidence of harm from gender-affirming care. What’s more, the report frequently found evidence demonstrating the benefits of gender-affirming care — though it ultimately downplays those findings as not significant. 

Available research on puberty blockers found high satisfaction ratings and low rates of regret. A systematic review of hormone replacement therapy described improved gender dysphoria and body satisfaction. Another found that hormone treatment leads to improved mental health. Two before-and-after studies reported reduced treatment needs or lower levels of suicidality and self-harm after hormone treatment. When measuring safety outcomes of hormone treatment, side effects did not have a major impact on treatment and complications were limited. 

Despite these findings, the Department of Health and Human Services advertised the report in a Thursday as one that “highlights a growing body of evidence pointing to significant risks” of gender-affirming care. At the White House briefing room Thursday, deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller touted the new report and attributed the idea of being transgender as part of a “cancerous communist woke culture” that is “destroying this country.”Ìę

There are side effects to many of the medications that transgender people — and cisgender people — take to receive gender-affirming care, as is the case with most medical treatments. These side effects, like the risk of decreased bone density when taking puberty blockers, are and communicated to patients.

LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations denounced the report as a political attack on transgender youth. Multiple groups said that the report’s endorsement of psychotherapy as a “noninvasive alternative” to puberty blockers and hormone treatment amounts to an endorsement of conversion therapy — a practice wherein mental health professionals try to change a youth’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

“It is already clear that this report is a willful distortion of the evidence intended to stoke fear about a field of safe and effective medicine that has existed for decades, in order to justify dangerous practices which amount to conversion therapy,” said Sinead Murano Kinney, health policy analyst at Advocates for Trans Equality. 

The Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest LGBTQ+ rights organization, accused the HHS of producing a report that is attempting to lay the groundwork to replace medical care for trans and nonbinary people with conversion therapy. 

“Trans people are who we are. We’re born this way. And we deserve to live our best lives and have a fair shot and equal opportunity at living a good life,” said Jay Brown, chief of staff at the Human Rights Campaign. “This report 
 lays the groundwork to push parents and doctors aside and allow politicians to subject our kids to the debunked practice of conversion therapy.” 

No authors or contributors are named in the report or in its executive summary. The agency says these names are being initially withheld to “maintain the integrity of this process,” and states that chapters of the document were subject to peer review.

In 2023, Montgomery County Public Schools ended an opt-out policy, prompting the parents, backed by religious freedom advocates, to take the district to court. 

A federal appeals court agreed with the suburban Washington district’s argument that it didn’t coerce the students to change their beliefs about gender and sexuality simply by exposing them to stories with gay or transgender characters. But some conservative justices in Tuesday’s oral arguments agreed with the families, who say the books alone pose a burden on parents’ religious beliefs and the district clearly intends to “disrupt” students’ thinking about issues like same-sex marriage and whether someone can change their pronouns. 

“What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?” Justice Samuel Alito asked Alan Schoenfeld, who represents the school district. As an example of a “clear moral message,” he pointed to Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, a picture book focusing on a girl’s feelings of jealousy when her favorite uncle gets married to another man. “It doesn’t just say ‘Look, Uncle Bobby and Jamie are getting married.’ It expresses the idea [that] this is a good thing.” 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, however, warned that because the case is still at such an early stage — the parents just want to restore the opt-out policy for now — the court shouldn’t be making a decision that would force districts nationwide to adopt such policies for curriculum that could offend parents’ religious beliefs.

“Instead of having democratically elected representatives and experts in the field making the decision about which books should be taught to kids in the classroom, you have federal judges flipping through the picture books and deciding whether these are appropriate for 5 year olds,” she said. “It seems pretty troubling, because ordinarily, public education has been the subject of local control.”

‘Not a sea change’

The case, brings together multiple issues at the forefront of President Donald Trump’s conservative agenda: parental rights, religious freedom and eliminating what Trump calls from the nation’s schools. Sarah Harris, principal deputy solicitor general argued, for the government, saying that other states, including Pennsylvania, Arizona and Hawaii have “very broad” opt-out policies. She rejected the school district’s position that such arrangements pose administrative challenges for schools and teachers.

“It’s something that schools have done for a long time,” she said “It is not a sea change.”

The Montgomery County board, however, abruptly decided to end opt outs in 2023, said Eric Baxter, an attorney with Becket, a law firm that represents the parents and focuses on religious liberty. That’s when the conflict began. 

District leaders, Baxter said, chose books that are “clearly indoctrinating students” to believe differently. Because the district allows opt outs from sex education classes, the families argue the same option should be available when teachers plan to read the books in class.

The district chose the books to be inclusive and teach respect toward those with different beliefs and lifestyles, Schoenfeld said. The opt outs, according to the district, were increasingly disruptive, with at least one school seeing “dozens” of requests. Some parents kept students home for the entire day to avoid the readings. District officials maintain that they’re not discriminating against religion because they ended opt outs for all reasons, not just religious ones. 

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of the six conservatives on the court, focused on written materials that advise teachers how to respond in class if, for example, a student says “A girl can only like boys because she’s a girl.”

