Donald Trump‘s Department of Education has unveiled a new policy that will make workers of LGBTQ+ nonprofits ineligible for student loan forgiveness.
The department will publish a rule tomorrow in the Federal Register that would allow the Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, to disqualify government and nonprofit employers that do not align the Trump administration’s agenda from participating in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program.
While no specific organizations have yet been named publicly as ineligible for PSLF under the rule, LGBTQ+ organizations operating as 501(c)(3) nonprofits are likely to be targeted. Even large legal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union or Lambda Legal working to legally protect gender-affirming care could be misconstrued as the “subsidization of illegal activities.”
“This is a direct and unlawful attack on nurses, teachers, first responders, and public service workers across the country,” Democracy Forward and Protect Borrowers said in a joint statement. “Congress created the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program because it is important for our democracy that we support the people who do the hard work to serve our communities.”
“This new rule is a craven attempt to usurp the legislature’s authority in an unconstitutional power grab aimed at punishing people with political views different than the administration’s,” it continued. “In our democracy, the president does not have the authority to overrule Congress. That’s why we will soon see the Trump-Vance administration in court.”
The Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program forgives the student loans of those who work for federal, state, tribal, or local government, or for non-profit organizations, after they’ve made payments for ten years (120 payments). The program was created as part of the 2007 College Cost Reduction and Access Act and signed into law by President George W. Bush as a way to encourage students to pursue careers in public service.
Trump signed an executive order in March that drastically limits who qualifies for PSLF, preventing forgiveness for people who work at organizations that engage in the supposed “subsidization of illegal activities, including illegal immigration, human smuggling, child trafficking, pervasive damage to public property, and disruption of the public order.”
The order directly singled out organizations that assist trans people, including with gender-affirming care, which it falsely refers to as “child abuse, including the chemical and surgical castration or mutilation of children.”
More than one-third (35 percent) of LGBTQ+ adults ages 18 to 40 — an estimated 2.9 million — held more than $93.2 billion in federal student loans at the beginning of the Biden Administration, according to a March report from the Williams Institute and the Point Foundation, including over half (51 percent) of trans adults, 36 percent of cisgender LBQ women, and 28 percent of cisgender GBQ men.
Luis Vasquez, Senior Legal Writer for the Human Rights Campaign, told The Advocate that “this rule is simply about bullying LGBTQ+ people and nonprofits and other progressive groups and making life more difficult for those who Donald Trump dislikes.”
“The result is that it would keep talented people from pursuing careers in public service, fearing that they may suddenly lose eligibility for this program on a whim,” Vasquez said. “The administration is once again going beyond what Congress has authorized, pursuing a discriminatory policy without legal basis. This hurts innocent people and should be rescinded immediately.”
In June 2025, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling allowing parents to opt out of classes that teach material conflicting with their religious beliefs. The decision, which could affect lessons on everything from evolution to cultural diversity, was driven primarily by challenges to classroom instruction about LGBTQ+ people. The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, originated in Maryland’s Montgomery County School District—the state’s largest—which had previously required lessons on LGBTQ+ inclusion without permitting opt-outs. The ruling was celebrated by far-right activists as a major victory in a deep-blue state. But months later, the results are in: of more than 160,000 students enrolled, only 43 families chose to opt out of LGBTQ+ education districtwide.
In a report released on October 2, the Montgomery County School District approved just 58 opt-out requests from 43 families—under 0.03 percent of the district’s 160,000 students. In other words, 99.97 percent of families, even when given the option, chose to let their children learn about LGBTQ+ people.
The books targeted by the handful of families include Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, about the marriage of two gay men; Intersectional Allies: We Make Room for All, which features a genderfluid character; and Planting the Rainbow: Places of LGBTQ+ History in Maryland, which teaches about key moments in the state’s queer history.
For the families choosing to opt out, their children will be placed in separate classrooms or given alternate assignments when LGBTQ+ topics arise. The arrangement underscores a point the school district made during the court fight: creating entirely new materials for such a vanishingly small group is disruptive to classrooms and burdens teachers with unnecessary extra work—all to accommodate the religious beliefs of a tiny minority. Still, because of the Supreme Court’s ruling, those accommodations will now have to be made.
Meanwhile, in Republican-controlled states, officials have taken a far more oppressive approach to LGBTQ+ education. Rather than offering families the option to opt out, many states simply ban the material outright. Under “Don’t Say Gay or Trans” laws—first popularized in Florida and now enacted in 19 states—teachers are prohibited from acknowledging LGBTQ+ people in class instruction at various grade levels. In Texas, several colleges have gone even further, barring professors from recognizing that transgender people exist at all. When contrasted with the minuscule number of families opting out when given the choice, these policies look less like a reflection of public will and more like a top-down morality ban—one that would almost certainly be rejected if parents actually had the freedom to decide for themselves.
