Federal Policy on LGBTQ+ Students
Early Actions for States in Response to Recent Changes
Note: This memo is part of a Bellwether series designed to help education advocates and state leaders — including those in governors’ offices, state education agencies and boards, and state legislatures — respond to shifts in policy and power at the federal level. This memo is not legal advice and is not a substitute for advice from counsel. It reflects federal and state policy developments through March 6, 2026.
Summary
In a 2023 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey, about one in four high school students in the United States identified as LGBTQ+ — an acronym for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer, with the “+” encompassing additional identities including questioning, asexual, pansexual, intersex, and nonbinary.1 For these students, school can be both a place of belonging and one of risk. An analysis by the Trevor Project, a national suicide prevention nonprofit for LGBTQ+ young people, shows that an estimated 1.8 million LGBTQ+ youth (ages 13-24) seriously consider suicide each year, and more than half report feeling sad or hopeless, risks that are greatest for transgender and nonbinary students.2 These risk factors are heightened by bullying, rejection, or the denial of recognition of a student’s gender identity (e.g., refusing to use identified names or pronouns). LGBTQ+ students of color often face compounded stigmatization.3 However, research also shows that these students can and do thrive in affirming environments and that in-school factors, such as supportive educators, can be protective and benefit LGBTQ+ youth.4
Historically, the federal government’s role in protecting LGBTQ+ students in K-12 public schools has been limited but consequential. Much of this restraint has been shaped by longstanding constitutional principles of federalism and privacy. For the most part, federal education law does not directly name LGBTQ+ students. Federal protections have instead emerged through the application of broader civil rights statutes and, recently, through presidential executive orders that guide the interpretation of those statutes. In addition to conventional executive authority, the federal courts have also been used as a venue for making law that affects these students. Since the election of President Donald Trump in 2024, many of these protections have been reversed directly by the administration or through legal challenge.
This memo summarizes the federal laws that apply to LGBTQ+ students in K-12 public schools and recent federal actions that impact these students. It also outlines actions that some state leaders have taken, as well as strategic questions for others to consider, as they support LGBTQ+ youth.
Federal Law and Applications to LGBTQ+ Students
While most federal law does not directly name LGBTQ+ students as an identified protected group eligible for specific supports, there are several expansive laws that directly and indirectly impact the rights of LGBTQ+ students in K-12 public schools. Together, these laws set the baseline of minimum rights afforded, with states preserving the power to provide additional protections. Specifically, these federal laws are:
- The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects all students’ right to free expression, including signals of their sexual and/or gender identity (e.g., wearing T-shirts with pride symbols).5 Schools cannot restrict students’ free expression unless it disrupts the learning environment. The First Amendment also guarantees the rights of students to form noncurricular clubs at school, including Gay-Straight Alliances (also known as GSAs).
- The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which ensures that all students, including those who identify as LGBTQ+, receive equal treatment under federal, state, and local laws.6 Transgender students have cited the Equal Protection Clause when challenging school board policies that prohibit them from accessing bathrooms consistent with their gender identity.7
- Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in any education program that receives federal funding, including all K-12 public schools.8 In 2024, federal government regulations expanded the definition of sex discrimination to include discrimination based on sexual orientation as well as on gender identity, but those regulations were challenged by lawsuits from states and subsequently vacated by a federal judge in January 2025.9 The U.S. Department of Education announced in February 2025 that it will enforce Title IX under the provisions of the 2020 Title IX rule, which has the effect of removing gender identity as one of the categories protected by law.10
- The Equal Access Act of 1984, which requires public secondary schools that receive federal funding to provide equal access to noncurricular clubs for students.11 The Equal Access Act, coupled with the First Amendment, protects the right of K-12 students to form GSAs or other LGBTQ+-affirming clubs if other noncurricular clubs are allowed.