The guidance instructs teachers to make comments like “When we’re born, people make a guess about our gender and label us boy or girl based on our body parts. Sometimes they’re right sometimes; they’re wrong.” 

Those statements, Barrett said, “seem to be more about influence and 
 shaping of ideas and less about communicating respect.” 

But Schoenfeld said there’s not enough evidence in the record showing how teachers ultimately used the books in the classroom to determine if coercion actually occurred. 

Justice Kavanaugh, who said he’s a “lifelong resident” of Montgomery County, expounded on the religious diversity of the community and questioned why the district took such a hardline position. 

“You see religious building after religious building. I’m surprised 
 that this is the hill we’re gonna die on in terms of not respecting religious liberty,” he said. The goal in such cases, he said, has been to “look for the win-win” — to accommodate religious beliefs while still allowing the government to pursue its goals.

“They’re not asking you to change what’s taught in the classroom,” he said about the parents. “They’re only seeking to be able to walk out.” 

‘Where the court is headed’

While the record in the case is limited, it does include a comment from Board Member Lynne Harris, who said parents don’t have a right to “micromanage their child’s public-school experience” and are free to send their children to a private religious school if they disagree with what’s taught. 

Joshua Dunn, executive director of the Institute of American Civics at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, is looking to the court’s past religious freedom cases as a guide to how the justices might view this debate. Former Justice Stephen Breyer, a liberal, foreshadowed how far the conservative wing of the court might go to accommodate the rights of families to practice their faith, Dunn said.

In a 2017 Missouri case, , Breyer sided with the conservative majority in ruling in favor for a church that was turned down for a state grant. To him, it was just obviously wrong to deny Trinity Lutheran access to a grant program for recycled rubber for a playground,” Dunn said. “It had nothing to do with religion.”

But his views changed in and — two cases focusing on public funds for tax credits or vouchers at faith-based schools. In Carson, Breyer asked whether “public schools must pay equivalent funds to parents who wish to send their children to religious schools.” 

Maryland doesn’t have a private school choice program, and vouchers for parents who object to the books on religious grounds are not on the table in this case, Dunn said. But heÌęwonders whether the conservative justices could apply the same logic that concerned Breyer.Ìę

In other words, would the court reason that because the government funds education for students whose parents don’t object to the books, it should be obligated to fund schooling for those who oppose such materials on religious grounds? 

“All you have to do,” he said “is be able to read and count noses and you can see where the court is headed.” 

For now, advocates on the district’s side want the court to show restraint and deny the parents’ request to reinstate the opt-out policy.

“They’re trying to get a court-mandated order that any parent can opt their children out of class rather than have virtually any type of exposure to books with LGBTQ characters,” said Eileen Hershenov, chief legal officer for PEN America, a free speech organization that filed a brief in the case and advocates against restrictions on books. “It’s a recipe for administrative nightmares for public schools with the likely result that students will have little or no exposure to families or characters other than those that offend no religious sensibilities.”

A group of parents sued the Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland, arguing that requiring children to sit through storybook readings on topics such as a and a girl giving to another girl offends their religious beliefs.

“We were forced to choose between God and education,” said Billy Moges, a Christian mother of three and a board member for Kids First, an advocacy group that formed to oppose the district’s move. She pulled her children out of the school system when officials ended the opt-out policy and has since started a private Christian school, , that meets in a Silver Spring church. 

“We’re not asking for any special treatment,” she said. ‘We’re asking for our rights to be restored.”

Regardless of who wins, the case will head back to the district court for further action.

The appeal centers on parents’ request to reinstate the opt-out policy until the district court can rule on whether the district violated their rights. But the court’s conservative majority may also use the oral arguments to address the underlying facts, said Joshua Dunn, executive director of the Institute of American Civics at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

“The school board didn’t relent, and then compelled students to sit through these books being read,” he said. “I just think that for some of the justices on the court, that’s going to strike them as extraordinarily wrong-headed.” 

District officials say the books, intended for pre-K through third grade, were never intended to push views about sex and gender. The opt outs, they argue, became increasingly disruptive and contributed to absenteeism because some parents let their children skip the whole day if a lesson included one of the books. 

Opt-outs “stigmatized LGBTQ students and students who have LGBTQ families,” said Aditi Fruitwala, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which supports the district. Reinstating the policy, she said, would “undermine the entire purpose of a public education system, which is to create good citizens who can thrive in a society with people from a variety of backgrounds, faiths and cultures.” 

The case, , illustrates the growing tension between inclusion and religious freedom. That’s likely the reason the conservative-learning court agreed to hear the appeal, Fruitwala said. The parents who sued — Muslim, Catholic and Orthodox Christian — also have the : Solicitor General John Sauer will participate in the oral arguments. In a brief, the Department of Justice said the board’s policy forces parents to be in “dereliction of their religious duties” by sending their children to public school. Twenty-six Republican-led states and 66 members of Congress also support the parents. 

Religiously diverse

Over the past few years, confrontations over these issues have escalated in districts across the country. In February, parents in the , district, near Rochester, objected to the district’s use of The Rainbow Parade, a picture book about a young girl and her two mothers attending a Pride parade. 