Anti-LGBTQ+ school policies remain among the most unpopular measures pushed by Republicans in red states and by the Trump administration. A Navigator Research poll published in August 2023 found that fewer than 25 percent of Democrats and independents—and only half of Republicans—named “protecting children from being exposed to woke ideologies about race and gender in school” as a major priority. Book bans ranked even lower: 92 percent of respondents said such bans were concerning. A more recent Knight Foundation poll echoed those findings, with two-thirds of Americans opposing efforts to restrict books in public schools.
Respondents from Montgomery County, Maryland expressed frustration and vindication after hearing the results of the opt-out process. “Every single one of these ‘anti-woke’ lawsuits and headlines comes from one or a few people making a stink,” said one commenter in a local subreddit dedicated to the county. “Imagine living in Montgomery County and thinking you can opt out of cultural diversity,” said another.
“It looks like most were from elementary schools, but there’s a few from middle schools and two from a high school. Can you imagine what these students’ classmates will think of them?” added a third.
The Supreme Court’s decision is just the latest example of how religious exemptions are being weaponized to roll back civil rights under the guise of “freedom.” Each new ruling gives a single person the power to disrupt an entire classroom, claiming that their beliefs are incompatible with learning about LGBTQ+ people, racial diversity, or any worldview outside their own. These carve-outs have already spread far beyond schools—empowering business owners to deny service to queer customers and pharmacists to refuse medication. But the data out of Montgomery County, Maryland makes one thing unmistakably clear: this crusade is not a mass movement. It’s the obsession of a vanishingly small minority, inflated by a Republican Party that has turned resentment of diversity—and especially of LGBTQ+ people—into the centerpiece of its politics.
Librarian Terri Lesley said she endured years of “pure hell” fighting to keep embattled books on the public library shelves of Gillette, a deeply conservative coal town in northeastern Wyoming.
After getting fired, Lesley fought two more years alleging public officials wrongfully terminated her for refusing to bow to their demands for censorship — all while being threatened, failing to find another librarian job and suffering so much stress she lost sleep and hair.
Now, the 62-year-old’s legal fight is over. On Wednesday, Lesley, who worked for Campbell County Public Library System for 27 years, including 11 as executive director, agreed to settle her federal lawsuit against Campbell County, the county’s library board and several officials for $700,000. In a 78-page complaint filed in April in the U.S. District Court for Wyoming, she accused them of helping to wage a years-long campaign to bully her into removing books about race and LGBTQ+ people from the library. After she refused, she said they fired her, which led to her lawsuit.
“I wanted to take a stand on it and try to put up a barrier from it happening to other librarians,” Lesley said Thursday in an interview. “I thought, ‘If I don’t do this thing, it’s just going to keep happening.’”
Campbell County, the county’s public library board, county commissioners and the lawyers who defended them against Lesley’s suit did not respond to requests for comment from The Washington Post. In court filings, they denied Lesley’s allegations and said she was fired because of “concerns with her performance,” not in retaliation for engaging in constitutionally protected activity. They described her lawsuit as “an improper run-on narrative combining fact, fable, self-praise, and a self-heroic, tale.”
The controversy in Campbell County happened amid a larger movement to target content available in public libraries around the country, particularly those aimed at children and having to do with race, gender or sexual identity. For years, the number of “book challenges” — efforts to remove or restrict access to books — remained flat. But in 2021, challenges spiked 1,300 percent to more than 3,900, according to American Library Association data. They increased each of the next two years to more than 9,000 in 2023 before falling to about 5,800 last year.
School libraries experienced the same thing during that stretch, leading the free-speech nonprofit PEN America to declare book censorship in the United States “rampant and common” and “unprecedented in modern times.”
“Not since the 1950s McCarthy era of the Red Scare has censorship become so entrenched in schools,” the group said Wednesday in a news release, referring to the period when anti-Communist paranoia intensified to a fever pitch.
Campbell County was part of the first wave of the “book-banning craze engulfing the country” in 2021 when several residents demanded county commissioners and library board trustees censor young adult and children’s books with LGBTQ+ content, according to Lesley’s lawsuit.
Those critics denounced books such as “This Book Is Gay” and “Not My Idea: A Book About Whiteness” as pornographic, obscene or racist. When Lesley resisted pressure to transfer such books out of the young adult and children’s sections or remove them from the library altogether, they targeted her for roughly two years, threatening her and accusing of criminal activity and endangering children, according to her lawsuit.
Instead of defending Lesley from that “campaign of fear and hate,” two county commissioners and four library board trustees allegedly joined it. In doing so, commissioners and trustees alienated LGBTQ+ people and propagated the hateful ideology that they are “dangers, abnormal, unwelcome, and their voices should be suppressed,” the suit states.
Over the next two years, Lesley kept resisting attempts to remove or restrict various books with LGBTQ+ themes, saying at library board meetings that doing so constituted censorship and violated the First Amendment, the suit states. Several lawyers agreed with that legal interpretation, which they shared with board trustees and county commissioners, according to the suit.
At one library board meeting, one of Lesley’s critics held up a sign that read “[Campbell County Public Library] Knowingly Encourages SEX for Minors and that’s a crime,” the suit alleges.