Changing Federal Role Under the Biden and Second Trump Administrations
In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in Bostock v. Clayton County.12 Following the Bostock decision, President Joe Biden signed two executive orders: one in January 2021 titled “Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation,” which directed federal agencies to interpret federal sex discrimination statutes — including Title IX — consistent with Bostock.13 The second, signed in March 2021, was titled “Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free From Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity.”14 These executive orders were the first specific and explicit federal anti-discrimination effort for LGBTQ+ students in federally-supported education settings.15
While a handful of federal laws define a baseline for the rights afforded to all students and have been interpreted to include the rights of LGBTQ+ students, the federal government has not historically taken an active role in the protection of their rights, leaving policymaking to the states. Principles of American federalism have been understood to discourage the federal government’s intrusion into people’s private lives and spaces. For many years, this implicit expectation of privacy from federal authority has resulted in deference to states to make rules specific to LGBTQ+ students. States have used this authority in different ways, including limiting students’ rights in the absence of contrary federal guarantees. Many recent examples are state laws that exclude transgender students from those gender-segregated programs and spaces that align with their gender identities.
In recent years, however, other states have taken legislative action to protect the rights of LGBTQ+ students. And in 2021, President Biden issued an executive order attempting to establish uniform federal protections, enforceable by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) within the U.S. Department of Education. The OCR “enforces several federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities that receive federal funds.”16 This enforcement was contingent on the U.S. Department of Education’s position that discrimination against LGBTQ+ students is unlawful — a position that the Trump administration has reversed via its own executive order. An executive order, standing alone, does not change the law, but it is influential on federal agencies, which have the power to interpret statutes and exercise discretion.17 As a result, short-lived federal protections for these students either have been revoked or are increasingly in jeopardy.
Specifically, the current Trump administration has made the following recent changes to federal law that impact LGBTQ+ students:
Prohibiting Discrimination Against LGBTQ+ Students
A 2021 executive order from President Biden titled “Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free From Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity” was the first time that the executive branch gave explicit guidance to federal agencies to protect LGBTQ+ students in K-12 education from discrimination.18 This order affirmed that the prohibition against sex discrimination in Title IX of the Education amendments of 1972 extended to sexual orientation and gender identity under Bostock.19
In January 2025, the Trump administration rescinded the 2021 Biden-era executive order and issued an executive order titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which recognizes only “two sexes.”20 While the order is not specific to K-12 schools, its language impacts schools as subject to the changed interpretations of law made by federal agencies. Some advocates have also argued that it could discourage lawful behavior without prohibiting it by introducing a new risk for schools to weigh, even if the threat turns out to be legally hollow.
Title IX
Title IX prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance, including, but not limited to, school sports.21 Examples of the types of discrimination that are covered under Title IX include, but are not limited to, sex-based harassment, sexual violence, and pregnancy discrimination.
In 2024, the Biden administration issued a new rule “expand[ing] Title IX’s protections against sex-based discrimination in educational programs that receive federal funding by prohibiting discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity in federally funded educational programs.”22 The rule went into effect on Aug. 1, 2024. This rule was immediately met with several legal challenges, including a lawsuit led by several attorneys general, and was ultimately blocked by a federal judge in January 2025.23
On Feb. 4, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education, under the second Trump administration, sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to K-12 schools and institutions of higher education about Title IX enforcement.24 The letter invoked the Trump administration’s Jan. 20, 2025, executive order, described above, limiting the federal government’s recognition to “two sexes,” and shared that OCR will enforce the Trump administration’s 2020 Title IX rule, which expressly denies protections for students from discrimination related to gender identity by defining “sex” by reference to the presence of a single reproductive attribute present “at conception.”25 Although a federal court has enjoined the enforcement of the Feb. 4, 2025 letter, the January executive order — referencing the 2020 Title IX rule — remains in effect.26
Enforcement Power of OCR
The OCR is tasked with ensuring that the civil rights of all students are protected. Under the Biden administration’s executive order in 2021, OCR investigated Title IX violations in relation to discrimination against LGBTQ+ students.27
In March 2025, the U.S. Department of Education initiated a reduction in force that laid off about 240 OCR staff and reduced the capacity to conduct investigations, but, due to a June 2025 court order, many of these staff members returned to work.28
In 2025, under the Trump administration’s new executive order imposing a limitation of only “two sexes” as defined by reference to a single reproductive attribute, OCR opened cases to investigate Title IX violations related to enforcing gendered restroom access and single-sex sports. For example, OCR recently launched an investigation into Denver Public Schools for the conversion of a girls’ restroom to an all-gender restroom in its largest high school.29 Other investigations have taken place in California and Minnesota.30
Privacy of Students’ Educational Records
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is a federal law that protects the privacy of K-12 student educational records.31 Some groups have argued that a student’s gender identity is identifiable personal information protected from disclosure by FERPA. For example, in 2016 the National Association of Secondary School Principals recognized that students’ “transgender status, legal name, or sex assigned at birth is confidential medical information and considered ‘personally identifiable information’ under FERPA” and that disclosing this information to a third party without consent could violate FERPA protections.32 Although not adopted by the Biden administration, this position is one that some state education agencies have taken.
