On August 26, 2025, a fierce national debate over LGBTQ+ rights and youth protection reached a new boiling point, as the Trump administration moved to strip federal funding from states that include references to gender identity in sex education materials. The same day, a separate but closely related legal battle unfolded at the U.S. Supreme Court, where advocates, survivors, and lawmakers rallied to defend state laws banning conversion therapy for minors—laws that have become flashpoints in the broader struggle over the treatment and rights of LGBTQ+ youth in America.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families (ACF) sent shockwaves through state agencies by demanding that dozens of states—including New York—erase all references to gender identity from federally-funded sex education curricula. The directive targeted the State Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) grants, which are designed to educate young people about abstinence, contraception, and preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. These grants are especially vital for vulnerable populations: young people who are homeless, in foster care, living in rural areas, or part of minority groups, including sexual minorities, according to the federal government’s own materials (as reported by Gay City News).
The administration’s language was as aggressive as its policy. In a press release, officials disparaged gender identity as “gender ideology,” vowing to protect children from what they called “delusional ideology.” Acting Assistant Secretary Andrew Gradison declared, “Federal funds will not be used to poison the minds of the next generation or advance dangerous ideological agendas. The Trump Administration will ensure that PREP reflects the intent of Congress, not the priorities of the left.” The administration’s letter to states cited specific examples of language that must be removed, such as calls to “demonstrate acceptance and respect for all participants, regardless of personal characteristics, including race, cultural background, religion, social class, sexual orientation or gender identity,” and statements that “young people may express themselves in ways that don’t conform with their biological sex.”
States were given 60 days to comply or risk losing millions in funding. For New York, the stakes are especially high: the state stands to lose $6.028 million, the most of any state. Pennsylvania and Georgia follow, with $4.63 million and $4.5 million at risk, respectively. The administration had already terminated California’s PREP grant the previous week after the state refused to remove references to gender identity from its educational materials. The New York State Department of Education did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the directive.
This move is not an isolated event. It comes on the heels of a presidential executive order signed in January 2025—titled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling”—which directed federal agencies to develop strategies to eliminate funding for schools supporting what the administration calls “gender ideology” or “discriminatory equity ideology.” The order called for a comprehensive review of federal funding streams to ensure none support such instruction.
While the Trump administration’s policies have drawn fierce criticism from LGBTQ+ advocates, a parallel legal battle is playing out at the nation’s highest court. On the same day the funding ultimatum was issued, Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE) and the law firm Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court case Chiles v. Salazar. The brief, submitted on behalf of transgender, nonbinary, and cisgender survivors of conversion therapy, urges the Court to uphold Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law—a statute that prohibits licensed providers from subjecting minors to the widely discredited practice of conversion therapy.
“In the national debate over conversion therapy, trans voices are often erased,” said Shayna Medley, Counsel of Record for the amici and Senior Staff Attorney at A4TE. “But trans people are uniquely and disproportionately harmed by these practices. These so-called therapies cause lasting trauma, increase the risk of suicide, and have no place in ethical mental health care. Upholding Colorado’s law will save lives and protect youth across the country.”
The brief details harrowing accounts from seventeen LGBTQ+ survivors and the Conversion Therapy Survivor Network, describing experiences of coercion, humiliation, forced medical interventions, and even self-harm assignments intended to instill shame. Survivors report lasting impacts ranging from PTSD and depression to suicidal ideation and a deep mistrust of medical professionals. Mx. Cairn Journey Yakey, a nonbinary licensed professional counselor in Colorado and an amicus in the brief, shared, “I was terrified to be who I was because I knew how many relationships I would lose. Conversion therapy left me afraid and ashamed to be who I truly was.”
The friend-of-the-court brief argues that conversion therapy does not change a person’s identity but reliably causes harm—especially to trans youth, who face relentless pressure to conform to gender stereotypes. The document emphasizes that community support and access to healthcare in line with professional standards, not attempts to suppress identity, are what enable LGBTQ+ youth to thrive. “The stakes in this case are life and death for youth and families nationwide,” said Curtis Lopez-Galloway, founder of the Conversion Therapy Survivor Network. “When I was young, I was traumatized by the very therapy that we are trying to ban across the nation. Had these bans been in place then, they would have protected me.”
Support for Colorado’s law runs deep in Congress as well. Nearly 200 congressional Democrats—167 House members and 20 senators—filed their own amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold state bans and restrictions on conversion therapy for minors, currently in place in 27 states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico. Their brief, as reported by LGBTQ Nation, directly challenges the arguments of Kaley Chiles, a Christian licensed professional counselor who claims Colorado’s law infringes on her ability to advise clients with unwanted “same-sex attractions or gender identity confusion” who “prioritize their faith above their feelings.” The case has been championed by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group known for its opposition to LGBTQ+ rights.
Congressional Democrats argue that Colorado’s law simply enforces professional standards of care, noting that conversion therapy has been denounced by every major national medical organization—including the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, and American Psychiatric Association. “These laws are aimed at halting a range of discredited practices that have long been known to cause significant and lasting psychological harm to patients,” the brief states. “Providing them is violative of medical ethics. Licensed practitioners should not be performing them.”
The brief also emphasizes that state regulation of therapeutic speech is both appropriate and necessary, drawing a clear distinction between protected free speech and regulated professional conduct. “The public must be able to trust that when they seek treatment, their health professional will provide competent services in accordance with modern standards of medicine,” the brief reads. “Patients should have that confidence whether the service is rendered with a scalpel or through speech.”
As the Supreme Court prepares to weigh in, the outcome of these intertwined battles will shape the future of LGBTQ+ youth protections in the United States. With federal funding, state laws, and the very definition of professional care on the line, advocates and opponents alike are watching closely—knowing that the decisions made in the coming months will have consequences for a generation.