Amid the controversy, the American Library Association in March 2022 announced Lesley had won the John Phillip Immroth Memorial Award that recognizes “notable contributions to intellectual freedom and demonstrations of personal courage in defense of freedom of expression.”
Over the next five months, four of five library board members were replaced by county commissioners with ones more inclined to remove or restrict LGBTQ+ books, the suit states.
In July 2023, the library board voted to terminate Lesley.
“Their actions not only devastated Ms. Lesley professionally and personally, but also undermined the very mission of [the library system] and inflicted harm on the broader community,” the suit states. “For this, they must be held responsible.”
Lesley said she continues to be harmed by officials’ actions. More than two years after being fired, she hasn’t gotten a job in her field. A resident of Gillette since the second grade, she’s unwilling to move. She sought remote work in the field that wouldn’t require face-to-face interactions with patrons, but none of her efforts panned out.
Still, Lesley said she doesn’t regret standing up for what she believes was right, even if she’s paid a heavy price. She said she hopes the $700,000 settlement — more than five times what the county paid her annually — deters officials elsewhere from meddling with which books go on library shelves and where.
“They’ll see what happened here and maybe reconsider going down that road,” she said, with a pause, “is what I’m hoping for.”
Loudoun County School Board proclamations are typically noncontroversial, but a proclamation recognizing October as LGBTQ+ History Month drew three no votes at the board’s Sept. 30 meeting.
Language in the proclamation says it honors the “history, achievements, and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people” and celebrates “the strength, resilience, and impact of the LGBTQ+ community, whose contributions have enriched the cultural, educational, and civic life of Virginia and the world.”
“We reject discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation, and gender expression, and instead affirm kindness, acceptance, and respect as the foundation of our learning community,” the proclamation states. “Our school division is stronger when every student and staff member can live authentically and feels a true sense of belonging, and when we embrace the full diversity of our community.”
April Chandler, Algonkian; Linda W. Deans, Broad Run; board Vice Chair Anne P. Donohue, At Large; Arben Istrefi, Sterling; board Chair Melinda M. Mansfield, Dulles; and Sumera Rashid, Little River, voted yes.
Deana L. Griffiths, Ashburn; Karen “Kari” LaBell, Catoctin; and Lauren E. Shernoff, Leesburg, voted no.
The proclamation was initially included in the board’s consent agenda, which has items that are approved en masse.
However, Griffiths, who typically has abstained from voting on proclamations since taking office in 2024, wrote in an email that she moved the proclamation to the regular agenda, so she could speak about why she was voting against it.
“There is a meaningful difference between formally recognizing a group in history and promoting that group for its lifestyle to our students,” Griffiths said at the meeting. “It crosses the line into advocacy and raises serious concerns under the (Trump) executive order protecting our children from inappropriate content in our schools.
“Our communications must remain age appropriate and leave conversations about sensitive information to parents. Schools exist to teach children how to read, write, and think critically. Not engage them in conversations about sexuality at any age where they are far too young to process it.”
The January executive order from President Donald J. Trump that Griffiths referred to says people cannot identify as the opposite sex they were born as. It says the administration will “enforce all sex-protective laws to promote this reality,” including cutting federal funding used to “promote gender ideology.”
The Trump administration said in August it was suspending or terminating funding to Loudoun County Public Schools over its policy allowing transgender students to choose which bathroom or locker room they use. Federal money accounts for about $47 million of the current $2 billion LCPS budget.
Shernoff wrote in an email that some constituents complained to her after she voted for the proclamation last year about the way LGBTQ+ History Month was celebrated in schools. Specifically, their complaints were about how “certain spirit days” were celebrated and the effect on young students.
“I did some research into it and that in conjunction with knowing that LCPS also proclaims LGBTQ+ Pride Month in June, I decided to not support this,” Shernoff said. “I did however support the anti-bullying proclamation which specifically names and protects students based on their gender identity. I remain committed to ensuring all students are protected, safe, and can achieve to their fullest potential.”
LaBell said in an interview that she supported the proclamation last year because it was on the consent agenda and voting against it would’ve meant voting against everything on the agenda.
She said she opposed the proclamation because some of the issues it raises are “too political” to promote in school and might be inappropriate for young students to discuss.
Like Shernoff, LaBell said she voted for the Pride Month and anti-bullying proclamations, but believes one proclamation related to LGBTQ issues annually is enough.
“You want history? Put it in Pride Month,” she said. “It just seems to me it’s being pushed more so than anything else in our school system at this point in time. And it’s a family issue. It shouldn’t be a political issue in our schools.”
Two groups that support LGBTQ rights criticized the rationale of Griffiths, LaBell and Shernoff.
Candice Tuck, an Equality Loudoun board member, said the proclamation isn’t about promoting sexuality.
“There have been many brave queer pioneers throughout history who have fought for civil rights, who have been inventors, and who have moved our democracy forward,” Tuck said in an interview. “There is no reason that the queer community cannot be recognized for those accomplishments without individuals in our community perverting their history.”
Meredith Ray, the head of Loudoun4All, noted in an email that Griffiths previously said she wouldn’t vote for any proclamations, but chose to single out the LGTBQ+ proclamation for criticism.