In March 2025, the U.S. Department of Education sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to chief state school officers and superintendents receiving federal funding, notifying them of their compliance obligations under FERPA.33 Specifically, this letter asserts that schools must allow parents to review their children’s educational records, including any document related to a student’s “gender identity.”34 On Jan. 26, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Privacy Policy Office issued a ruling finding that the California Department of Education violated FERPA in the enforcement of a state law that prohibits school districts from requiring schools to proactively disclose this information without consent.35 California contested this finding, maintaining its position that proactive parental notification is distinct from an unlawful withholding of records and that FERPA only prohibits the latter.36 On Mar. 2, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision overturning a lower court’s injunction that allowed California’s law to stay in place pending an appeal on the merits of the law. This is not a ruling on the constitutionality of the law but does signal that the Supreme Court would likely overturn the law in its current form, should it reach them.37 The Court pointed specifically to 2025’s Mahmoud v. Taylor (detailed in the following section) to support the conclusion that this law places too high a burden on the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.38
Additional Federal Actions That Could Affect LGBTQ+ Students
Other actions taken by the Trump administration, including those listed below, could create additional barriers for and threaten the well-being and safety of LGBTQ+ students:
Ending specialized suicide prevention services for LGBTQ+ youth on the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline.
LGBTQ+ students are at a higher risk for suicide than their peers, with 41% reporting that they have seriously considered suicide, compared to 13% of their peers.39 Beginning in 2022, the nationwide 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline began offering a separate call option for LGBTQ+ youth.40 In July 2025, this call option was ended by the Trump administration, which means this specific and specialized crisis support for LGBTQ+ youth will no longer be available.41 Between 2022 and 2025, this resource was contacted about 1.5 million times.42
Other executive orders that threaten the well-being of many LGBTQ+ students, especially transgender and nonbinary students.
In January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” which threatens the removal of federal funds from schools that hold diversity, equity, and inclusion programming (referred to as “discriminatory equity ideology” in the order), or any training that promotes “gender ideology.”43 This executive order limits several activities, including K-12 teachers’ use of students’ identified pronouns and access to bathrooms and locker rooms that match students’ gender identities.44 Research suggests that the use of a chosen name by transgender youth in multiple contexts, including home and school, is associated with lower rates of depression, suicidal ideation, and suicidal behavior.45
U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor.
In June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that public school parents have a First Amendment right to opt out of curriculum that they believe “interferes with their children’s religious development.”46 In this particular case, Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland approved a book list that included some books with LGBTQ+ characters.47 The district did not provide an option for parents to opt out of lessons that featured these characters. A group of parents representing a broad range of religious backgrounds sued the district, arguing that their First Amendment religious rights were violated, and the Court sided with the parents.48
By making the matter of nonreligious classroom materials subject to First Amendment free expression claims, this ruling draws the federal courts into what might previously have been, at most, state law challenges. Moreover, it subjects those claims to strict scrutiny, placing the highest possible burden on the state to prove a compelling interest.49 The decision sets a precedent for the removal of materials that include any LGBTQ+ narratives or characters, and could create a “chilling effect” on schools, leading to wholesale censorship of lawful materials and curricula rather than the creation of an opt-out provision that would satisfy the Court.50 It has already been applied beyond instructional materials — it has been used by the U.S. Department of Justice to launch investigations into the activities that Michigan school districts offer to students beyond their classroom curriculum51 and by plaintiffs to challenge a California state law designed to protect the privacy of LGBTQ+ students.52
Actions State Leaders Have Taken
Some state leaders, with support from local agencies, have taken actions to support LGBTQ+ students through their state policies. Many of these actions are currently under legal challenge and may or may not survive judicial scrutiny:
- Asserted state authority. At least three states have invoked principles of federalism to take state-level legislative or other policy action contrary to federal pronouncements in order to support K-12 transgender students. For example, when the Trump administration claimed that the Maine Department of Education was in violation of Title IX for allowing transgender athletes to participate in the sports leagues that aligned with their gender identities, the state asserted that its antidiscrimination policy protects transgender students and would take precedence.53 In retaliation, the Trump administration threatened to withhold unrelated federal funds for childhood nutrition programs. In April 2025, the administration filed suit54 against Maine, and in May of the same year, the administration agreed to restore the funds that had been withheld.55 The suit is ongoing, and the trial is set for April 2026.56 Similarly, Minnesota57 and California58 have issued guidance about state laws related to gender-segregated school sports, allowing students to participate on those sports teams that match their gender identities, both of which have been challenged in court by the Trump administration and are not yet resolved. Notably, in January 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court heard challenges to two state laws59 (in Idaho and West Virginia) banning transgender women and girls from participating in women’s and girls’ school sports teams. If the Supreme Court upholds these state laws, that affirms that states retain the power to make these kinds of laws; it does not mean that other states are required to adopt them.
