The attorney general of Idaho issued an opinion telling schools not to allow teachers to post signs that say “Everyone is Welcome Here,” claiming that the message that public education is for everyone regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or other categories is Democratic in nature and therefore illegally partisan.
“These signs are part of an ideological/social movement which started in Twin Cities, Minnesota, following the 2016 election,” Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador (R) said in guidance issued to a school. “Since that time, the signs have been used by the Democratic party as a political statement.”
.Labrador also noted that the state Democratic Party is selling signs that say “Everyone is Welcome Here,” but state Democrats say that they only started selling those signs at cost in order to draw attention to conservatives’ early attempts to ban them.
The conflict centers on Idaho’s H.B. 41, which took effect last week and bans school employees from displaying flags or banners that show “opinions, emotions, beliefs or thoughts about politics, economics, society, faith or religion.”
Earlier this year, the state’s West Ada School District banned Sarah Inama, a teacher at Lewis and Clark Middle School, from displaying a sign that says, “Everyone is Welcome Here.” It showed a drawing of people’s hands with different skin tones, each with a heart on it.
The district also ordered her to take down another sign that read, “In this room everyone is welcome, important, accepted, respected, encouraged, valued, equal” on top of a background of rainbow colors. The rainbow colors included seven stripes, which differs from the six-striped rainbow Pride flag.
The controversy over the signs garnered national headlines in March, and the state attorney general’s office looked into how the law would apply in such cases, issuing an opinion last week.
The attorney general determined that these specific signs would violate H.B. 41 and claimed that the statements in the signs are part of a political movement and not, as defenders of the signs argued, generally agreed-upon beliefs about the nature of public education.
Labrador’s guidance hyperlinked a 2017 news story about a group of women who protested racist graffiti that appeared at a local high school the day after the president was elected to his first term, according to the Idaho Capital-Sun, which posted the attorney general’s opinion. The women carried signs that read, “All are Welcome Here.”
The guidance then claimed that Inama started posting the “Everyone is Welcome Here” sign in 2017, “during the height of the above-referenced social movement.”
In March, Inama disagreed that the message is political or partisan.
“I don’t agree. I don’t agree that this is a personal opinion,” she told KTVB at the time. “I feel like this is the basis of public education.”
Virginia officials have agreed not to fully enforce a 2020 law banning conversion therapy for minors as part of an agreement with a faith-based conservative group that sued over the law, authorities said earlier this week.
The Virginia Department of Health Professions, represented by the state’s office of the attorney general, entered into a consent decree with the Founding Freedoms Law Center last month, saying officials will not discipline counselors who engage in talk conversion therapy.
Shaun Kenney, a spokesperson with the Virginia Attorney General’s Office, said on Tuesday his office was satisfied with the consensus.
“This court action fixes a constitutional problem with the existing law by allowing talk therapy between willing counselors and willing patients, including those struggling with gender dysphoria,” Kenney said in a statement. “Talk therapy with voluntary participants was punishable before this judgment was entered. This result—which merely permits talk therapy within the standards of care while preserving the remainder of the law—respects the religious liberty and free speech rights of both counselors and patients.”
A Henrico Circuit Court judge signed the consent decree in June. Two professional counselors represented by the law center sued the state’s health department and counseling board last September, arguing that the law violated their right to religious freedom.
The term “conversion therapy” refers to a scientifically discredited practice of using therapy in an attempt to convert LGBTQ people to heterosexuality.
The practice has been banned in 23 states and the District of Columbia, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ rights think tank.
The practice has been a matter of dispute in several states. A ruling is expected any day from the Wisconsin Supreme Court over whether a legislative committee’s rejection of a state agency rule that would ban the practice of “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ people was unconstitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided in March to take up a case from Colorado to determine whether state and local governments can enforce laws banning conversion therapy for LGBTQ children.
According to the law center, the Virginia consent decree applies not only to the two counselors but to all counselors in Virginia.