Ray called Griffiths’ decision “malicious” and said her remarks were “ignorant commentary” on the issue.
“Recognition of history is not ‘promotion of a lifestyle.’ LGBTQ+ students, staff, and families exist in Loudoun and deserve the same dignity as everyone else. Griffiths’ attempt to frame recognition as ‘inappropriate content’ is harmful, especially to young people who already face higher rates of bullying and mental health struggles when leaders stigmatize them,” Ray said. “In fact, decades of research show that inclusive education that teaches respect and representation is one of the most effective ways to prevent bullying and improve school climate.”
Preschoolers with LGBTQ parents or who identify as LGBTQ can’t be shut out of religious preschools that are part of Colorado’s state-funded preschool program, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The decision, which upholds a key part of a lower court decision, represents a major win for the state and a defeat for the two Denver-area Catholic preschools at the center of the case.
Tuesday’s decision provides the latest answer to a question being asked in several cases percolating in state and federal courts: Can private religious schools that accept public education dollars refuse to enroll certain kids based on religious principles?
Along with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal, a Maine federal district court and a Utah state court are among those who have said no.
It’s possible the U.S. Supreme Court could eventually weigh in, though it’s not clear which case will advance to the high court.
In its 54-page ruling, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that it found no proof that the Colorado Department of Early Childhood took actions that “evidence religious hostility” as the two Catholic preschools claimed.
The state’s universal preschool program “went to great effort to be welcoming and inclusive of faith-based preschools’ participation,” the decision said.
The three-judge panel also found that the early childhood department, which runs the preschool program, had applied its nondiscrimination policy in a neutral way to both religious and non-religious preschools.
The policy bars preschools from discriminating based on a variety of factors, including sexual orientation and gender identity. State officials cited the policy in denying the Catholic preschools a waiver that would have allowed them to keep LGBTQ children or children from LGBTQ families from enrolling.
In a statement Tuesday, Gov. Jared Polis said, “We are building a Colorado for all, where every student is free from discrimination and this voter-approved initiative continues to enroll approximately 70% of all eligible four-year-olds each school year and many faith based and secular providers are operating terrific preschools that serve parents and children well.”
Tuesday’s ruling essentially upholds the status quo in the universal preschool program, meaning that participating preschools can’t shut out LGBTQ children or children with LGBTQ parents.
The three appeals court judges who ruled Tuesday were Gregory Phillips, Veronica Rossman, and Richard Federico. Phillips was appointed by President Barack Obama, and Rossman and Federico were appointed by President Joe Biden.
Nick Reaves, senior counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the Catholic preschools in the case, sent Chalkbeat a short statement about the ruling.
“Colorado is punishing religious schools and the families they serve for following their faith. The Tenth Circuit’s decision allows the state’s anti-religious gamesmanship to continue. We will keep fighting to ensure that every preschooler in Colorado can access quality, affordable education.”
Conflict arose as state preschool program rolled out
The Colorado case began in 2023 as the state was launching its new universal preschool program, which provides tuition-free preschool to 4-year-olds statewide. The $349 million program serves more than 40,000 children and allows families to choose from public, private, or religious preschools.
Of more than 2,000 preschools participating in the program this year, about 40 are religious.
St. Mary Catholic Virtue School in Littleton and Wellspring Catholic Academy in Lakewood wanted to join the program when it started, but didn’t want to admit LGBTQ children or children from LGBTQ families.
They asked for an exemption from state rules banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but the Colorado Department of Early Childhood refused. The two preschools never joined the program, and in August 2023, the parishes that ran the preschools sued the state. (Wellspring Catholic Academy closed in December 2024.)
In June 2024, a federal district court judge appointed by President Jimmy Carter largely ruled in the state’s favor.
He wrote of Colorado’s non-discrimination rules: “The purpose of the requirement is not to invade religious freedom but to further the implementation of a strongly embraced public value.”
The parishes quickly appealed.
Unfolding alongside the Catholic preschool case is a separate lawsuit over universal preschool brought by an evangelical Christian preschool in southern Colorado. Unlike the Catholic preschools, that school, Darren Patterson Christian Academy, joined the universal preschool program when it launched.
While officials there never sought to keep LGBTQ children or families out, their lawsuit said state non-discrimination rules could force the preschool to hire employees who don’t share its faith or to change school policies related to restrooms, pronouns, and dress codes.
In February, a federal judge appointed by Donald Trump ruled in favor of Darren Patterson Christian Academy.
The state appealed the ruling in March. The case is ongoing.
The President of Texas A&M University, Mark Welsh, resigned last week amid controversy over a viral video between a professor and a student debating gender ideology.
Welsh stepped down officially on Friday, September 19, according to a press release where the Chancellor Glenn Hegar thanked Welsh for his service to the university and the nation.
“President Welsh is a man of honor who has led Texas A&M with selfless dedication,” said Hegar. “We are grateful for his service and contributions. At the same time, we agree that now is the right moment to make a change and to position Texas A&M for continued excellence in the years ahead.”