Nationally, the public leans in favor of schools allowing parents to opt their children out of lessons about sexual orientation and gender identity. Fifty-four percent agreed with that view in a Pew Research poll , but the partisan divide was stark: Support for opt outs was 79% among Republicans, compared with 32% among Democrats.

Despite clashes over such materials from to , both sides of the conflict agree that Montgomery County offers an especially apt setting for the debate. The county is one of the most in the nation, according to the Public Religion Research Institute. 

Will Haun, senior counsel at Becket, a law firm that focuses on religious liberty and represents the parents, said it’s “astonishing,” that such a district would abandon the longstanding practice of accommodating parents’ opt-out requests.Ìę

Fruitwala said the district’s rich religious and diversity is precisely why the books belong in the curriculum. District leaders, she said, have an “opportunity to incorporate books from a wide variety of cultures and perspectives and backgrounds that reflect the families in the school district.” 

The 160,000-student district’s effort to bring more diversity to its reading program began in 2022-23, when the school board voted to add six books featuring LGBTQ characters. Officials said they chose the titles for the same reasons they would add any storybooks to the curriculum — to teach sentence structure, word choice and style.

In a brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the National Education Association and its Maryland and Montgomery County affiliates highlighted comments from teachers that demonstrated students’ eager response to the books. 

A veteran second grade teacher relayed what happened when she read , a picture book about a mother who makes a rainbow-colored wig for her transgender daughter. “Upon hearing the words, ‘I’m a transgender girl,’ one of the children in my class called out, ‘That’s like my sister!’ This child felt seen,” the teacher said, according to the brief.

Ignoring LGBTQ families, district leaders say, puts schools at risk of violating state that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. 

The ruled that refusing to allow children to opt out of the readings put no burden on religious parents. That’s when the families appealed to the Supreme Court.

They argue that since the district permits families to opt their children out of sex education, under a state law, that choice should extend to books that represent LGBTQ themes in other subjects. 

“All the school board had to do,” Haun said, “was simply recharacterize sexuality and gender instruction as English language arts and they get out of a long-standing national consensus that allows parents to opt their children out of that kind of instruction.”

Last fall, the district in question — My Rainbow and , a rhyming alphabet book about a puppy that runs off during a Pride parade. But Rev. Rachel Cornwell, a Methodist minister who has two students in Montgomery County schools, said she wouldn’t be surprised if the district was forced to remove all of the storybooks.

She wishes the parents would suggest different books rather than leave the district. 

“I think the vast majority of people in Montgomery County support the inclusion of these books into the curriculum,” she said. “These are not books about sex. They are books about people’s lives and about the diversity of our community.” 

As the mother of a transgender son, she said she and other LGBTQ families want their children to feel like they belong.

“We’re not trying to indoctrinate anybody or say this is right or wrong,” she said. “That’s for you to have a conversation about with your kid at home.”

The landscape for LGBTQ+ students in many states is becoming increasingly hostile. As of late February 2025, lawmakers in 48 states had introduced some seeking to roll back rights or legal protections for transgender people. Last year’s entire legislative session saw a total of 641 such measures, indicating an in bills targeting the LGBTQ+ community.

These proposed laws encompass a range of restrictions, including bans on participation by transgender students in sports teams that align with their gender identity; restrictions on gender-affirming medical treatments such as hormone therapy and puberty blockers for transgender minors; measures that deny or complicate the legal recognition of transgender individuals’ gender identities; and policies that require schools to inform parents if a student identifies as LGBTQ+, potentially exposing young people to unsupportive or hostile environments at home.

The stakes are high. According to The Trevor Project’s 2022 National Survey on LGBTQ Youth Mental Health, LGBTQ+ youth in affirming schools reported significantly than those in non-affirming environments. A separate study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health demonstrated that the presence of gay-straight alliances in schools was associated with among both LGBTQ+ and heterosexual students.

Despite these clear benefits, the wave of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation threatens to undermine the progress that has been made. These policies don’t merely restrict; they harm. LGBTQ+ youth already face disproportionate rates of bullying, mental health challenges and social isolation. Limiting affirming spaces and discussions only compounds these challenges, leaving vulnerable students with fewer resources and less hope.

Research is unequivocal about the importance of inclusive environments. Students in supportive schools have better academic outcomes, improved mental health and lower rates of substance abuse. A study by GLSEN found that LGBTQ+ students in schools with comprehensive policies feel , experience less victimization, and have a greater sense of belonging. have also that LGBTQ+ students in schools with anti-bullying policies that specifically mention sexual orientation or gender identity reported less homophobic victimization and greater psychosocial adjustment over time than students in schools without such policies.

Creating these inclusive environments isn’t just beneficial for LGBTQ+ students — it enriches the educational experience for all. It teaches empathy, broadens perspectives and prepares students for a diverse world. The skills learned in an inclusive environment — respect for differences, effective communication and conflict resolution — are invaluable in any future career or personal relationship. And schools that implement these measures report better outcomes for all students.