“We are grateful to the Defendants in this case and to the Attorney General, who did the right thing by siding with the Constitution,” the law center said in a statement.
Democratic Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell, who backed the 2020 bill, blasted the decree.
“This was a statute that was enacted to save lives,” he told reporters during a Zoom session on Tuesday. “All the research, all the professional psychiatric organizations have condemned conversion therapy. They say it doesn’t work, and they say it’s counterproductive.”
Criticizing the state legislature for failing to pass a new state budget because lawmakers are too focused on culture war political fights, Gov. Josh Stein on Thursday vetoed four bills targeting diversity and gender issues.
Senate Bill 558, Senate Bill 227, House Bill 171 all deal with efforts to crack down on pro-diversity efforts in public schools and state government agencies. Supporters have cited Republican President Donald Trump’s efforts to attack diversity, equity and inclusion programs in federal government and say North Carolina similarly needs to eliminate DEI.
The fourth bill, House Bill 805, started as an effort to help people take down private photos or videos of themselves from the internet and passed the state House unanimously. But the state Senate then turned the bill into a grab-bag of social conservative issues about transgender people and other issues related to gender and LGBTQ rights, and the House also agreed to pass that new version of the bill which Stein has now vetoed in addition to the DEI bills.
Meanwhile, when the state’s new fiscal year began this week, state lawmakers were on vacation without having passed a new budget. They’ve made no progress on negotiations for a spending plan and, just before the legislature adjourned, House Speaker Destin Hall told reporters the GOP lawmakers had such strong disagreements on how to fund state government that it’s possible no budget deal gets passed at all until sometime next year.
Stein said that his vetoes highlight his belief that the Republican-led legislature has its priorities all wrong.
“At a time when teachers, law enforcement, and state employees need pay raises and people need shorter lines at the DMV, the legislature failed to pass a budget and, instead, wants to distract us by stoking culture wars that further divide us,” Stein wrote. “These mean-spirited bills would marginalize vulnerable people and also undermine the quality of public services and public education. Therefore, I am vetoing them. I stand ready to work with the legislature when it gets serious about protecting people and addressing North Carolinians’ pressing concerns.”
State House Majority Leader Rep. Brendan Jones, R-Columbus, has been a key proponent of the anti-DEI measures and criticized Stein’s veto Thursday.
“I find it odd that Gov. Stein is against merit based hiring in state government,” Jones said. “I look forward to overriding this veto.”
The vetoes come a day after Stein also vetoed three other bills including a Duke Energy-backed bill to let the utility giant avoid climate goals and change the way it charges North Carolinians.
A bipartisan group of U.S. House lawmakers is urging Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to block the Trump administration’s plan to eliminate the LGBTQ+ youth services within the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline—an emergency support network that has served more than 1.3 million contacts since its full implementation in 2023.
The Wednesday letter, signed by Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi, a Democrat from Illinois, New YorkRepublican Michael Lawler, Massachusetts Democrat Seth Moulton, and Brian Fitzpatrick, a Republican from Pennsylvania, calls on Kennedy to stop a 30-day phaseout announced by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration on June 17. According to internal agency guidance, the LGBTQ+-specific branch of the hotline, which allows callers to “press 3” to connect with affirming counselors, is set to be dismantled by July 17, according to SAMHSA.
“This is not some kind of hotline set by a liberal Democratic administration,” Krishnamoorthi said in an interview with The Advocate Thursday morning. “It was actually signed into law by President Trump. Various Republicans in the Senate and the House supported it.”
Since the line became fully operational in 2023, he noted, “it has received an astonishing 1.3 million calls, texts, and other forms of communication” and was “averaging 2,900 contacts every day” as recently as February.
Krishnamoorthi, who serves as a ranking member of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services, raised the issue sharply during a Wednesday hearing on diversity, equity, and inclusion policy rollbacks. “In the name of expunging DEI, the Trump administration has lurched from the farcical to the cruel,” he said, highlighting the crisis line’s termination as an especially harmful example. “These actions are wrong, but do not compete in cruelty with the ending of a suicide hotline for LGBTQ youth.”