The former president resigned while the university faces heated backlash after a video was posted of a student calling out a professor for teaching gender ideology in the classroom.
Professor Melissa McCoul was sharing an image of a “gender unicorn” that demonstrates concepts of gender expressions, identity and sexuality while reading “Jude Saves the World,” a novel about a 12-year-old who comes out as nonbinary, according to The Texas Tribune.
“[M]y Administration will defend women’s rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male,” Trump wrote in the executive order.
State Rep. Brian Harrison, R-Texas, reposted the video on X.
“The governor and lieutenant governor and speaker have been telling everybody for two years now that we passed bans on DEI and transgender indoctrination in public universities,” Harrison wrote on his X account. “The only little problem with that? It’s a complete lie. … The state of Texas — despite what the governor said in his tweet yesterday, that this is a violation of law — there is no state law that we passed.”
Professor McCoul was later fired, according to press reports.
Former A&M President Welsh allegedly defended the inclusion of LGBTQ content in the classroom.
“Those people don’t get to pick who their clients are, what citizens they serve and they want to understand the issues affecting the people that they’re going to treat,” Welsh said in an audio recording posted by Harrison on X. “So there is a professional reason to teach some of these courses.”
In the past few years, Texas has been one of many states fighting LGBTQ and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in schools.
The law, which took effect Sept. 1, bars schools from sponsoring a “student club based on sexual orientation or gender identity.” It also forbids schools from providing instruction, guidance or programming on sexual orientation or gender identity. Schools are barred from helping in the social transitioning of a transgender child, which can include using new names or pronouns.
A former faculty sponsor for a Gender and Sexuality Alliance in Plano ISD; a Houston high schooler; the Gender and Sexuality Alliances Network, a nonprofit that represents GSA clubs in Texas schools; and advocacy group Students Engaged in Advancing Texas say their freedom of speech and expressive association “will be irreparably suppressed” under the new law.
Texas AFT, the teachers’ union, joined the lawsuit as a plaintiff Sept. 15.
“S.B. 12 is one of the most extreme education censorship laws in the country, undermining the free speech rights of Texas students, parents, and educators,” said Brian Klosterboer, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas, who filed the suitin the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.“We’re challenging this law in court because our schools should be places of truth, inclusion, and opportunity — not fear and erasure.”
The lawsuit names Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath as a defendant, as well as Plano, Katy and Houston ISDs.
“Plano ISD is obligated to comply with the law as written unless or until the courts provide further direction,” said Zoheb Hassanali, the district’s assistant director of communications, public relations and social media.
He said district staff have received training to ensure compliance with the law.
“Our focus continues to be on educating and supporting our students, and we will not allow external litigation to distract us from that responsibility,” he added.
Houston ISD’s press office said the district does not comment on pending litigation.
Representatives from Katy ISD and the Texas Education Agency did not respond to emailed requests for comment.
The legal action comes as school districts across Texas are adopting policies to comply with the state law, which prohibits diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in K-12 schools.
Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Allen, who introduced the legislation, said it ensures parents are at the “head of the table when it comes to their kids’ education.”
In addition to the ban on LGBTQ clubs, the legislation requires schools to get a parent’s permission before a child can join any school club.
“Our schools should be about teaching history and reading, writing and math and civic responsibility,” Leach said as he advocated for the bill in the Legislature. “We need to get away from some of the more toxic social issues.”
If the law is not blocked, all 22 student-run Gender and Sexuality Alliance clubs registered with the GSA Network will likely shut down, according to the filing.
Leach criticized the organizations during legislative discussions, calling them “school-sponsored and school-sanctioned sex clubs.” Supporters and members of the clubs say they provide safe and welcoming spaces for students.
The groups in the lawsuit say the ban “ostracizes” students “who have a sexual orientation or gender identity that differs from other students.” It also “harms allies of LGBTQ+ students who seek to learn about issues impacting their friends and advocate for a safer and more inclusive school environment,” according to the filing.
At least one Gender and Sexuality Alliance in Plano ISD disbanded ahead of the law’s implementation date, according to court documents. Students tried to start a new club, but school administrators said it would not be allowed.
One student decided to be homeschooled because the club shut down “and the fact that their affirming name and pronouns will no longer be respected by teachers and staff,” court documents read.
The law has created “a climate of fear and discrimination” in the Plano ISD school, “where the voices of LGBTQ+ students and educators are suppressed.” The school is not identified in the lawsuit, and the teacher and student plaintiffs go by pseudonyms to protect them from retaliation.
The Plano ISD teacher, who was also the faculty sponsor of the now-disbanded Gender and Sexuality Alliance, said the law’s “vague and broad” requirements create “a massive gray area about how and whether she can support her transgender students.”
Texas AFT, the teachers’ union, said it has already received a “high volume of inquiries” from members on its grievance hotline about what the law means, its “harsh professional consequences and the harm it is causing their relationships with their students and concerned parents.”
For a Houston high schooler at Kinder High School for the Performing and Visual Arts, the law could mean she can’t join or start a Gender and Sexuality Alliance at her new school.