As the socio-political climate becomes increasingly charged, it’s vital for schools to stand as beacons of safety and acceptance. They must adopt and enforce inclusive policies, provide professional development for staff on LGBTQ+ issues and support gay-straight alliances and similar student organizations. Parents and community members can play a crucial role by advocating for these measures and holding schools accountable for their implementation.

This is a call to action: to ensure that every student, regardless of identity, feels seen, heard and valued. The time to act is now. Young people are owed safe spaces where they can thrive, free from fear and filled with the promise of a brighter, more inclusive future. This mission also intersects with broader struggles for equity and justice across other marginalized identities, including racial, ethnic and socio-economic groups. 

To create these inclusive spaces, especially in the face of such restrictive legislation, GLSEN offers these resources and recommendations:

• Implement comprehensive anti-bullying and anti-discrimination policies that explicitly protect LGBTQ+ students.
  
• Provide professional development for staff on LGBTQ+ issues and creating inclusive classrooms.
  
• Support student-led clubs like gay-straight alliances.
  
• Include LGBTQ+ history and perspectives in the curriculum, where possible.
  
• Display visible signs of support, such as Safe Space stickers or posters.

School is where young people spend most of their waking hours. Students worrying about bullying or hiding their true self can’t fully engage in learning. That’s why focusing on academics alone overlooks the critical role that a sense of belonging and safety plays in a student’s ability to learn. But when students feel supported and accepted for who they are, their academic and personal development flourishes. 

How can educators and parents support this crucial cause? Start conversations in local communities about the importance of inclusivity by organizing public forums or joining school board meetings to advocate for inclusive policies. Collaborate with local organizations to raise awareness and foster dialogue on LGBTQ+ issues. Attend school board meetings and advocate for comprehensive policies. Support organizations like GLSEN, that provide resources and training. Seek out (demand!) professional development opportunities to better support your LGBTQ+ students.

The need for LGBTQ+ inclusive school environments is more urgent than ever. In the face of discriminatory legislation, schools can and must be a beacon of hope and acceptance. Creating these safe spaces not only improves outcomes for LGBTQ+ youth — it fosters a broader cultural and social understanding in schools, benefiting all students by cultivating empathy and mutual respect.

The and behaviors among teenage girls . Experts point to social media, cyberbullying and as potential new sources of stress for teenagers.

Denver resident Leslie Williams’ daughter, who is transgender, turned 18 in December, something she had been looking forward to given the lessened restrictions on access to gender-affirming care for adults.

Williams and her family moved to Denver from Kentucky in 2023 so her daughter could access hormone replacement therapy, and they’ve gone to Children’s Hospital Colorado since she was 16 years old. She takes estrogen tablets and gets regular lab testing to ensure proper levels.

“It took a while for us to get in, but since then everything’s gone very smoothly,” Williams said. “The physicians have been wonderful. Everybody was wonderful. We had a really good experience there every time we’ve been.”

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for Âé¶čŸ«Æ· Newsletter

Williams said she received a message from the hospital this week notifying her they can no longer provide gender-affirming care to anyone under 19 years old.

“She’s really been struggling a lot lately,” Williams said. “The last two weeks have been really rough, and then getting the notification that her care is going to be possibly suspended or delayed has been a really big blow to her.”

Colorado Newsline, confirming the message Williams received, that Children’s Hospital Colorado sent to staffers telling them that the hospital had stopped offering all gender-affirming medical treatment to patients 18 years old and younger.

President Donald Trump issued an on Jan. 28 that prohibits the federal government from funding gender-affirming care for anyone under 19 and threatens to pull other funding from any entity that offers such care. It also removes Medicare and Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care, among other changes.

Gender-affirming care, endorsed by both the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, can range from non-medical interventions like haircuts and name changes to services like hormone therapy and surgery to support the patient’s gender identity.

Access to gender-affirming care has made a “big difference” for her daughter’s self esteem and the way she perceives herself, Williams said. She said she’s scrambling now to find another solution since other clinics are also shutting down access for anyone under 19, and anyone that does offer care has long wait times.

“It’s just really sad to see,” Williams said. “Trans kids already have to go through a lot and they already have higher than normal suicide rates, and so it’s just a really scary time for trans people.”

Children’s Hospital Colorado said in a statement it will continue to provide “behavioral health and supportive care services once approved prescriptions for current patients expire.” The hospital never offered gender-affirming surgical care to patients under 18.

“Like other hospitals across the country, we will continue to assess the rapidly evolving healthcare landscape,” the hospital statement said. “We care deeply about our gender-diverse patients and their families, and we will carefully and responsibly support them as we evolve the model of care we offer.”

Colorado saw an increased need for service following the election. The Trevor Project, a crisis intervention organization for LGBTQ+ youth, on Nov. 6, the day after the election, than in the weeks prior. In 2023, the organization that 90% of LGBTQ+ youth felt that the current political environment negatively affects their well-being.

Broomfield resident Jessica Broadbent’s 15-year-old son is transgender and has gone to Denver Health for gender-affirming care since he was 12. The first step in his transition was changing his name, a decision Broadbent said he came to all on his own.