The LGBTQ+ subnetwork of 988 was developed under a bipartisan mandate to offer tailored support to high-risk groups, much like the veteran-specific track within the program. In addition to young people, it has provided critical services to adults experiencing distress related to anti-LGBTQ+ violence, legislation, and rejection.
At the hearing, Krishnamoorthi pressed conservative legal activist Daniel Lennington on whether he disputed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data from the Trump administration showing LGBTQ+ youth face significantly higher suicide risk. Lennington replied he was “not aware of anything to do with the suicide hotline,” prompting Krishnamoorthi to respond, “That’s the problem—a lack of awareness.”
Krishnamoorthi told The Advocate that the decision to eliminate the program was driven by the Trump administration’s broader campaign against diversity and inclusion initiatives. “Eliminating this lifeline is cruelty because you are essentially discontinuing a service that saves lives,” he said. “In the name of fighting DEI, they’re going to cause a lot of young people to DIE.”
Krishnamoorthi warned that “especially now, during a time when the LGBTQ+ community at large feels tremendous pressure,” the need for the hotline may be “much higher than it was before.”
Krishnamoorthi emphasized the rare bipartisan nature of the letter to Kennedy. “It’s hard to get bipartisan letters, let alone legislation, on topics involving the LGBTQ+ community,” he said. “But this one touches a nerve. I think that young people, whoever they are, still occupy a soft corner in people’s hearts regardless of ideology.”
The Trump administration’s move, first reported in The Advocate in April, was confirmed in the FY2026 budget released during WorldPride in Washington, D.C. Mental health advocates and LGBTQ+ organizations have condemned the proposal as reckless and dangerous.
Mark Henson of The Trevor Project previously told The Advocate the 988 LGBTQ+ subnetwork is “a vital tool” that serves more than 60,000 young people each month. Without it, advocates warn, those calls may go unanswered—or be routed to general crisis lines lacking LGBTQ+ expertise.
In response to a question about his message to young LGBTQ+ people, Krishnamoorthi said he’s met with young people and their parents and understands their pain. “We’ve got to band together at the state level, at the local level to protect whatever rights we can. We must continue to fight for change in the future,” he said.
Krishmamoorthi added, “If we can rally around a group of people, it would be our young people.”
If you or someone you know needs mental health resources and support, please call, text, or chat with the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline or visit 988lifeline.org for 24/7 access to free and confidential services. Trans Lifeline, designed for transgender or gender-nonconforming people, can be reached at (877) 565-8860. The lifeline also provides resources to help with other crises, such as domestic violence situations. The Trevor Project Lifeline,services at TheTrevorProject.org/Help or text START to 678678.
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the case brought by parents who said that their First Amendment rights were violated when schools used books that included LGBTQ+ characters.
The decision was 6-3 along ideological lines, with the Republican-appointed justices siding with the religious parents who wanted to opt their children out of reading books like Prince & Knight and Uncle Bobby’s Wedding in the Montgomery County, Maryland, school system.
“The Court does not accept the Board’s characterizations of the LGBTQ+-inclusive instruction as mere ‘exposure to objectionable ideas’ or as lessons in ‘mutual respect,’” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. “The storybooks unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender.”
“Regardless, the question in cases of this kind is whether the educational requirement or curriculum at issue would ‘substantially interfere with the religious development’ of the child or pose ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices the parent wishes to instill in the child.”
“Casting aside longstanding precedent, the Court invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to ‘subtle’ themes ‘contrary to the religious principles’ that parents wish to instill in their children,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion. “Exposing students to the ‘message’ that LGBTQ people exist, and that their loved ones may celebrate their marriages and life events, the majority says, is enough to trigger the most demanding form of judicial scrutiny.”
The case involved several sets of Christian and Muslim parents who objected to their kids reading books that mentioned LGBTQ+ people. The district had an opt-out policy that they later rescinded because, the district claimed, the opt-outs were becoming “unworkable.”