- Passed legislation to allow access to housing and other social services for unaccompanied minors. Up to 40% of youth experiencing homelessness identify as LGBTQ+.60 One of the barriers for young people to accessing housing services is the inability to receive parental consent, especially for those young people who were made homeless by their family’s rejection of their sexual or gender identity. In response, some states have enacted legislation that would allow young people under age 18 to receive access to shelter and housing services without parental consent.61
- Increased investment in mental health supports for students. Because LGBTQ+ students experience known challenges with depression and bullying, some state policymakers have increased financial support for mental health services and programs. For example, California’s $4.7 billion Master Plan for Kids’ Mental Health makes targeted investments in workforce training and capacity and public awareness to reduce stigma.62 In addition, California’s continued partnership with nonprofit and advocacy organizations like the Trevor Project is an example of using state resources for LGBTQ+ mental health care and suicide prevention for youth.63
- Shared existing resources for LGBTQ+ students publicly and released statements about state laws protecting children. Some state attorneys general have reaffirmed protections for LGBTQ+ students by sharing resources publicly and releasing statements that make state law protections explicit for these young people.64
- Developed and publicized additional resources tailored for LGBTQ+ students. Some school districts have developed resources that include referrals for services such as housing and mental health. For example, in Tennessee, Metro Nashville Public Schools has a community resource guide that provides examples of supportive services available to LGBTQ+ youth in the city.65 Likewise, Chicago Public Schools has publicly available guidance for how schools can create more welcoming learning environments for LGBTQ+ students.66
Additional Considerations for State Policymakers
The actions of the current federal administration make clear that any strengthening of protections for LGBTQ+ K-12 students will need to come from state policymakers. Leaders who are interested in supporting protections for LGBTQ+ students in their state should consider the following questions:
Stakeholder Engagement
- How are state policymakers keeping schools and districts informed about changes at the federal level and their impact on K-12 students?
- What legal guidance are schools and districts receiving as the law evolves so that they can ensure they are not overcorrecting in anticipation of legal decisions that have not yet been made?
- How can the state’s K-12 schools collaborate with community partners to identify supportive services for LGBTQ+ students, such as housing assistance or referrals to mental health care resources?
Political Support
- How can state and school leaders strike the critical balance of showing public and visible support for LGBTQ+ youth without drawing unhelpful attention?
- How might state leaders develop shared language to assert their authority to pass and enforce appropriate state laws in support of LGBTQ+ students?
Policy and Budget
- How might protective laws and policies be revised and refined — without being abandoned — as federal law evolves?
- What existing district policies protect the rights of LGBTQ+ students? Are there specific gaps in district policies that can be addressed?
- What professional development resources do educators and school-based staff receive to support LGBTQ+ students? Can additional professional development supports be offered to educators and school-based staff?
OTHER RESOURCES
- What the Supreme Court’s Mahmoud v. Taylor Decision Means for Schools and Families, Bellwether
- The Impact of 2025 Anti-Transgender Legislation on Youth, The Williams Institute
- 2024 U.S. National Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ+ Young People, The Trevor Project
- 2023 LGBTQ+ Youth Report, Human Rights Campaign
Acknowledgments, About the Authors, About Bellwether
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank our Bellwether colleagues John Bellaire, Colleen Campbell, and Daniel Szekely for their input and Ashlie Scott for her support. Thank you also to former Bellwether colleagues Indira Dammu for her work on an earlier draft of this memo and Dana Stewart for her research assistance. We are also grateful for the contributions of Danielle (Danny) King, Esq., Attorney and Policy Advocate, Law Office of Danielle C. King, PLLC as a peer reviewer.
