Copyright Newsweek
A federal judge in Oregon has blocked the Trump administration from enforcing new restrictions on federally funded sex education programs that would have barred any reference to gender identity. The ruling represents a significant legal setback for President Donald Trump’s effort to limit what he has called “gender ideology” in public education and health programs. Newsweek contacted the Department of Health and Human Services for comment via email outside normal office hours on Tuesday. Why It Matters The October 27 ruling tests the limits of presidential power and the reach of federal control over education policy. By blocking the Trump administration’s attempt to strip references to gender identity from federally funded sex education, the court reaffirmed that agencies cannot impose ideological restrictions beyond what Congress authorized. The outcome affects how states deliver sexual health programs serving millions of young people and shapes the national debate over whether schools can teach inclusive, medically accurate information about gender and sexuality—issues at the center of broader cultural and constitutional fights across the country. What To Know Court Blocks Federal Limits On Sex Education In a 77-page opinion issued October 27, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken granted a preliminary injunction to a coalition of 16 states and the District of Columbia that challenged the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) new grant conditions. The court found that the administration exceeded its statutory authority when it required grantees under the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) and Title V Sexual Risk Avoidance Education (SRAE) to delete all references to gender identity from their curricula. “The statutes define what is medically complete and accurate—not HHS,” Aiken wrote in her opinion. “These funding statutes are extremely clear, there’s no ambiguity in the language and there’s no agency discretion.” The decision halts enforcement of directives issued after Trump’s January 20, 2025, executive order declaring it the policy of the United States “to recognize two sexes, male and female, that are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.” HHS subsequently informed states that federally funded sex education materials could not include “gender ideology,” defined by the department as “the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa.” States Argue Policy Exceeds Federal Authority Attorneys general from Washington, Oregon and Minnesota led the multistate suit, joined by 13 others and the District of Columbia. The states argued that the new conditions violated both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution’s Spending Clause by imposing requirements Congress never authorized. “The government’s far-reaching efforts to erase people who don’t fit one of two gender labels is illegal and wrong,” Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said in announcing the lawsuit. “These young people are treated equally under Washington state and federal laws, and we intend to make sure of it.” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said the administration’s policy “puts kids at greater risk,” adding, “Pulling funding from proven, effective programs doesn’t protect kids—it puts them at greater risk.” Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison called the choice between losing funding and cutting inclusive material “unacceptable,” saying: “Politics should not interfere with teenagers getting information they need to avoid taking risks that could impact the rest of their lives.” Judge Rejects Administration’s Defense The Department of Justice defended the policy, asserting that the agency had discretion to determine medical accuracy. “We’re not excluding anybody from these programs,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Susanne Luse said during an October 20 hearing. “We’re just simply saying you cannot teach that boys can be girls and girls can be boys.” Aiken rejected that rationale, noting that the administration had failed to conduct any formal medical accuracy review before imposing the restrictions. “If you were going to make changes, you would need to do the medically accurate evaluation and process,” she told Luse in court. “But that’s not what you did; you just made an assumption and HHS sent out additional requirements.” The plaintiffs told the court that compliance with the new rules would have forced them to strip medically accepted material from their programs and risk losing more than $35 million in federal funding. HHS had already terminated California’s PREP grant earlier this year for refusing to comply with the same directive. In issuing the injunction, Aiken said she was “…leaning toward granting the states’ requested preliminary injunction” and would issue an order soon; again, no formal factor-by-factor ruling quoted. The preliminary injunction prevents HHS from enforcing the grant conditions while the case proceeds. For now, states may continue operating federally funded sex education programs that include medically recognized discussions of gender identity. What People Are Saying Assistant U.S. Attorney Susanne Luse during the October 20 hearing, when clarifying that she meant sex education “is not a psychological focus” and that a purely biological explanation was sufficient, Judge Ann Aiken said: “Oh, for crying out loud, no. That argument makes no sense. It is all about the physical and emotional well-being of children and young people as they go through puberty and adolescence.” Marsha Chien, attorney for the Washington Attorney General’s Office, during the same hearing: “The government doesn’t say that trans youth don’t exist in our communities, and the government doesn’t say it’s medically inaccurate for sexual health curricula to include reference to gender identities. And that is because the government can’t.” What Happens Next The Trump administration is expected to appeal Aiken’s preliminary injunction blocking its attempt to bar references to gender identity in federally funded sex education programs. The ruling keeps current grant rules in place while the case continues, allowing states to maintain inclusive curricula. The Department of Justice could ask the Ninth Circuit to stay or overturn the order, setting up a broader test of executive authority and congressional intent. If upheld, the decision would reaffirm that federal agencies cannot impose ideological conditions on education funding without explicit approval from Congress, with potential implications for national policy on gender and sexuality education.
