Judge will block Trump from requiring removal of gender ideology from sex ed

On October 8, a federal district judge told Planned Parenthood affiliates in California, Iowa, and New York that they were exempted from President Trump's Executive Orders (EO) requiring the removal of gender ideology from certain sex education program curricula in order to receive federal funding. Now, a federal judge in Oregon has announced plans to block Trumps EOs on behalf of 16 states plus D.C.

Key Takeaways:

• A federal judge appointed by former President Bill Clinton plans to block President Trump's executive orders requiring the removal of gender ideology from sex education curriculum used in a government program before states can receive federal grant funding for that program.

• Sixteen states plus D.C. sued, with one of the group's attorneys claiming that the Trump HHS was requiring them to "edit transgender kids our of their curricula."

• In reality, the statute "includes no mention of gender ideology, which is both irrelevant to teaching abstinence and contraception and unrelated to any of the adult preparation subjects," according to the Trump administration.

• The judge in the case claimed that the exclusion of gender ideology appeared to be a "separate but equal" approach to sex ed.

The Details:

According to Reuters, the states, "led by Washington, Oregon and Minnesota," filed suit against the Trump administration, with attorneys for those states claiming "the administration's policy violated requirements that Congress set when it created the two programs and usurped the authority of lawmakers over spending in violation of the U.S. Constitution." Reuters also noted:

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken [a Clinton appointee] said she planned to issue an injunction at the behest of those 16 states, as well as the District of Columbia, after a lawyer for Washington state told her during a hearing that the Department of Health and Human Services wants them to effectively "edit transgender kids out of their curricula."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Susanne Luse reportedly explained:

"We're not excluding anybody from these programs. We're just simply saying you cannot teach that boys can be girls and girls can be boys."

"The states that brought the case faced the risk of losing out on $35 million in grant funding unless they complied with the directive," wrote the outlet.

That funding is part of the Personal Responsibility Education Program, or PREP, which "reaches about 13,000 youth annually, primarily those at the highest risk of STI or teen pregnancy," according to National Review.

A June press release from the Administration for Children and families stated that "The educational materials promoting gender ideology have nothing to do with Personal Responsibility Education and are outside the scope of PREP’s authorizing statute."

A letter issued by ACF to the state of California on June 20, 2025, regarding the PREP program detailed (emphases added):

The “purpose” of a PREP grant award is for states to “carry out personal responsibility education programs consistent with this subsection.” 42 U.S.C. § 713(b)(1). The statute defines PREP as “a program that is designed to educate adolescents on -- (i) both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS, consistent with the requirements of subparagraph (B); and (ii) at least 3 of the adulthood preparation subjects described in subparagraph (C).” 42 U.S.C. § 713(b)(2). The statute includes no mention of gender ideology, which is both irrelevant to teaching abstinence and contraception and unrelated to any of the adult preparation subjects described in section 713(b)(2)(C).

... The 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; thus, gender ideology is outside the scope of the authorizing statute and any expenditures associated with gender ideology are not allowable, reasonable, or allocable to the PREP grant.

As Live Action News previously reported:

PREP provides federal funding for sex education programs for populations deemed ‘high risk’ for STIs or teen pregnancies. According to ACF, participants in PREP are mostly minority children. Those deemed high risk often include:

Minors in foster care

Juvenile detention facilities

Some public schools

Homeless shelters

Like public schools, states receiving funding for PREP set guidelines for the program but must comply with federal requirements. Similarly, states and school districts dictate which curriculum to utilize for their respective state-run PREP.

The letter from ACF offers eight examples it has identified as violations of the Trump administration’s requirements.

PREP-funded programs in multiple states contain similar (or identical) examples of transgender- and abortion-promoting propaganda passed off as sex ed curriculum for children. These target some of the most vulnerable minor populations in the country.  

Judge Aiken, who had announced her intent to retire from the bench in 2023, claimed that requiring the removal of transgender ideology from curricula "'appears to be a sort of a separate-but-equal' approach to sex education," wrote Reuters.

Commentary:

In other words, Aiken seems to be arguing that the required exclusion of transgender ideology from a program meant to decrease the risk of STIs and teen pregnancy is akin to the racial discrimination seen in Plessy v. Ferguson and Jim Crow laws.

This feels like a stretch, to say the least.

Some of the lessons which the Trump administration highlighted as containing gender ideology instructed teachers to “[r]emind students that some men are born with female anatomy, some women are born with male anatomy." Such instruction seems out of place in a curriculum meant to decrease the risk of pregnancy and STIs — and yet, all of the curricula aligned with Planned Parenthood, Advocates for Youth, and their other allies that are used in public school comprehensive sex education promotes these ideas.

But these claims are not biological fact; they are ideology. And we know where they came from.

The ideas embedded in transgender ideology were established by various key individuals, beginning in the 1800s with Karl Ulrichs (then later, Hirschfeld, Kinsey, and even Nazi Erwin Gohrbandt, who tortured prisoners at Dachau). They sought to make homosexuality more palatable to the culture, while at the same time attempting to destigmatize pedophilia.

They wrapped their ideas in the concept of "consent," claiming that children are "sexual from birth" and can give their permission for essentially any sexual activity or behavior, any surgery, any abortion... anything.

These individuals eventually joined forces with those seeking to control certain populations through contraception and abortion (eugenicists), and they soon realized that not only could they promote the idea of separating sex from its procreative purpose (in order to destigmatize all manner of perversity), but could simultaneously sterilize individuals through transgender procedures and hormones — thereby providing another way to reduce and control population.

The Bottom Line:

Judge Aiken plans to issue a written injunction soon; HHS has yet to respond to the judge's statements. Overall, the Trump administration appears to be attempting to stay within the confines of the statute while correcting the Biden administration's past mishaps and mistakes in the statute's interpretation.