Some parents in the district protested to get the opt-out policy reinstated, while others protested in favor of learning about LGBTQ+ people.
“The books geared to younger kids are just showing a diverse range of families,” said Christina Celenza, a mother of a student in the district, during one of the 2023 protests. “We have a two-mom household, so my wife and I are really proud and out, and, of course, my kid in kindergarten or pre-K is going to probably talk about his family and his two moms.”
The district didn’t budge, so several parents sued. Two lower courts denied them a preliminary injunction, but the Supreme Court just granted them one.
The parents want the courts to ultimately order teachers to notify them of every possible discussion where LGBTQ+ people may come up so that they could opt their children out, lest their kids learn that LGBTQ+ people exist. They claimed that knowing that LGBTQ+ people exist is contrary to their religious beliefs and violates their right to direct their children’s religious upbringing.
Public education advocates warn that the ruling could lead to even more requests for opt-outs of public education on wide-ranging topics including Earth Day, critical thinking, and anti-drug programs.
Free speech and LGBTQ+ advocates denounced the ruling.
“This ruling is a deeply disappointing blow to the right to read under the First Amendment,” said U.S. Free Expression Programs staff attorney for PEN America Elly Brinkley in a statement. “It is a fundamental betrayal of public schools’ duty to prepare students to live in a diverse and pluralistic society. By allowing parents to pull their children out of classrooms when they object to particular content, the justices are laying the foundation for a new frontier in the assault on books of all kinds in schools.”
“While religious liberty is fundamentally important, it should not force public schools to exempt students from lessons that don’t align with their families’ personal religious or cultural beliefs,” said Equality California Executive Director Tony Hoang in a statement. “LGBTQ+ themed books are already among the most banned and challenged in school districts and libraries across the country. Today’s decision will make it even harder for these books to find their way into the hands of students who simply want to read — and who may find validation and acceptance in the process.”
“Today’s ruling does not change schools’ obligation to prepare students to interact with and thrive in a diverse and ever-changing world,” said GLAD Law’s Mary L. Bonauto. “LGBTQ+ people and families exist, students in our public schools have LGBTQ+ parents, and books that include LGBTQ+ people should not be treated differently than those without LGBTQ+ people.”
“The Court’s decision does not require our schools to abandon these efforts. Parents, students, educators, and neighbors can encourage opportunities for learning about diverse people and families by staying involved with school districts, school boards, and in our local communities.”
Lavonnia Moore, a 45-year-old library manager, had worked at the Pierce County Library in Blackshear, Georgia, for 15 years. She was ultimately let go when a Christian extremist group filed a complaint to the library after Moore approved the display of a children’s book about a transgender boy.
According to Moore, the display (entitled “Color Our World”) included the book When Aidan Became a Brother (by trans male author Kyle Lukoff), a story about a family accepting a trans child named Aiden while also preparing for the birth of Aiden’s sibling. Library volunteers created the display as a part of a regional-wide summer theme featuring books that celebrate diversity.
“I simply supported community involvement, just as I have for other volunteer-led displays. That’s what librarians do — we create space for everybody… I did not tell the parents and children what they could or could not add to the display, just as I do not tell them what they can or cannot read,” she wrote in a statement.
However, the book caught the attention of a group calling themselves the Alliance for Faith and Family (AFF), not to be confused with the anti-LGBTQ+ legal group Alliance Defending Freedom. The AFF had previously been in the public eye for demanding the removal of a mural in the Waycross-Ware County Public Library, which included a Pride theme declaring, “Libraries Are For Everyone.”
The AFF campaigned on Facebook, urging their followers to pray and take a few moments out of their day to email the Three Rivers Library System and Pierce County Commissioners to “put a stop to this and show them the community supports them in taking a stand against promoting transgenderism at our local library,”
In an update post, the group wrote, “The display has been removed, and LaVonnia is no longer the Pierce County Library Manager. Please thank the Pierce County Commissioners and Three Rivers Regional Library System for quickly addressing our concerns.”