The high schooler participated in GSA in middle school, where she “found community and support in her own experience of coming out as an LGBTQ+ student and felt safer and happier,” the filing reads.
Under the law, she worries she won’t have that same experience. She already feels the law “is suppressing her ability to speak with teachers” about certain topics, including social transitioning.
Four North Carolina Democratic lawmakers broke with their party in voting to override Governor Josh Stein’s veto of eight bills, a move that helped push several harmful measures into law.
The four Democrats who voted with state Republican lawmakers on one or more of the override votes were:
In both of the state’s legislative chambers, a 60% threshold is required to override a governor’s veto of a bill. Due to the four democratic lawmakers going against their party, House Democrats were unable to sustain Governor Stein’s vetoes on eight bills, including House Bill 805, House Bill 318, Senate Bill 266, and House Bill 193.
Here is a breakdown of the bills and how the four lawmakers voted:
Senate Bill 266 is a harmful bill that will raise utility bills for North Carolinians, roll back clean energy progress, and shift costs onto working families so that large corporations pay less.
The veto override passed 74-46, with Cunningham, Majeed, and Willingham being the deciding votes.
House Bill 193 is a dangerous policy that allows nearly anyone with minimal training to carry a concealed firearm at a private school, creating a serious safety risk for students, teachers, and school support staff.
The Republican veto override passed 72-48, with Willingham being the deciding vote.
In an interview with Bryan Anderson, Willingham stated that Governor Stein personally called him on Monday night to ask him to sustain his vetoes of several harmful bills.
Willingham declined, saying, “Governor Stein, he’s just getting to know me. I think now he knows that whatever I say I’m going to do, that’s what I’m going to do. So he could take that to the bank.”
“They say, ‘Well, we want you to sustain the governor’s veto,’” Willingham said. “My thing is I sustain my vote.”
House Bill 805 was originally a bipartisan bill that would have helped people who appeared in sexually explicit photos and videos online to have them removed. However, state Republicans changed the bill to attack transgender North Carolinians along with other controversial provisions.
In his veto statement, Governor Stein said that while he agreed with the portions of House Bill 805 protecting women and minors from sexual exploitation on websites, the attacks towards transgender North Carolinians are “mean-spirited.”
Governor Stein wrote, “My faith teaches me that we are all children of God no matter our differences and that it is wrong to target vulnerable people, as this legislation does.”
Ultimately, state Republicans overrode Governor Stein’s veto, 72-48, with Majeed being the deciding vote.
House Bill 318 is an anti-immigration measure that will force sheriffs to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
In a statement following his veto of HB 318, Governor Stein stated, “My oath of office requires that I uphold the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, I cannot sign this bill because it would require sheriffs to unconstitutionally detain people for up to 48 hours after they would otherwise be released. The Fourth Circuit is clear that local law enforcement officers cannot keep people in custody solely based on a suspected immigration violation. But let me be clear: anyone who commits a serious crime in North Carolina must be prosecuted and held accountable regardless of their immigration status.”
Despite the bill setting up a dangerous precedent, state Republicans overrode Stein’s veto, 72-48.
Rep. Carla Cunningham, who was the deciding vote, gave a speech on the House floor defending her action to help Republicans override Gov. Josh Stein’s veto of the anti-immigration bill.
In what Rep. Cunningham referred to as sharing her “unapologetic truth”, the Mecklenburg lawmaker went on to state, “First, as a people, we need to recognize that it’s not just the numbers that matter, but also where the immigrants come from and the culture they bring with them to another country. As the social scientists report, all cultures are not equal.”
“Some immigrants come and believe they can function in isolation, refusing to adapt,” Cunningham stated. “They have come to our country for many reasons, but I suggest they must assimilate, adapt to the culture of the country they wish to live in.”
She added, “It’s time to turn the conveyor belt off.”
North Carolina Democratic Leaders Push Back
Several Democrats decried the override vetoes on the eight bills, including the Duke Energy bill, attacks towards transgender North Carolinians, and allowing concealed carry on private school grounds.
On the floor, Rep. Marcia Morey, D-Durham, a former judge, pushed back against Cunningham’s remarks, stating, “We all agree we want safe communities. That’s no longer the issue with this bill — it is scapegoating. It is scapegoating immigrants.”
“Research has shown us that the immigrant community is less likely to commit crimes than the US citizen. That is a fact. We need to work towards finding solutions, not creating divisiveness and ignoring community concerns. This is furthering an anti-immigrant agenda no matter the cost. And when police act as immigration agents, witnesses or victims of crime are going to be less likely to report crime.”
According to the News & Observer, Senate Democratic Leader Sydney Batch called Cunningham’s remarks “absolutely uncalled for.”
“The very fact that you would say that not all people, or not all immigrants, are equal, is just – one, it’s contrary to our Constitution. It’s contrary to how this country was formed. This country was formed because of Native Americans, Blacks that were enslaved, and immigrants, including every single person that was here other than Native Americans,” Batch told reporters.
