In a week that has seen a flurry of legal and political battles over transgender rights in the United States, the Trump administration’s efforts to restrict federal support for trans-inclusive policies have collided with a wave of resistance from both local governments and the courts. The administration’s recent moves—ranging from slashing millions in education funding for cities like New York to imposing controversial restrictions on arts grants—have ignited fierce debate about the balance between federal authority, civil rights, and free expression.
On September 25, 2025, the Trump administration announced it would strip approximately $36 million in federal education funding from New York City’s public schools, citing the city’s refusal to abandon policies protecting transgender students. According to Gay City News, this funding, earmarked for the Magnet Schools Assistance Program, supports specialized curricula, educator professional development, afterschool programs, and summer learning opportunities. Of the total, about $15 million was set aside for the upcoming school year. The cuts are expected to affect around 8,500 students, many from underserved communities.
New York City was not alone in facing the administration’s ultimatum. Similar funding cuts were announced for Chicago, Illinois, and Fairfax, Virginia, as these districts also failed to comply with the president’s September 23 deadline to roll back trans-inclusive policies. The move marks the latest chapter in what many see as a sustained campaign against transgender rights since President Trump’s return to the White House in January.
Julie Hartman, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Education, defended the administration’s stance. In a written statement to Gay City News, she said, “The Department will not rubber-stamp civil rights compliance for New York, Chicago, and Fairfax while they blatantly discriminate against students based on race and sex. These are public schools, funded by hardworking American families, and parents have every right to expect an excellent education—not ideological indoctrination masquerading as ‘inclusive’ policy. If these entities are willing to risk federal funding to continue their illegal activity, that decision falls squarely on them.”
The administration’s demands were delivered in a letter from Craig W. Trainor, the acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the Department of Education. The letter asserted that New York City’s policies, including the right of transgender student-athletes to participate in sports and use facilities consistent with their gender identity, violated the administration’s interpretation of Title IX. Notably, the letter misgendered students and made unfounded claims about the city’s inclusive bathroom policy, which is protected under both city and state law.
Mayor Eric Adams found himself in the crosshairs after he publicly criticized the city’s inclusive bathroom policies. His remarks sparked outrage from advocates and officials alike. However, Adams conceded on September 22 that he did not have unilateral authority to change these policies. A spokesperson for New York City Public Schools expressed deep disappointment that the Department of Education denied their request for more time to respond, stating, “Cutting this funding—which invests in specialized curricula, afterschool education, and summer learning—harms not only the approximately 8,500 students this program currently benefits, but all of our students from underserved communities. If the federal government pulls this funding, that means canceled courses and shrinking enrichment. That’s a consequence our city can’t afford and our students don’t deserve.”
The funding cuts have drawn sharp criticism from civil rights groups and local leaders. Johanna Miller, director of the Education Policy Center at the New York Civil Liberties Union, called the decision “a sick move that will hurt thousands of young people across all five boroughs.” Miller added, “Let’s be clear: New York City’s public schools welcome every student, local law and regulations protect public school students’ right to use restrooms consistent with their gender identity, and the Trump administration cannot rescind these funds to force its ideology on New Yorkers.”
Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine, the Democratic nominee for city comptroller, urged city officials to stand firm against federal pressure. In a letter to Mayor Adams and others, Levine wrote, “Their right to participate fully and safely in school life is non-negotiable, and New York City must send a clear message that we will not sacrifice equality and inclusion in exchange for federal dollars.” He also called on the mayor to cease rhetoric that undermines the city’s values and to identify emergency funds to offset any grant dollars lost through these actions.
While the education funding battle raged in New York and other cities, a parallel fight was unfolding in the arts world. On September 19, 2025, a federal judge in Rhode Island delivered a major setback to the Trump administration’s attempts to restrict federal arts funding based on anti-trans policies. District court judge William E. Smith, appointed by George W. Bush, ruled that the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) policy requiring grant applicants to certify that “federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology” violated both the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), according to reporting by Erin in the Morning and the Rhode Island Current.
The NEA policy, implemented in February 2025 following Trump’s Executive Order 14168, mandated that federal agencies end funding for what the administration termed “gender ideology”—effectively denying support for projects acknowledging the existence and rights of transgender and gender-diverse Americans. In March, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit on behalf of Rhode Island Latino Arts and three other organizations, arguing that the policy’s vague language and viewpoint targeting violated the Constitution.
Judge Smith’s ruling was unequivocal: “There is zero explanation of what it means for a project to ‘promote gender ideology,’ let alone how that concept relates to artistic merit, artistic excellence, general standards of decency, or respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public,” he wrote. Smith found the NEA’s policy to be a viewpoint-based restriction on private speech, violating the First Amendment, and “arbitrary and capricious” under the APA. However, he did not accept the claim that the policy was unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment.
The decision vacates and permanently enjoins the NEA from enforcing the anti-trans policy or requiring compliance with the executive order in its grant funding process. Plaintiffs and civil liberties advocates hailed the ruling as a significant win. Marta V. Martínez, executive director of Rhode Island Latino Arts, said, “The decision affirms what we have always believed: the freedom to create, to express one’s truth, and to tell our stories is a right protected by the First Amendment.” Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU, described the case as “an important victory for freedom of speech and artistic freedom.” She added, “Even when the government funds private speech, it does not get to support only those messages that parrot its views.”
As the Trump administration pushes forward with its agenda, the resistance from city officials, civil rights organizations, and the judiciary highlights the complex—and deeply personal—struggle over the rights of transgender Americans. The outcomes of these battles will shape not only the distribution of federal dollars, but also the nation’s values around inclusion, free expression, and the meaning of equality in public life.