Moore and her sister Alicia confirmed that LaVonnia Moore had been fired. A statement to The Blackshear Times from the Three Rivers Library System Director Jeremy Snell explained that the library board leadership decided to move to new leadership for the Pierce County Library. He specifically cited the display of an “inappropriate” book as his reasoning.
“The library holds transparency and community trust in the highest regard,” Snell said.
“Instead of investigating, talking to me or my team, or exploring any kind of fair process, they used the ‘at-will’ clause in my contract to terminate me on the spot. No warning. No meeting. No due diligence. Just the words ‘poor decision making’ on a piece of paper after 15 years of service,” Moore claimed.
“I am just heartbroken,” she said of her dismissal.
According to Moore’s sister Alicia, “She messaged the family group and said ‘I was just fired.’”
“I don’t think she’s doing emotionally good, because imagine having to pack up 15 years in two days,” Alicia Moore told First Coast News.
“She’s heartbroken that a place she gave so much of herself to turned its back on her so quickly. And yes, she’s still in disbelief. She didn’t expect to be punished for doing her job with integrity and love for all patrons — especially children.” the sister explained.
The sisters are currently seeking legal counsel, and Alicia is urging people to reach out to the library board and county commissioners.
“I’m hoping the same method will be useful to get her justice,” Alicia said.
A Tennessee state law banning gender-affirming care for minors can stand, the US supreme court has ruled, a devastating loss for trans rights supporters in a case that could set a precedent for dozens of other lawsuits involving the rights of transgender children.
The case, United States v Skrmetti, was filed last year by three families of trans children and a provider of gender-affirming care. In oral arguments, the plaintiffs – as well as the US government, then helmed by Joe Biden – argued that Tennessee’s law constituted sex-based discrimination and thus violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Under Tennessee’s law, someone assigned female at birth could not be prescribed testosterone, but someone assigned male at birth could receive those drugs.
Tennessee, meanwhile, has argued that the ban is necessary to protect children from what it termed “experimental” medical treatment. During arguments, the conservative justices seemed sympathetic to that concern, although every major medical and mental health organization in the US has found that gender-affirming care can be evidence-based and medically necessary. These groups also oppose political bans on such care.
All six of the supreme court’s conservative justices joined in at least part of the decision to uphold the law, although several also wrote their own concurring opinions. In his majority decision, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that the ruling primarily rested on the justices’ finding that the law did not violate the equal protection clause, rather than on an ideological opposition to trans rights.
“This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound,” Roberts wrote. He added: “We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.”
In recent years, the question of transgender children and their rights has consumed an outsized amount of rightwing political discourse. Since 2021,26 states have passed bans on gender-affirming care for minors, affecting nearly 40% of trans youth in the US. Twenty-six states have also outlawed trans kids from playing on sports teams that correspond with their gender identity.
Many of these restrictions have been paused by court challenges, but the supreme court’s decision could have vast implications for those lawsuits’ futures. A study by the Trevor Project, a mental health non-profit that aims to help LGBTQ+ kids, found that anti-trans laws are linked to a 72% increase of suicide attempts among trans and nonbinary youth.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority opinion, alongside Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. Because the law discriminates on the basis of sex, Sotomayor argued in her dissent, it should face higher legal scrutiny than the majority decided to give it.
“Male (but not female) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like boys, and female (but not male) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like girls,” Sotomayor wrote. “By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.”
The Trevor Project received official notice yesterday that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is initiating the closure of the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline’s LGBTQ+ Youth Specialized Services program within 30 days, effective July 17, 2025.
Jaymes Black, CEO of The Trevor Project, released the following statement in response:
“We received official notice that the Trump administration has ordered the closure of The 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline’s LGBTQ+ Youth Specialized Services program, effective July 17, 2025. This means that, in 30 short days, this program that has provided life-saving services to more than 1.3 million LGBTQ+ young people will no longer be available for those who need it.