“This has been all him making these decisions and me just kind of helping support him along the way and getting all the professional help that we can,” Broadbent said. “It’s been some time, and he’s made these decisions slowly, surely and with informed and professional input. So it’s really frustrating on all levels.”

Her son started taking puberty blockers, and switched to weekly testosterone shots once he turned 14. He recently switched to a daily testosterone cream instead, because he has a fear of needles.

Broadbent said she’s scared for how her son will be affected should he lose access to his medications, as gender-affirming care has been “life changing” for him. She has had “some very disheartening conversations” with her son in recent weeks, and she’s worried more about the mental and emotional consequences than the physical effects if he loses access to his medication.

“It’s frustrating having my kid feeling like he has to suppress who he is, what he believes in, hide to be safe,” Broadbent said.

Denver Health stopped providing some gender-affirming care this week, the reported. The health system said in a Jan. 30 that the Trump order “includes criminal and financial consequences for those who do not comply” and puts at risk its ability to participate in federal programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which represents “a significant portion of Denver Health’s funding.”

“Denver Health is committed to and deeply concerned for the health and safety of our gender diverse patients under the age of 19 in light of the executive order regarding youth gender-affirming care,” the statement says. “We recognize this order will impact gender-diverse youth, including increased risk of depression, anxiety and suicidality.”

Existing patients should continue with any scheduled appointments, and Denver Health will work privately with its patients to determine the best changes to their medical care, the statement said.

Shelby Wieman, a spokesperson for Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, said the governor wants to ensure “every Coloradan can access the healthcare they need, no matter who they are or how they identify.”

“We are continuing to evaluate Trump’s executive order, which blatantly attacks members of the LGBTQ community, to understand its impact in Colorado and how people can continue to get access to needed care,” Wieman said in a statement.

Williams said she’s seen the governor talk about “protecting trans kids and protecting trans folks in Colorado, and I don’t know how much they can really do when it’s federal funding that’s being cut.” But she wants to see elected officials talk more about how they can actually make a difference.

UCHealth spokesperson Kelli Christensen said the system has only offered gender-affirming care to patients 18 and older, but after the executive order, it will only offer services to patients 19 and older. That includes gender-affirming surgeries as well as medical therapies listed in the executive order.

“We know these changes may be challenging, especially for 18-year-old patients previously approved for gender affirming care, and behavioral health services will be available to help support our patients as they navigate these changes,” Christensen said in a statement.

A spokesperson for AdventHealth said it does not offer gender-affirming care to anyone under 18. HCA HealthONE hospitals also do not offer gender-affirming care. Spokesperson Stephanie Sullivan said its physicians would consult with patients, but they don’t offer any treatments.

‘It’s supposed to be safe’

Broadbent said she plans to talk to her son’s doctor about getting a three-month supply of his medication before the end of the month. She is also looking for other providers that might be able to prescribe his testosterone cream without putting access to federal funding at risk.

“It’s kind of putting us all up against the wall,” Broadbent said. “I didn’t expect it so soon.”

Being in Colorado where “it’s supposed to be safe,” Broadbent said she thought the state would be “somewhat insulated,” though not immune to pressure from the federal government. She and her family moved to Colorado from Florida eight years ago.

“Part of the appeal of being here is the access to care. It’s part of why we paid more to live here,” she said.

Broadbent and her husband are ready to pack up everything they have and leave the country if that’s ultimately what will be best for their children. But her son is a freshman in high school, and he wants to finish school, where he’s already established roots.

Colorado officials need to acknowledge what is happening and to work actively to protect their constituents, Broadbent said. She called the office of U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette’s, a Denver Democrat, and the office shared information on efforts to fight the executive order, a conversation Broadbent said gave her “a little bit of hope.”

In a statement to Newsline, DeGette described the executive order as “cruel” and said it “ignores the fact that this kind of care is supported by every major medical association.” She said executive actions like the ones Trump has taken do not have the authority to override the U.S. Constitution, legal precedent, or federal statute.

“Trump’s actions, which are not based on science or accepted medical practice, are demonizing an already vulnerable group of Americans and denying them the care they need to live as their true selves,” DeGette said.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat who is running for governor in 2026, joined a group of other attorneys general in Wednesday. An executive order from the president cannot make gender-affirming care illegal, because there is no federal law that does, Weiser said in a statement.

The statement said a U.S. Justice Department order last week stated that federal agencies cannot pause financial awards or obligations on the basis of an executive order, meaning “federal funding to institutions that provide gender-affirming care continues to be available, irrespective of the recent executive order.”

“As state attorneys general, we stand firmly in support of health care policies that respect the dignity and rights of all people,” the statement says. “Health care decisions should be made by patients, families, and doctors, not by politicians trying to use their power to restrict freedoms. Gender-affirming care is essential, life-saving medical treatment that supports individuals in living as their authentic selves.”

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Colorado Newsline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Quentin Young for questions: info@coloradonewsline.com.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear an appeal from a group of Montgomery County parents challenging a school system policy that does not let them opt their lower elementary school children out of classes that use LGBTQ+ books.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine has signed a bill into law that will require school districts to create a mandatory religious instruction release time policy and require educators to out a students’ sexuality to their parents.