Thank you to Amy Ribock, Kate Stein, Andy Jacob, McKenzie Maxson, Julie Nguyen, and Amber Walker for shepherding and disseminating this work, and to Super Copy Editors.
The contributions of these individuals and entities significantly enhanced our work; however, any errors in fact or analysis remain the responsibility of the authors.
About the Authors
HAILLY T.N. KORMAN
Hailly T.N. Korman is a senior associate partner at Bellwether and leads the organization’s work on special populations of students. She can be reached at hailly.korman@bellwether.org.
TEMIM FRUCHTER
Temim Fruchter is an executive assistant 2 at Bellwether. She can be reached at temim.fruchter@bellwether.org.
DWAN DUBE
Dwan Dube is an executive assistant at Bellwether. She can be reached at dwan.dube@bellwether.org.
STARR AARON
Starr Aaron is a senior business systems manager at Bellwether. She can be reached at starr.aaron@bellwether.org
Bellwether is a national nonprofit that works to transform education to ensure young people — especially those furthest from opportunity — achieve outcomes that lead to fulfilling lives and flourishing communities. Founded in 2010, we help mission-driven partners accelerate their impact, inform and influence policy and program design, and bring leaders together to drive change on education’s most pressing challenges. For more, visit bellwether.org.
© 2026 Bellwether
This report carries a Creative Commons license, which permits noncommercial reuse of content when proper attribution is provided. This means you are free to copy, display, and distribute this work, or include content from this report in derivative works, under the following conditions:
Attribution. You must clearly attribute the work to Bellwether and provide a link back to the publication at www.bellwether.org.
Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes without explicit prior permission from Bellwether.
Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one. For the full legal code of this Creative Commons license, please visit www.creativecommons.org.
If you have any questions about citing or reusing Bellwether content, please contact us.
- 1. Nancy D. Brener et al., “Overview and Methods for the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System — United States, 2023,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 73, no. 4 (2024): 1–103, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/su/pdfs/su7304-H.pdf. ↩
- 2. “Facts About Suicide Among LGBTQ+ Young People,” The Trevor Project, updated January 2024, https://www.thetrevorproject.org/blog/national-estimate-of-lgbtq-youth-seriously-considering-suicide/; “Health Disparities Among LGBTQ Youth,” Adolescent and School Health, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, November 29, 2024, https://www.cdc.gov/healthy-youth/lgbtq-youth/health-disparities-among-lgbtq-youth.html. ↩
- 3. S. T. Russell et al., Understanding School Safety and the Intersections of Race, Ethnicity, and Sexual Orientation, Safe Schools Research Brief 10 (California Safe Schools Coalition, 2009), https://www.casafeschools.org/CSSC_Research_Brief_10.html. ↩
- 4. Michelle M. Johns et al., “Strengthening Our Schools to Promote Resilience and Health Among LGBTQ Youth: Emerging Evidence and Research Priorities From the State of LGBTQ Youth Health and Wellbeing Symposium,” LGBT Health 6, no. 4 (2019): 146–155, https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2018.0109. ↩
- 5. “How the First Amendment and Free Speech Law Protect LGBTQ+ Youth,” Justia, reviewed October 2024, https://www.justia.com/lgbtq/youth/first-amendment-free-speech/. ↩
- 6. Know Your Rights: Federal Laws Protecting GSAs and LGBTQ Students (GSAFE: Gay Straight Alliance for Safe Schools), https://www.gsafewi.org/wp-content/uploads/Know-Your-Rights-Federal-Laws.pdf. ↩
- 7. Jared P. Cole, “Transgender Students and School Bathroom Policies: Equal Protection Challenges Divide Appellate Courts,” Congress.gov, September 24, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10902. ↩
- 8. Jared P. Cole, “Status of Education Department’s Title IX Regulations,” Congress.gov, September 24, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11279. ↩
- 9. Ibid. ↩
- 10. U.S. Department of Education, “U.S. Department of Education to Enforce 2020 Title IX Rule Protecting Women,” press release, January 31, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-enforce-2020-title-ix-rule-protecting-women. ↩
- 11. U.S. Department of Education Q&A Resource on Student-Led Groups to Support LGBTQI+ Students and Allies (U.S. Department of Education, June 21, 2023), https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ed-qa-student-led-groups-202306.pdf. ↩