“This is devastating, to say the least. Suicide prevention is about people, not politics. The administration’s decision to remove a bipartisan, evidence-based service that has effectively supported a high-risk group of young people through their darkest moments is incomprehensible. The fact that this news comes to us halfway through Pride Month is callous – as is the administration’s choice to remove the ‘T’ from the acronym ‘LGBTQ+’ in their announcement. Transgender people can never, and will never, be erased.
“Congress can still act to reverse this fatal decision. We are asking everyone to join the overwhelming public support for evidence-based crisis services, and urge Congress to act. Learn more by visiting TheTrevorProject.org/ActNow.
“I want every LGBTQ+ young person to know that you are worthy, you are loved, and you belong – despite this heartbreaking news. The Trevor Project’s crisis counselors are here for you 24/7, just as we always have been, to help you navigate anything you might be feeling right now.”
In September 2022, The Trevor Project began providing its best-practice crisis services to LGBTQ+ youth through the 988 Lifeline. When individuals contact the 988 via phone, text, or chat, they are given the option to “press 3” or “reply PRIDE” to be connected with counselors trained specifically to assist LGBTQ+ contacts up to age 25. Initially, The Trevor Project served as the sole provider for the pilot phase of 988 LGBTQ+ youth specialized services, before transitioning to serve as one of seven centers that currently make up the LGBTQ+ Youth Subnetwork.
The Trevor Project serves nearly 50% of the LGBTQ+ youth specialized services’ contact volume. In 2024 alone, The Trevor Project directly servedmore than 231,000 crisis contacts, and trained and supported nearly 250 crisis counselors and operational support staff to support the 988 Lifeline. Previously, the LGBTQ+ Youth Subnetwork received up to $50 million in restricted federal funds to provide these life-saving services.
The Trevor Project’s supporters in the House and Senate advocated for the continued funding for these life-saving programs. The organization launched a petition to demand lawmakers protect LGBTQ+ youth and an Emergency Lifeline fundraising campaign. On June 2, 2025, more than 100 entertainment icons – across film, music, TV, sports, theater, comedy, fashion, culinary arts, and book publishing – joined The Trevor Project’s sign-on letter to protect federal funding for LGBTQ+ youth suicide prevention.
If you or someone you know needs help or support, The Trevor Project’s trained crisis counselors are available 24/7 at 1-866-488-7386, via chat at TheTrevorProject.org/Get-Help, or by texting START to 678678.
The Trump administration is using its anti-trans actions to try to dismantle civil rights for both trans and cis women alike – and it’s taking an unusual route to do so.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking to rescind the section of Title IX that says schools must allow students to play on sports teams with the opposite sex if there is no team for their sex available (unless the sport is a contact sport). The rule has allowed girls to play on boys’ teams in schools that don’t offer an equivalent girls’ team.
The DOE claims the policy “ignore[s] differences between the sexes which are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality” and says eliminating it aligns with Donald Trump’s anti-trans executive order, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.”
The rescission of the rule would only apply to schools that receive funding from the DOE, which provides money to some schools for research and other programs, such as its Renew America’s School grant to assist with energy upgrades.
What’s more, the administration is exploiting a loophole to try to rush the rule change through without the standard 60-day public comment period. The DOE is using a process called a direct final rule (DFR), which does not require the formal rulemaking process but is typically used for simple changes, such as form updates.
The DFR process allowed the rule change to take effect on July 15 unless “significant adverse comments” had been submitted by June 16. Thousands of comments were submitted, though they are not visible to the public. It’s not clear whether the rule will officially take effect.
If the rule does change, it will not only affect trans athletes. Schools that receive DOE funding will no longer be required to allow cisgender girls to play on boys’ teams when a girls’ team does not exist.
Shiwali Patel, senior director of safe and inclusive schools for the National Women’s Law Center, told K-12 Divethe change is “blatant sexism, and harmful to women and girls.”
″The Trump administration is trying to gut long-standing Title IX protections that intend to provide women and girls with more opportunities to play sports, and without following the legally required rulemaking process, no less.”
