16 States Sue Trump Administration Over Gender-Inclusive Sex Education Grants

Description:
Sixteen states and D.C. sue Trump over threats to cut $35M in sex education grants. Learn what’s at stake for youth, education, and inclusivity.

Introduction

In September 2025, a major legal battle erupted in the United States as sixteen states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration. At issue: the government’s threats to withhold federal sex education grants from programs that include gender-diverse content.

This case, filed in federal court in Oregon, could redefine the future of sexual health education nationwide. Advocates say the policy unfairly targets transgender and gender-diverse youth, while critics argue it enforces a narrow version of curriculum. With $35 million in funding at risk, the lawsuit has triggered national debate over education, inclusivity, and federal authority.

Trump administration sued by 16 states over threats to withhold gender-inclusive sex education grants

Why the Lawsuit Matters

Federal Grants at the Center

The dispute centers on two key federal programs:

Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) – supports lessons on contraception, abstinence, and pregnancy prevention.
Title V Sexual Risk Avoidance Education (SRAE) – emphasizes abstinence-based education.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) directed that these programs exclude what it calls “gender ideology”. This means lessons about gender identity and sexual orientation would be barred, even if schools and states wanted to include them.

States’ Legal Argument

The lawsuit, co-led by Oregon, Washington, and Minnesota, argues that HHS’s actions:

Violate federal law by imposing conditions not authorized by Congress.
Overstep executive authority, infringing on the separation of powers.
Force states into an “impossible choice” between funding losses and erasing transgender students from curricula.

Already, California lost a $12 million PREP grant in August 2025 after refusing to comply.

Impact on Students and Schools

What’s at Risk?

If HHS succeeds, millions of students could lose access to comprehensive, fact-based sexual health education. Programs at risk include:

High school sex ed classes that address LGBTQ+ youth.
Community health initiatives offering STI and pregnancy prevention.
Teacher training programs built on inclusive standards.

Advocates’ Concerns

Washington Attorney General Nick Brown emphasized:

“People of all sexual orientations and gender identities need to know how to prevent pregnancy and STIs, either for themselves or to help a friend.”

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison added:

“The choice between losing funding and excluding the transgender community is unacceptable.”

Both highlight the public health risks of narrowing curricula.

States Leading the Legal Challenge

The plaintiffs include:

Co-leads: Oregon, Washington, Minnesota
Other states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

This coalition of 16 states and D.C. represents diverse regions, from the Pacific Northwest to the East Coast, signaling broad opposition to the administration’s directive.

Timing and Political Context

August 21, 2025 – California loses $12M PREP grant.
September 27, 2025 – Lawsuit filed in Oregon federal court.
2026 election cycle – The case becomes a potential campaign issue, with education and LGBTQ+ rights likely to feature prominently.

The lawsuit also reflects broader cultural debates in the U.S., echoing conflicts seen in Europe and India, where governments are also grappling with questions of inclusivity in education.

Broader Implications

For U.S. Education Policy

A ruling in favor of the states could reaffirm federal support for inclusive education.
A ruling for the administration might allow the federal government to impose narrower ideological conditions on state-run programs.

For Youth Health Outcomes

Limiting inclusive sex education could lead to:

Higher rates of STIs and unintended pregnancies.
Increased mental health challenges for marginalized youth.
Loss of safe spaces for transgender and LGBTQ+ students.

FAQs

Q1. What is the lawsuit about?
It challenges the Trump administration’s attempt to withhold federal sex education grants from programs that include gender-diverse content.

Q2. How much funding is at stake?
Over $35 million nationwide, including $12 million already lost by California.

Q3. Which states are leading the challenge?
Oregon, Washington, and Minnesota are leading, joined by 13 others and D.C.

Q4. What federal programs are involved?
The PREP and SRAE programs, which support sex education in schools and communities.

Q5. Why are advocates concerned?
They argue the policy erases transgender students, undermines health education, and violates federal law.

Q6. What happens next?
The case will proceed through federal court in Oregon, potentially reaching higher courts if appealed.

Conclusion

The lawsuit filed by 16 states and the District of Columbia marks a pivotal moment in U.S. education policy. At its core, the battle is about whether the federal government can restrict sex education curricula to exclude gender-diverse students—or whether inclusivity remains a guiding principle.

With millions in funding, public health, and student well-being at stake, the outcome will shape classrooms not just in Oregon or California, but across the entire nation.

👉 Do you believe sex education should include gender diversity? Share your thoughts in the comments below and join the conversation.

Related Reading & Sources:

⚡ Suggested Hashtags for social media: #SexEd #InclusiveEducation #Trump2025 #TransRights #EducationPolicy

Trump administration sued by 16 states over threats to withhold gender-inclusive sex education grants