The law will take effect 90 days after DeWine signed the bill.

during the final day of the lame duck session in 2024 and LGBTQ advocates called on .

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for Âé¶čŸ«Æ· Newsletter

State Reps. D.J. Swearingen, R-Huron, and Sara Carruthers, R-Hamilton, introduced . Supporters called the bill the “Parents’ Bill of Rights” while opponents called it the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, due to its similar language to Florida’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ law that passed in 2022.

The bill requires public schools to let parents know about sexuality content materials ahead of time so they can request alternative instructions.

It also prohibits any sexuality content from being taught to students in kindergarten through third grade. H.B. 8 defines sexuality content as “oral or written instruction, presentation, image or description of sexual concepts or gender ideology.”

This bill is one of a few during the most recent General Assembly.

This new law strengthens Ohio’s existing law around religious release time by creating a mandate. Currently, Ohio allows school district boards of education to make a policy to let students go to a course in religious instruction during the school day, but this now becomes a requirement for Ohio school boards.

“Parents, not government bureaucrats, should be making healthcare and education decisions for their kids,” Center for Christian Virtue President Aaron Baer said in a . “H.B. 8 protects children by safeguarding parents’ rights to make important decisions for their children.”

The United States Supreme Court upheld religious released time laws during the 1952 case, which allowed a school district to have students leave school for part of the day to receive religious instruction.

Religious release time instruction must meet three criteria: the courses must take place off school property, be privately funded, and students must have parental permission.

a Hilliard-based religious instruction program, already enrolls students in about 160 Ohio school districts and celebrated the governor’s signing.

“All Ohio families have the freedom to choose off-campus religious instruction during school hours for their students,” LifeWise said in a statement.

Two central Ohio school districts, Westerville and Worthington, rescinded their religious release time policy last year. Both districts formerly allowed  off-campus for Bible classes during school hours.

“We are especially grateful that any local programs that had been put on hold will be able to resume their growing programs and that communities will now have the clarity they need to provide families with the opportunity to choose Bible-based character education for their child,” LifeWise said in a statement.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

Karen Grant and fellow school librarians throughout New Jersey have heard an increasingly loud chorus of parents and conservative activists demanding that certain books — often about race, gender and sexuality — be removed from the shelves.

In the past year, Grant and her colleagues in the Ewing Public Schools just north of Trenton updated a 3-decade-old policy on reviewing parents’ challenges to books they see as pornographic or inappropriate. Grant’s team feared that without a new policy, the district would immediately bend to someone who wanted certain books banned.

Around the same time, state lawmakers in Trenton were readying legislation to set a book challenge policy for the entire state, preventing book bans based solely on the subject of a book or the author’s background or views, while also protecting public and school librarians from legal or civil liabilities from people upset by the reading materials they offer.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for Âé¶čŸ«Æ· Newsletter

When Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy signed that measure into law last month, Grant breathed a little easier.

“We just hear so many stories of our librarians feeling threatened and targeted,” said Grant, who works at Parkway Elementary School and serves as president of the New Jersey Association of School Librarians. “This has been a wrong, an injustice that needs to be made right.”

Amid a national rise in book bans in school libraries and new laws in some red states that threaten criminal penalties against librarians, a growing number of blue states are taking the opposite approach.

New Jersey at least five other states — California, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington — that have passed legislation within the past two years that aims to preserve access to reading materials that deal with racial and sexual themes, including those about the LGBTQ+ community.

Conservative groups have led the effort to ban materials to shield children from what they deem as harmful content. In the 2023-24 school year, there were 10,000 instances of book bans across the U.S. — nearly three times as many as the year before, according to by PEN America, a nonprofit that advocates for literary freedom.

“Certain books are harmful to children — just like drugs, alcohol, Rated R movies and tattoos are harmful to them,” Kit Hart, chair of the Carroll County, Maryland, chapter of Moms for Liberty, a national organization leading the book banning effort, wrote in an email.

But some states are now safeguarding librarians and the books they offer.

“State leaders are demonstrating that censorship has no place in their state and that the freedom to read is a principle that is supported and protected,” said Kasey Meehan, director of the Freedom to Read program at PEN America, which has been tracking book bans since 2021.

The drive to ban certain books is not waning, however. While a handful of states fight censorship in school libraries, some communities within those states are attempting to retake local control and continuing to remove materials that conservative local officials regard as lurid and harmful to children.

‘Lives are in the balance’

The New Jersey not only sets minimum standards for localities when they adopt a policy on how books are curated or can be challenged but also prevents school districts from removing material based on “the origin, background, or views of the library material or those contributing to its creation.”

The law also gives librarians immunity from civil and criminal liability for “good faith actions.”

New Jersey state Sen. Andrew Zwicker, a Democrat who introduced the legislation, said until recently he thought that book bans were a disturbing trend, but one limited to other states. But early last year, he went to a brunch event and met a school librarian who told him she faced a torrent of verbal and online abuse for refusing to remove a handful of books with LGBTQ+ themes from her library’s shelves.