Patel added that the administration clearly “doesn’t actually care about ‘protecting’ women and girls,” as it has used this claim to justify its crusade against trans rights, especially when it comes to trans student-athletes.
Julia Martin, director of policy and government affairs at legal and consulting group The Bruman Group, explained that the administration was able to keep the proposed rule change under wraps for so long because no one would have expected it to come from the DOE, as the Department of Education typically handles these kinds of policies.
The proposed change, in fact, was slipped into the middle of a list of 47 so-called “burdensome and costly regulations” outlined in a DOE press release in May announcing the department’s plan for a major overhaul to puportedly “save the American people an estimated $11 billion and cut more than 125,000 words fro the Code of Federal Regulations.”
“Part of what I see happening is this sense of overwhelm,” Kel O’Hara, senior attorney for policy and education equity at Equal Rights Advocates, told HuffPost. “There’s so much happening that it’s hard to follow. [The Trump administration] is trying to put these things through back doors, which makes it hard for the people who normally keep an eye on these things to catch it.”
O’Hara said the administration’s use of the DFR process is also worrisome for the future of other civil rights protections. “The really concerning part from my perspective is that this could essentially provide a blueprint for dismantling civil rights protections across the board.”
A second proposed rule change also seeks to rescind similar Title IX protections for education programs. The administration is also using the DFR loophole to try to push this change through on the same timeline.
While largely avoiding the same level of heated pushback of years’ past, Texas lawmakers passed several bills that give LGBTQ+ people in Texas, specifically transgender residents, less opportunity to receive care and maintain their identities in state records.
Texas legislators filed over 100 anti-trans bills through the session, some containing provisions that have been shot down in years’ prior while others proposed new restrictions. Less than 10 were ultimately approved by lawmakers.
The new bills that are likely to be signed by Gov. Greg Abbott represent a yearslong movement from state conservatives to find new ways to restrict the presence of trans and LGBTQ+ Texans, advocates say. The bills that failed may also be resurrected by lawmakers in future sessions. Here’s what to know.
State definitions of man and woman
Several bills filed in the Legislature aimed to craft legal definitions of sex and gender in addition to their target goals — but House Bill 229 makes that goal its sole purpose, establishing state definitions for male and female and applying those definitions across statute.
HB 229 defines a woman as “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova,” and a man as “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female.”
Most immediately, the bill will bolster an already existing block from stateagencies on changes to gender markers on state documents, which was backed by a nonbinding opinion from Attorney General Ken Paxton in March. The bill may also force those who have already switched their documents to match their identified gender to have changes reverted when they are renewed.
The longer-term effects of HB 229 are still not immediately apparent, as references to man and woman are used hundreds of times in statute and may ripple into other laws affecting people’s lives. Texas joins 13 other states that have also crafted their own definitions, and several other bills that also passed in the state have individual definitions for related terms like “biological sex.”
President Donald Trump issued an executive order named “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism” in January providing federal definitions of male and female. Similarly, HB 229 has been dubbed the “Women’s Bill of Rights” by supporters, claiming it protects women in the state from men invading their spaces.
Abbott released an executive order of his own shortly after Trump’s affirming the president’s directive, but did not provide his own definitions. In a May post on social media, the governor said he would immediately sign HB 229 into law.
New requirements for medical records and insurance coverage
Tightening the ability to change the gender on state records like drivers’ licenses has been a key issue for conservative lawmakers for years, and while HB 229 sets a precedent in disallowing new changes, another bill creates new requirements entirely. Senate Bill 1188 creates a new section on all state medical records listing patients’ assigned sex at birth and any physical sexual development disorders. It also bans changes to those gender markers for any reason other than clerical errors, and creates civil penalties for medical professionals who do change them.
House Democrats opposing the measure during floor discussion worried that SB 1188 may scare medical providers into inputting vague or inaccurate health information out of fear of fiscal or legal retribution. The bill does allow the new section to include information on a patients’ gender identity, however health care services must opt-in to provide it.