- 12. Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf. ↩
- 13. Executive Order 13988, “Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation,” Federal Register 86, no. 14 (January 25, 2021): 7023–7025, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-25/pdf/2021-01761.pdf. ↩
- 14. Exec. Order No. 14021, 86 Fed. Reg. 13803 (March 11, 2021), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/03/11/2021-05200/guaranteeing-an-educational-environment-free-from-discrimination-on-the-basis-of-sex-including. ↩
- 15. Steven T. Russell et al., “Promoting School Safety for LGBTQ and All Students,” Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8, no. 2 (2021): 160–166, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8454913/. ↩
- 16. “Know Your Rights,” Office for Civil Rights (OCR), U.S. Department of Education, reviewed January 15, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/ocr/know-your-rights. ↩
- 17. American Bar Association Division for Public Education, “What Is an Executive Order?,” Teaching Legal Docs, February 2, 2026, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-docs/what-is-an-executive-order-/. ↩
- 18. Russell et al., “Promoting School Safety.” ↩
- 19. Dee Spagnuolo et al., “Title IX Roundup: DOJ Memo Protects LGBTQ+ Students, DOE Launches Reg. Review,” Ballard Spahr, April 7, 2021, https://www.ballardspahr.com/insights/alerts-and-articles/2021/04/title-ix-roundup-doj-memo-protects-lgbtq-students. ↩
- 20. Donald J. Trump, “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” presidential action, White House, January 20, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/. ↩
- 21. “Title IX and Sex Discrimination,” Office of Communications and Outreach (OCO), U.S. Department of Education, reviewed April 11, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/civil-rights-laws/title-ix-and-sex-discrimination. ↩
- 22. U.S. Department of Education, “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance,” 89 Federal Register 33474 (April 29, 2024), codified at 34 C.F.R. pt. 106, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/29/2024-07915/nondiscrimination-on-the-basis-of-sex-in-education-programs-or-activities-receiving-federal. ↩
- 23. Collin Binkley, “Judge Tosses Biden’s Title IX Rules, Rejecting Expansion of Protections for LGBTQ+ Students,” PBS News, January 9, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/judge-tosses-bidens-title-ix-rules-rejecting-expansion-of-protections-for-lgbtq-students. ↩
- 24. Craig Trainor to Colleagues, 4 February 2025, https://www.ed.gov/media/document/title-ix-enforcement-directive-dcl-109477.pdf. ↩
- 25. Ibid.; this definition, provided in §2(d)-(e) of Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, lacks scientific validity and it is unclear how it would be applied in any individual circumstance. See, e.g., Corky Siemaszko, “When Is a Person’s Sex Determined? Trump Has No Conception, Experts Say,” NBC News, January 27, 2025, https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/trump-executive-order-sex-gender-conception-rcna189189. ↩
- 26. National Education Association v. United States Department of Education, No. 25-cv-091-LM, Opinion No. 2025 DNH 055 P (D.N.H. 2025), https://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Opinions/2024/25NH055P.pdf. ↩
- 27. See, e.g., Laurel Powell, “U.S. Department of Education Finds Nex Benedict’s School District Accountable for Fostering Hostile Climate In Response to HRC Complaint,” HRC, November 13, 2024, https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/u-s-department-of-education-finds-nex-benedicts-school-district-accountable-for-fostering-hostile-climate-in-response-to-hrc-complaint. ↩
- 28. Naaz Modan, “Half of OCR Eliminated After Trump Education Department Layoffs,” K-12 Dive, March 12, 2025, https://www.k12dive.com/news/half-of-ocr-fired-after-trump-education-department-layoffs/742374/; Declaration of Steven Schaefer, Victim Rts. L. Ctr. v. U.S. Dept. of Educ., No. 25-11042-MJJ (D. Mass., August 19, 2025), ECF No. 67-1, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.283711/gov.uscourts.mad.283711.67.1_2.pdf. ↩
- 29. U.S. Department of Education, “U.S. Department of Education Launches Investigation Into Denver Public Schools for Converting Girl’s Restroom to All-Gender Facility,” press release, January 28, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-launches-investigation-denver-public-schools-converting-girls-restroom-all-gender-facility. ↩
