The Trump administration has set off a nationwide controversy after threatening to strip more than $81 million in federal funding from 40 states and six U.S. territories unless they remove all references to gender ideology from their federally funded sex education programs. The move, announced on August 26, 2025, by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families (ACF), has sent shockwaves through public health departments, educators, and advocacy groups across the country.
At the heart of the dispute is the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP), a federal initiative created by the Affordable Care Act to help states educate young people about abstinence, contraception, and the prevention of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). PREP also supports vulnerable groups such as homeless youth and those in foster care, and has, in many states, included lessons on gender identity, sexual orientation, and respect for diversity.
According to reporting from The Hill and Reuters, the administration’s new directive gives states and territories just 60 days to scrub their PREP-funded curricula of any language or material referencing transgender people, gender identity, or what federal officials have labeled “gender ideology.” If they fail to comply, they risk losing millions of dollars in funding that supports sex education for teens.
New York stands to lose the most—over $6 million—if it does not comply, followed by Georgia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois, each facing the potential loss of more than $4 million. Vermont, for its part, could see about $670,000 vanish from its public health budget. The list of affected states is broad, including Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, among others. The six territories at risk are Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Washington D.C.
“Accountability is coming,” declared Andrew Gradison, acting Assistant Secretary for the ACF, in a statement quoted by VTDigger and LGBTQ Nation. “Federal funds will not be used to poison the minds of the next generation or advance dangerous ideological agendas.” The administration’s message, echoed in personalized letters sent to each state and territory, argued that PREP’s authorizing statute only requires education on “abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.” According to Gradison, “the program’s federal statute neither requires, supports nor authorizes teaching students that gender identity is distinct from biological sex or that boys can identify as girls and vice versa.”
California has already faced the consequences. Last week, the state had $12 million in PREP funding revoked after it refused to remove curriculum content related to gender transition treatments and surgery. California officials pushed back, insisting their programming was “medically accurate, comprehensive, and age-appropriate,” and that it had previously been approved by federal authorities. The California Department of Public Health argued that the administration “did not have the authority to revoke the funding,” as reported by The Hill.
The letters sent to states were not vague. They cited specific examples from various state curricula that federal officials deemed unacceptable. In Wisconsin, for instance, the curriculum defined human sexuality as including biological sex, gender, and sexual orientation, with a note stating, “It is important to respect differences and appreciate diversity.” North Carolina’s materials recommended teachers develop a list of clinics and centers that are “teen and LGBT friendly, culturally competent, supportive of all pregnancy options, and that consider the teen to be their primary client.” Colorado’s educator manual encouraged teachers to “demonstrate acceptance and respect for all participants, regardless of personal characteristics, including race, cultural background, religion, social class, sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Vermont’s curriculum was also called out. The federal letter cited language suggesting that asking youth to share their pronouns helps create a safe space for transgender or gender nonconforming youth, as well as explanations of the differences between gender, gender identity, and gender expression. Another excerpt stated, “Transgender women and cisgender women are both women. Transgender men and cisgender men are both men. The use of cisgender helps clarify that gender identity exists in both cisgender and transgender people.” This, too, was deemed “irrelevant” to the purpose of the PREP grant, according to the federal government.
State officials have responded with a mixture of shock, confusion, and defiance. Kyle Casteel, a spokesperson for the Vermont Department of Health, told VTDigger on August 26, 2025, that his department was “working to understand [the letter] in real time.” He added, “While we don’t know the full scope of the potential impacts yet, the Health Department affirms our commitment to evidence-based public health programs that reflect the needs of all Vermonters, including the LGBTQ+ community.” Oregon’s health department also stated it was “actively assessing federal changes and actions for any impact that they have on Oregonians.”
Advocates for LGBTQ+ youth and public health experts warn that stripping gender identity content from sex education not only erases the experiences of transgender and nonbinary students but could also undermine the effectiveness of programs aimed at reducing teen pregnancy and STIs. As LGBTQ Nation notes, PREP’s own guidelines include topics such as “adolescent development,” “parent-child communication,” and “healthy relationships”—subjects that often intersect with issues of gender identity and inclusion.
The administration’s actions are part of a broader pattern since President Donald Trump took office earlier in 2025. On his first day, he issued an order stating the federal government would only recognize two sexes: male and female. The State Department stopped issuing passports with gender markers outside this binary. Restrictions on federal funding for gender transition treatments for youth under 19 soon followed. These moves, according to critics and reporting from LGBTQ Nation, reflect an effort to “eradicate trans people entirely from public and civic life by threatening to end all government acknowledgment of trans people’s gender identities.”
Supporters of the administration’s policy, meanwhile, argue that federal money should be used strictly for what Congress authorized: teaching abstinence and contraception. They see the inclusion of gender identity as an overreach and an attempt to push a political agenda in public schools. “We will ensure that PREP reflects the intent of Congress, not the priorities of the left,” Gradison said in the official release.
The debate is likely to intensify as the 60-day deadline approaches. States and territories must now decide whether to alter their curricula—potentially leaving out LGBTQ+ youth and the realities they face—or risk losing critical funding for sex education. The outcome could reshape how sexual health is taught to millions of American teens, and the stakes couldn’t be higher for students, parents, educators, and policymakers alike.
As the clock ticks down, the clash between federal authority, state autonomy, and the needs of vulnerable youth is coming to a head. For now, the future of inclusive sex education in the United States hangs in the balance.