The bill also creates restrictions on where health care providers can store patient data and the physical servers they use to store them, and new regulations on how artificial intelligence can be used to create diagnoses.
SB 1188 is not the only bill opponents have said will create a chilling effect on the LGBTQ+ community. Some bills may be more immediate in blocking options people have to do things like change their state records, but others like SB 1188 and Senate Bill 1257 may reduce what resources are available. SB 1257 was signed by Abbott in May and mandates that insurance companies provide coverage for gender detransitioning care if they already cover gender transition care.
Proponents of the law claim it enforces responsibility onto insurance companies. The law is not a ban on gender-affirming care, however opponents worry it may act as one by incentivizing insurance companies to pull coverage altogether rather than take on potential new costs.
SB 1257 is the first legal mandate for detransition care in the United States, making Texas a testing ground for insurance companies’ appetite to keep or pull coverage. Similar bills in Arizona, Florida and Tennessee did not pass out of their respective state legislatures in 2024.
Less protections and resources for LGBTQ+ youth
Medical gender transition care for minors was banned in Texas by the Legislature in 2023, a restriction that was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2024. House Bill 18, primarily an overhaul of rural health care including a rural pediatric mental health care program, bans minors from accessing its resources for gender-affirming mental health counseling “inconsistent with the child’s biological sex.”
The current gender transition care ban for minors does not include mental health services, only puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery, which is rare for those under 18. Another proposal headed to Abbott’s desk, House Bill 1106, asserts that parents who do not recognize or affirm their child’s gender identity cannot be held liable for abuse or neglect because of that lack of recognition.
More restrictions on LGBTQ+ presence in schools
Access to materials and resources related to LGBTQ+ subjects are also being restricted by legislators through two key bills primarily aimed at schools. Senate Bill 12 bans Texas schools from teaching about sexual orientation or gender identity and forbids student clubs “based on” those subjects.
The bill would prevent clubs like Gay-Straight Alliances and pride clubs, which are often tailored toward anti-bullying initiatives in schools. Opponents of the bill claim a ban on those clubs would cut off LGBTQ+ students from communities and resources that can save lives.
“One of the deadliest things that our youth go through is experiencing the perception at least of isolation, and GSAs are a powerful way that we can combat that and make sure that our youth are getting support,” said Ash Hall, ACLU Texas’ policy and advocacy strategist for LGBTQIA+ rights.
While SB 12 restricts instruction and student groups, Senate Bill 13 gives school boards and new advisory councils greater oversight to remove books from school libraries that go against “local community values.” Some lawmakers and advocates worry school boards and advisory councils would be able to restrict books containing LGBTQ+ material.
A third bill, Senate Bill 18, would have banned “drag-time story hours” at municipal libraries and cut funding to those who host them, however that bill was unintentionally killed by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick after a procedural error at the end of the Senate’s deadline to pass bills.
Bills that failed to pass
The small set of bills passed by legislators shift the state’s treatment of LGBTQ+ Texans significantly, but still represent a fraction of what lawmakers proposed. House Bill 239, this session’s bathroom ban bill, was one of the over 100 bills that did not survive and was never heard by lawmakers despite half of the House signing on as coauthors. House Bill 2704 sought a similar ban through private lawsuits rather than criminal charges, but was never picked up by lawmakers.
Also left unheard was House Bill 3817, filed by Rep. Tom Oliverson, R-Cypress, which would have created a new felony charge for “gender identity fraud” if a person represented themselves as a gender besides the one they were assigned at birth to state agencies or employers.
Advocates like Johnathan Gooch, communications director for Equality Texas, say that the Legislature has kept its course on anti-trans legislation for the last few sessions, and that bills that didn’t get picked up by legislators may be at the forefront of future sessions.
“We’re hearing rhetoric that we’ve heard for a very long time and just more, more bills, a variety of new ways to narrow the rights of trans people,” Gooch said. “It just doesn’t come as a mistake that the number of bills is escalating.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.