“That’s when I realized that I was so horribly mistaken, that these attacks on librarians and on the freedom to read were happening everywhere,” Zwicker told Stateline. “I went up to her and asked, ‘What can I do?’”

He said he’s already heard from lawmakers in Rhode Island who are considering introducing a similar measure this year.

A child who identifies with the LGBTQ+ community can read a memoir like “” by Maia Kobabe and feel seen for the first time in their lives, he said.

“I do not think it’s an overstatement to say that lives are in the balance here, that these books are that important to people, and that librarians are trusted gatekeepers to ensure that what’s on the shelf of a library has been curated and is appropriate,” Zwicker said.

These new state laws, several of which are titled the “Freedom to Read Act,” passed almost entirely along party lines, with unanimous Democratic support.

In New Jersey, Republican state Assemblywoman Dawn Fantasia, who has worked in schools for the past 18 years, including as an English teacher, vehemently opposed the measure. She did not respond to an interview request.

“This isn’t puritanical parents saying, ‘Oh, I don’t want my child to learn how babies are made,’” during a September committee hearing. “That’s ridiculous, and we all know it.”

She added, “What I do want is for us to be able to have an honest conversation about some of what is in these texts that is extraordinarily inappropriate for that grade level.”

Enforcement and penalties

Legislation differs by state, including in enforcement and how to penalize noncompliant localities.

In Illinois, for example, school districts risk losing thousands of dollars in state grant funding if they violate the state’s new law discouraging book bans. But as the Chicago Tribune , that financial penalty was not enough to persuade many school districts throughout the state to comply, with administrators saying they are concerned about giving up local control on school decisions.

Several school districts in other states have similarly rebelled.

North of Minneapolis, St. Francis Area Schools’ board last month it would consult with conservative group BookLooks to determine which books it will buy for its school libraries. BookLooks uses a 0-through-5 that flags books for violent and sexual content.

Under its rating system, books that have long had a place in school libraries — such as the Holocaust memoir “Night” by Elie Wiesel or “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” by Maya Angelou — would require parental consent to read.

Asked about the school district potentially violating state law, school board member Amy Kelly, who led the drive to use BookLooks, declined to be interviewed. Karsten Anderson, superintendent of St. Francis Area Schools, also declined an interview request.

In Maryland, Carroll County schools the state in banning books in recent years, removing in the 2023-2024 school year at least 59 titles that were “sexually explicit,” according to a tally by PEN America.

Schools should not allow children to see “kink and porn,” wrote Hart, of Moms for Liberty. She got involved in the effort more than three years ago, saying she wanted to protect her five children and parents’ rights to make educational decisions.

She pointed to one book to make her point: “: The Teen’s Guide to Sex, Relationships, and Being a Human,” a nonfiction book in graphic novel form by Erika Moen and Matthew Nolan that seeks to educate teenagers about anatomy and consensual and safe sex. The book explores other issues of gender and sexuality, as well. Hart likened the book’s illustrations showing different ways of having sex to “erotica.”

“Parents who provide their children with alcohol or drugs, or to give them a tattoo would rightly be charged with crimes,” she wrote Stateline in an email. “Schools that provide children with sexually explicit content are negligent at best.”

The future of book bans

Around 8,000 of the more than 10,000 instances of banned books during the 2023-24 school year were in Florida and Iowa schools, according to PEN America. Lawmakers in those states enacted legislation in 2023 that created processes for school districts to remove books that have sexual content.

Iowa now that reading materials offered in schools be “age-appropriate,” while the Florida ensures that books challenged for depicting or describing “sexual conduct” be removed from shelves while the challenge is processed by the district.

Some of those banned books classics, such as “Roots” by Alex Haley and “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn” by Betty Smith.

Over the past year, lawmakers in Idaho, Tennessee and Utah passed measures that ban certain reading materials that deal with sex or are otherwise deemed inappropriate, according to from EveryLibrary, an Illinois-based organization that advocates against book bans. Arizona Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs similar legislation in June.

Laws that allow for book bans have been the subject of in recent years, as plaintiffs argue those measures violate constitutional protections of free expression.

Late last month, a federal judge parts of a 2023 Arkansas law that threatened prison time for librarians who distribute “harmful” material to minors. Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, a Republican, announced the state would appeal the decision.

EveryLibrary is 26 bills in five states that lawmakers will consider this year that would target books with sexual and racial themes.

The organized effort to remove books because of LGBTQ+ or racial themes will continue, said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom.

The association, which book bans as part of its mission to support libraries and information science, found that most of the around the country had LGBTQ+ protagonists.

“Librarians have always been all about providing individuals with access to the information they need, whether it’s for education, for enrichment, for understanding,” she said in an interview. “Censorship is diametrically opposed to that mission.”

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

They appeared to favor leaving such consequential matters up to lawmakers, but also wrestled with the possible implications of doing so.

“There are risks both ways in allowing the treatment or not allowing the treatment,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said after hearing arguments over a Tennessee law that prohibits gender-affirming medication or surgery for trans minors. “There’s no kind of perfect way out 
 where everyone benefits and no one is harmed.”