“To say that we are not equal goes and flies in the face of anything that a Democrat, in my opinion, believes and holds, near and dear.”
In a statement last week, the Young Democrats of North Carolina joined Democratic members in condemning Cunningham’s remarks, saying that the lawmaker “disgraced her office with a hate-filled speech attacking the very immigrant communities she was elected to serve.”
“You will be held accountable by your community,” the group stated. “Good luck.”
Fearful. Aggravated. Hurt. That’s how 16-year-old Ellie Bowling said she felt after the U.S. Department of Education told the Prince William County school division it must change its inclusive transgender policies or risk losing federal funding.
Ellie, who is trans, is a rising junior in Colgan High School’s Center for the Fine and Performing Arts. She’s excited to soon be driving and loves to be onstage. Last spring, she performed in the school’s production of “Guys and Dolls” and recently earned the role of “Candy” in the school’s fall production of “Zombie Prom.”
“I’m currently thriving in this environment; they created a great learning experience for me,” Ellie said of Prince William County schools.
Ellie was 11 when she started her transition. Since then, her parents, Adam and Erin Bowling, have legally changed her name and gender on government and school documents. After obtaining medical and psychological signoffs, Ellie began receiving gender-affirming hormone therapy at Children’s National Hospital in D.C.
At Colgan High, like all other Prince William County schools, transgender students use the bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identities in accordance with a regulation that guides how transgender and gender nonconforming students are treated in schools.
“I know that Colgan is a good place for me. I fit in well there, and that’s partially because these policies help me fit into this school and be able to find my place,” Ellie said. “Without these policies — I don’t know.”
The Bowlings are one of likely hundreds of Prince William County families facing uncertainty as the new school year approaches in less than two weeks. The schools are wrestling with the education department’s determination that its policies violate Title IX, a federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in educational settings that receive federal funding.
On July 25, the education department told five Virginia school divisions — Prince William, Fairfax, Loudoun, Arlington and Alexandria — they had 10 days to change their policies that allow transgender students to use the facilities that match their gender identities “or risk imminent enforcement consequences, including referral to the U.S. Department of Justice.”
School board has yet to act
The education department said its decision was based on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender affirming care for minors. The Northern Virginia school policies are based on an earlier case involving Virginia teen Gavin Grimm, who successfully sued Gloucester County schools in federal court to allow students to use restrooms that match their gender identities. In 2021, the U.S. Supreme court declined to review the case.
Babur Lateef, the Prince William County School Board chairman, called a special board meeting this week to receive legal advice on the decision, which will mostly be held in closed session. He declined further comment.
School board member Tracy Blake said he told parents to expect no changes when school begins on Aug. 18.
“Trans students and families do not need to worry about coming back to school on the first day because there will be no disruptions for trans students or any students,” he said in an interview on Friday, Aug. 1.
Blake said he believes removing the regulation would be wrong.
“We can’t discriminate against one person,” he said. “Once you let one thing go, what happens then? Then it’s the next thing. We’ve already seen this in history, and all of our students have to feel safe.”
Ruling adds to challenges for transgender youth
The move by the U.S. Department of Education wasn’t unexpected because trans people have been targeted by the Trump administration, said Lisanne Boddye, a mother of seven, including a transgender teen and a gender expansive teen who both attend Potomac High School. Boddye is also a special education teacher at Potomac High and the wife of Prince William Supervisor Kenny Boddye.
“My children, like thousands across the country, deserve to walk into their schools knowing they are respected, affirmed and protected,” Lisanne Boddye said. “When leaders target transgender students for exclusion or erasure, they send a chilling message — not just to those students, but to every family who believes in fairness, decency, and the right to learn without fear.”
About 3.3% of U.S. high school students identify as transgender, and about 2.2% of high school students are questioning their gender identity, according to a 2023 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey. That means about 1 in 20 high schoolers are either transgender or questioning their gender, or about 1,200 of the 24,000 students enrolled in Prince William County’s 13 high schools.
Delta Boddye, 16, a rising senior, rows on the Potomac High School crew team. She began transitioning two years ago and said her teachers have always used her correct name and “made sure they are affirming (her).”
“I’ve just been planning on just living as myself, just trying to be a kid, trying to be a student,” she said about returning to school.
But revoking the school’s policy could change that, she said. No matter the policy, Delta said she will insist that her correct name and pronouns are used at school.
The possible change in the school division’s policy comes on top of other challenges. Delta was considering joining the military but now can’t because of the recent ban on transgender troops. The Bowlings learned the Youth Pride Clinic at Children’s National Hospital, where Ellie is a patient, will no longer prescribe gender-affirming medications as of Aug. 30 due to “escalating legal and regulatory risks” to the hospital and its providers.
“This is supposed to be her happiest year, her senior year, and all of the horizons are supposed to be endless, and now most of them are not,” said Lisanne Boddye, who is an Army special operations veteran.
Both the Bowlings and Boddyes say they are speaking out not only for the safety and mental health of their own children, but for their trans classmates who may not have the same family and community support.