- 30. U.S. Department of Education, “U.S. Department of Education Finds California Department of Education and California Interscholastic Federation in Violation of Title IX,” press release, June 25, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-finds-california-department-of-education-and-california-interscholastic-federation-violation-of-title-ix; U.S. Department of Education, “U.S. Department of Education Elevates Two Minnesota Investigations to Title IX Special Investigations Team,” press release, June 12, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-elevates-two-minnesota-investigations-title-ix-special-investigations-team. ↩
- 31. National Archives, Code of Federal Regulations; Title 34, Subpart A, Part 99, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-A/part-99?toc=1. ↩
- 32. James D. Esseks, “Open Letter to Schools About LGBTQ Student Privacy,” ACLU, August 26, 2020, https://www.aclu.org/documents/open-letter-schools-about-lgbtq-student-privacy. ↩
- 33. U.S. Department of Education, Dear Colleague Letter, March 28, 2025, https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/sites/default/files/resource_document/file/secretary_comb_sppo_dcl_annual%20notice_0.pdf. ↩
- 34. Ibid. ↩
- 35. U.S. Department of Education, “U.S. Department of Education Finds California Department of Education Violated Federal Law by Hiding Students’ ‘Gender Transitions’ from Parents,” press release, January 28, 2026, https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-finds-california-department-of-education-violated-federal-law-hiding-students-gender-transitions-parents. ↩
- 36. California Department of Education, “California Department of Education Reiterates Parents’ Rights to Review Student Records,” press release, February 11, 2026, https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr26/yr26rel05.asp. ↩
- 37. Mirabelli v. Bonta (2026), https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/mirabelli_bonta_scotus_order.pdf. ↩
- 38. Ibid. ↩
- 39. “Health Disparities Among LGBTQ Youth,” U.S Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, November 29, 2024, https://www.cdc.gov/healthy-youth/lgbtq-youth/health-disparities-among-lgbtq-youth.html; Ester di Giacomo et al., “Estimating the Risk of Attempted Suicide Among Sexual Minority Youths: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” JAMA Pediatrics 172, no. 12 (2018): 1145–52, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.2731. ↩
- 40. “SAMHSA Statement on 988 Press 3 Option,” Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, June 17, 2025, https://www.samhsa.gov/about/news-announcements/statements/2025/samhsa-statement-988-press-3-option. ↩
- 41. Ibid.; Brooke Sopelsa and Jo Yurcaba, “Trump Administration Shuts Down LGBTQ Youth Suicide Hotline,” NBC News, July 17, 2025, https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/trump-shuts-down-lgbtq-youth-suicide-hotline-rcna219090. ↩
- 42. “988 Lifeline Performance Metrics,” Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, updated August 11, 2025, https://www.samhsa.gov/mental-health/988/performance-metrics. ↩
- 43. Donald J. Trump, “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” presidential action, White House, January 29, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-indoctrination-in-k-12-schooling/. “Gender ideology” is a controversial term used to describe LGBTQ+ people (and specifically transgender people) as an ideological movement. “Online Anti-LGBTQ Hate Terms Defined: ‘Gender Ideology,’” GLAAD, https://glaad.org/gender-ideology-definition-meaning-anti-lgbt-online-hate/. ↩
- 44. Rachel M. Perera, Thalia González, and Aidan Tomlinson, The Status of Litigation Against the Trump Administration’s K-12 Education Agenda: A Guide for Education Leaders (Brookings, 2025), https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-status-of-litigation-against-the-trump-administrations-k-12-education-agenda-a-guide-for-education-leaders/. ↩
- 45. Stephen T. Russell et al., “Chosen Name Use Is Linked to Reduced Depressive Symptoms, Suicidal Ideation, and Suicidal Behavior Among Transgender Youth,” The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine 63, no. 4 (2018): 503–5, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.02.003. ↩
- 46. Amy Howe, “Court Allows Parents to Opt Their Children Out of School Lessons Involving LGBTQ+ Themes,” SCOTUSblog, June 27, 2025, https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-parents-to-opt-their-children-out-of-school-lessons-involving-lgbtq-themes/. ↩
