On Friday, September 26, 2025, a coalition of sixteen Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia took a bold legal stand in federal court in Eugene, Oregon. Their target: the Trump administration’s new policy requiring all references to "gender ideology" to be stripped from sexual health education curricula in order for states to receive federal grant funding. The lawsuit, filed against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), signals a major clash over the future of sex education and the rights of transgender youth in America.
The controversy centers on a sweeping policy enacted by HHS in the wake of President Donald Trump’s return to office. On his first day back—January 20, 2025—President Trump signed an executive order mandating that the federal government recognize only two sexes, male and female, and that no federal grant funds be used to promote what he termed "gender ideology." According to Reuters, this directive set the stage for a series of rapid changes in how federally funded sex education programs are administered across the country.
By August 26, HHS had sent letters to 46 states and territories, demanding that they remove all references to "gender ideology" from sexual education curricula and materials funded through the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP). The PREP program, as outlined by Reuters, is designed to educate young people on abstinence and contraception to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. The program is especially focused on vulnerable populations—children who are homeless, living in foster care, or residing in areas with high teen birth rates.
But the changes did not stop there. Earlier in August, HHS issued formal notices to recipients of grants from both PREP and the Title V Sexual Risk Avoidance Education programs. The new rules were explicit: grant-funded education could not teach that gender identity is distinct from biological sex, or that boys can identify as girls and vice versa. These directives, according to the lawsuit, forced states into an impossible position—either comply and erase references to gender diversity, or risk losing critical federal funds.
For California, the consequences were immediate. HHS terminated the state’s PREP grant after California failed to comply with demands to modify its educational materials. The message was clear: states that did not toe the line would see their funding cut off. The stakes, as the lawsuit details, are high. The coalition of states estimates that at least $35 million in federal funding could be lost if they refuse to remove what they describe as "medically accurate, non-discriminatory information" from their programs.
The legal challenge argues that the Trump administration’s policy is not only unlawful, but unconstitutional. The states contend that HHS’s actions usurp Congress’s authority over federal spending, violating the separation of powers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. They also argue that the policy is at odds with the requirements that Congress set when it created the PREP and Title V programs—requirements that, according to the states, prioritize comprehensive, inclusive, and accurate sexual health education.
In a strongly worded statement, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown condemned the administration’s move. "The federal government’s far-reaching efforts to erase people who don’t fit one of two gender labels is illegal and wrong—and would deny services to millions more in the process," Brown said, as reported by Reuters. The states’ lawsuit frames the new policy as an attack on transgender youth and an attempt to "rewrite sexual health curricula to erase entire categories of students."
HHS did not immediately respond to requests for comment, leaving many to wonder how the department will respond to the legal challenge and whether the policy will stand up in court. The administration’s supporters argue that the policy is a necessary correction, ensuring that federal funds are used in accordance with what they see as biological reality and the values expressed in President Trump’s executive order. They contend that the government has a right—and perhaps a duty—to set clear boundaries on how public money is spent, especially when it comes to educational content for minors.
Opponents, however, see the policy as a dangerous rollback of rights and protections for LGBTQ+ youth. They argue that comprehensive sex education, informed by current medical and psychological research, must include information about gender identity in order to serve all students and reduce health disparities. The removal of such content, they say, risks marginalizing already vulnerable groups and undermining efforts to prevent teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.
At the heart of the dispute is the question of who gets to decide what counts as "medically accurate" and "non-discriminatory" information in sex education. The Trump administration’s approach, critics argue, is rooted more in ideology than in science, and risks politicizing an area of education that has long been contentious in the United States. Supporters counter that the policy simply reaffirms the traditional understanding of sex and gender, and that parents, not bureaucrats or activists, should have the final say in what their children are taught about these sensitive topics.
The PREP and Title V programs were established by Congress with the goal of addressing persistent gaps in sexual health education, particularly among at-risk youth. By tying funding to the removal of references to gender diversity, the Trump administration’s policy has drawn sharp lines between states and the federal government, raising questions about the limits of executive power and the future of federal-state cooperation in public health.
Legal experts note that the case could set important precedents for how federal agencies interpret and implement Congressional mandates, especially when it comes to contentious social issues. If the courts side with the states, it could reaffirm Congress’s authority to set the terms of federal spending and limit the executive branch’s ability to impose new conditions unilaterally. If the administration prevails, it could embolden future presidents to use executive orders to reshape federal programs in ways that reflect their policy priorities.
For now, the fate of millions of dollars in federal funding—and the content of sex education programs in dozens of states—hangs in the balance. The lawsuit filed in Eugene, Oregon, marks only the latest chapter in a long-running national debate over sex, gender, and the role of government in shaping what young people learn about their bodies and identities.
With the legal battle underway, school administrators, teachers, parents, and students across the country are left waiting for answers. Will the courts uphold the Trump administration’s new rules, or will they side with the states fighting to preserve inclusive, scientifically informed sex education? The outcome will reverberate far beyond the courtroom, shaping the lives and futures of countless young Americans.
As the legal arguments unfold, one thing is clear: the struggle over how—and whether—to include gender diversity in sex education is far from over, and the eyes of the nation are watching closely.