Equality Prince William, a nonprofit that advocates for the LGBTQIA+ community, sponsored a campaign urging the school board “to hold firm in their support for transgender and gender diverse students.” As of Aug. 5, 1,700 letters had been sent.
“Title IX exists to prevent exactly this kind of discrimination,” said Glorya Jordan, a registered nurse who is on the board of Equality Prince William and is the mother of a transgender adult. “The attempt to rescind protections for transgender youth is not only illegal but deadly. Trans youth already face staggering rates of bullying, depression and suicide.”
“Let’s stop hurting our children because of what we are afraid of and do not understand,” said the Casa BruMar Foundation, a nonprofit based in Gainesville that provides resources for the LGBTQIA+ community. “Let’s allow our children to know that being different is not dangerous.”
Adam Bowling hopes people realize there is so much more to his daughter Ellie than just being trans and she deserves to be her authentic self at school.
“Demonizing this group of people is just so wrong,” he said. “I just hope the majority of people hear stories like Ellie’s and realize that there are human beings that these decisions are affecting and it’s a life-or-death situation for some of them.”
Ellie wants people to know that she is a normal teenager.
“I hate how politicized trans youth is, because I am not a monster,” Ellie said. “There’s so much misinformation out there obviously for fear-mongering reasons. I’m not this predator who goes into women’s spaces just to, like, spy on them. I am a woman who is living her life.”
A senior Heritage Foundation official and co-author of the far-right Project 2025 agenda has filed a comprehensive public records request targeting more than 70 courses at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, demanding access to teaching materials that reference diversity, race, gender, and LGBTQ+ identities.
According to UNC’s public records portal, Mike Howell, executive director of the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project, submitted the request on July 2, asking UNC to turn over syllabi, lecture slides, assignments, and internal communications that include any of 30 flagged terms. Among them: “transgender,” “LGBTQ+,” “cisgender,” “queer,” “intersectionality,” “nonbinary,” “white privilege,” and “restorative justice.” The request spans content shared since Jan. 19, 2025, and directs the university to search platforms such as Canvas, Microsoft Teams, Signal, and Slack.
The courses flagged by the Oversight Project include Gender and Sexuality in Islam, Transnational Black Feminist Thought and Practice, Islam and Sexual Diversity, Race and Gender in the Atlantic World, and Black Families in Social and Contemporary Contexts. Also targeted are courses like Diversity and Inclusion at Work, Diversity in Education, Social Theory and Cultural Diversity, and Gender and Sexuality in Middle Eastern Literature.
Howell cited two executive orders signed by President Donald Trump earlier this year, Executive Orders 14151 and 14173, which condition federal funding on the elimination of DEI-related content. In the request, Howell argued that the records “will shed light on potential inconsistencies between internal practices and public representations made by officials in a matter of substantial national importance.”
Since taking office in January, Trump has aggressively implemented policies that target diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, as well as gender and LGBTQ+ protections. Though he previously distanced himself from Project 2025, calling some of its authors “severe right” and its proposals “seriously extreme,” his administration has moved swiftly to enact many of its recommendations. The nearly 1,000-page blueprint, authored by the Heritage Foundation and allied organizations, calls for the dismantling of DEI programs, bans on transgendermilitary service, elimination of non-discrimination protections, and the closure of the Department of Education. Many of the document’s contributors now hold key posts in federal agencies.
Scholars have long cautioned that excluding race, gender, and sexuality from coursework risks reinforcing bias rather than promoting academic neutrality. The American Psychological Association encourages inclusive curricula that reflect students’ lived experiences. In a 1992 paper, psychologist Susan B. Goldstein noted that even cross-cultural psychology can marginalize women and LGBTQ+ people when it generalizes findings from white, heterosexual men as universal. She urged faculty to treat diversity as central to understanding human behavior, not an elective or ideological add-on. A study in the Harvard Educational Review found that engagement with racially diverse peers enhances students’ critical thinking, academic growth, and civic awareness.
UNC has not yet fulfilled the Oversight Project’s request. A university spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed, which first reported the story, that course materials are “the intellectual property of the preparer” and the university is still determining what, if any, documents will be released.
Chris Petsko, a professor whose course was among those targeted, told Inside Higher Ed he will not comply. He said the request is an intimidation tactic designed to distort academic work and stifle inclusive teaching. On LinkedIn, he advised fellow faculty to review institutional intellectual property policies.
Howell dismissed objections. “Syllabi are public records and belong to the public,” he told Inside Higher Ed. “If a professor is too much of a wimp to let me read his syllabus then he’s in the wrong business.”
Howell has previously drawn scrutiny for hypocrisy. In 2024, The Advocatereported on a 2012 Yelp photo showing Howell smiling beside a friend in drag, despite his vocal condemnations of drag culture and LGBTQ+ rights. When contacted, Howell confirmed the photo’s authenticity and dismissed it as Halloween mischief.
GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis called Howell’s behavior “the definition of hypocrisy” at the time, adding that Project 2025 is a “dangerous, unhinged playbook” that exposes the intent of “anti-LGBTQ extremists hell-bent on destroying democracy.”
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.