In her comments, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that the ban discriminates on the basis of sex and violates the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection. 

“There is a consensus that these treatments can be medically necessary for some adolescents,” she said, noting that they can reduce suicide attempts. The Tennessee legislature, she added, has “completely decided to override the views of the parents, the patients, the doctors who are grappling with these decisions.” 

Justice Samuel Alito asked if she wanted to change her view that there’s a strong research basis for the procedures in light of moves by Britain, Sweden and other European countries to dial them back. Kavanaugh noted that these countries were “pumping the brakes on this kind of treatment.”

She replied that, unlike Tennessee, those countries haven’t banned the practice. The Biden administration is asking the justices to send the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to reconsider whether a blanket ban is appropriate.Ìę

But J. Matthew Rice, Tennessee’s Tennessee Solicitor General, argued that the state isn’t discriminating based on a patient’s birth sex, but holding that such treatments cannot be used for the purpose of transitioning.

“Just as using morphine to manage pain differs from using it to assist suicide, using hormones and puberty blockers to address a physical condition is far different from using it to address psychological distress associated with one’s body,” Rice said. 

The liberal justices agreed with Prelogar that the state is treating youth differently based on sex because such treatments would be allowed, for example, in the case of a boy or girl who started puberty too early.

“I’m worried that we’re undermining the foundations of some of our bedrock equal protection cases,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said.

The challenge to comes amid questions over what President-elect Donald Trump’s reelection means for both gender-related health care and, more broadly, the future of anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ youth. During the campaign, in which the issue became highly politicized, Trump vowed to for schools that he says push “radical gender ideology.” He repeatedly warned, , that schools secretly arrange gender transition surgeries for students without their parents’ consent. And with Republicans taking control of both houses of Congress, it becomes more likely that anti-trans laws like those passed by many states could be enacted nationwide.

A showed that a majority of voters think activism over trans people’s rights in government and society has gone too far. That includes some , who have voiced new reservations about trans girls competing on teams that match their gender identity. 

In Wednesday’s hearing — which included American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Chase Strangio, the first known openly trans lawyer to argue before the court — the conservative justices struggled with whether it’s the court’s place to rule in an area where the science is unsettled.

The court’s decision in this case is likely to have a broad impact: Tennessee is one of 26 GOP-led states with banning puberty blockers or hormones for trans youth.

Dr. Susan Lacy, a Memphis gynecologist, and three families, sued the state, claiming the ban violates the Constitution because it treats trans youth differently and violates parents’ rights to make medical decisions for their children. The Biden administration joined the case in support of their arguments.

In 2020, the Supreme Court decided in Bostock v. Clayton County that LGBTQ employees are a protected class in the workplace. Prelogar said the same standard should apply in this instance. 

While the Tennessee case doesn’t directly pertain to schools, court documents detail the educational struggles of its teen litigants. One identified as John Doe “would have an incredibly difficult time wanting to be around other people and go to school” without gender-affirming medical care. Another trans boy using the pseudonym Ryan Roe would throw up before school because of anxiety over puberty and didn’t want to speak with a feminine-sounding voice. After receiving hormone therapy from Vanderbilt University, Ryan began participating more in class. 

The American Academy of Pediatrics such care for transgender and “gender diverse” youth, restating its position as recently as last year in the face of widespread GOP to criminalize the practice. A of 220 trans youth found that the majority who received gender-affirming care were highly satisfied with the treatment at least three years later. Nine regretted taking puberty blockers or hormones, and four stopped taking the medication.

But call the treatments child abuse and reject the phrase “gender-affirming care.” They say the procedures cause irreversible physical harm and that most children would of gender dysphoria if they don’t transition. An from Britain’s National Health Service reinforced their view. Dr. Hilary Cass, the report’s author, concluded that there is insufficient research to determine if the treatments have positive or negative effects, and largely discouraged them. Based on her review, the NHS no longer prescribes puberty blockers or hormones outside of clinical trials.Ìę

“For the majority of young people, a medical pathway may not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress,” the report said. “For those young people for whom a medical pathway is clinically indicated, it is not enough to provide this without also addressing wider mental health and/or psychosocially challenging problems.”

In with The New York Times, she said she disagrees with the American Academy of Pediatrics over the issue and suggests the organization could be “misleading the public.”

Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, incoming chair of the education committee, pointed to the Cass report when he for the Academy to explain why it continues to support the treatments for minors. A spokesman for Cassidy said they have not received a “substantive response.”

As legal challenges to the bans on those treatments reached the federal courts, the and circuits ruled that such practices don’t discriminate against trans youth, allowing the restrictions to stand. But the and circuits sided with opponents of the laws.

On such a divisive issue, Prelogar argued compromise is possible, pointing to a that stopped short of a ban and allows treatment when at least two doctors agree that a patient has gender dysphoria and is at risk of self harm.

“I do think that there is room here for states to enact tailored measures to try to guard against the kind of risk that you’re concerned about,” she told the justices.