- 47. Indira Dammu and Hailly T.N. Korman, “What the Supreme Court’s Mahmoud v. Taylor Decision Means for Schools and Families,” Bellwether blog, June 27, 2025, https://bellwether.org/blog/what-the-supreme-courts-mahmoud-v-taylor-decision-means-for-schools-and-families/. ↩
- 48. Ibid. ↩
- 49. Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), No. 24-297, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf. ↩
- 50. Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), Dissent of Justice S. Sotomayor, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf. ↩
- 51. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, “Justice Department Opens Investigations into Three Michigan School Districts for Required Instruction on Sexual Orientation and Gender Ideology in Pre-K–12 Schools,” press release, February 18, 2026, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-opens-investigations-three-michigan-school-districts-required-instruction. ↩
- 52. Mirabelli v. Bonta (2026). ↩
- 53. U.S. Department of Education, “U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights Concludes That the Maine Department of Education Is Violating Title IX,” press release, March 19, 2025, https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-educations-office-civil-rights-concludes-maine-department-of-education-violating-title-ix; Patty Wight, “Transgender Female Athletes Can Still Compete under State Law, Maine Sports Governing Body Says,” Maine Public, February 7, 2025, https://www.mainepublic.org/sports/2025-02-07/governing-body-for-maine-high-school-sports-says-transgender-female-athletes-can-still-compete-under-state-law-gove. ↩
- 54. Associated Press, “Trump Administration Sues Maine over Participation of Transgender Athletes in Girls Sports,” MPR News, April 16, 2025, https://www.mprnews.org/story/2025/04/16/trump-administration-sues-maine-over-participation-of-transgender-athletes-in-girls-sports. ↩
- 55. Associated Press, “Trump Administration Settles with Maine over Funding Freeze after Dispute over Trans Athletes,” NBC News, May 2, 2025, https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/trump-administration-settles-maine-funding-freeze-dispute-trans-athlet-rcna204541. ↩
- 56. WGME, “Trial Set for April 2026 in Maine Dispute over Trans Athletes in Girls’ Sports,” June 11, 2025, https://wgme.com/news/local/maine-defends-trans-athletes-policy-citing-adherence-to-state-and-federal-laws-trans-in-girls-sports-maine-department-of-education-trump-title-nine. ↩
- 57. Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, Advisory Opinion No. 1035, “Re: Request for Advisory Opinion Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 8.07,” February 20, 2025, https://www.ag.state.mn.us/office/opinions/1035-20250220.pdf. ↩
- 58. California Department of Education, Office of the General Counsel, “Response to the Department of Justice Letter Regarding California Laws Governing Athletic Competition,” letter to California local educational agencies, June 9, 2025, https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/fa/yr25cosoltr0609.asp. ↩
- 59. Amy Howe, “Supreme Court Appears Likely to Uphold Transgender Athlete Bans,” SCOTUSblog, January 13, 2026, https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/supreme-court-appears-likely-to-uphold-transgender-athlete-bans. ↩
- 60. Policy Brief: LGBTQ+ Youth Homelessness (National Network for Youth, 2023), https://nn4youth.org/wp-content/uploads/23-LGBTQ-Policy-Brief.pdf. ↩
- 61. “State Laws to Support Youth Experiencing Homelessness,” State Policy, SchoolHouse Connection, https://schoolhouseconnection.org/article/state-laws-to-support-youth-experiencing-homelessness#housing. ↩
- 62. Gavin Newsom, “While Trump Cuts Suicide Hotline for Gay Kids, California Invests in Their Mental Health,” press release, June 18, 2025, https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/06/18/while-trump-cuts-suicide-hotline-for-gay-kids-california-invests-in-their-mental-health/; “Master Plan for Kids’ Mental Health: Putting Our Kids First,” Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, https://cybhi.chhs.ca.gov/. ↩
- 63. Newsom, “California Invests.” ↩
- 64. See, e.g., Joseph Goldstein, “N.Y. Attorney General Warns Hospitals Against Canceling Transgender Care,” New York Times, February 3, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/03/nyregion/ny-attorney-general-transgender-care.html. ↩
- 65. “Community Resource Guide,” Metro Nashville Public Schools, https://www.mnps.org/students-families/community-resource-guide. ↩
- 66. “LGBTQ+ Supportive Environments,” Services and Supports, Chicago Public Schools, https://www.cps.edu/services-and-supports/health-and-wellness/lgbtq-supportive-environments/. ↩
