Sixteen states sue the Trump administration over threats to pull sex-ed funding tied to gender diversity

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia filed a federal lawsuit Friday in Oregon against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, challenging threats to pull funding for sex education programs that mention diverse gender identities. The complaint, filed in U.S. district court in Oregon, argues the department is attempting to force states to rewrite sexual health curricula to erase entire categories of students and says the action amounts to an ongoing effort to target transgender and gender-diverse youth. HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

HHS has sought to prohibit the inclusion of what it calls “gender ideology” in lessons funded by the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) and the Title V Sexual Risk Avoidance Education (SRAE) program. The federal grants, which are used to teach abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, would be at risk if states do not comply with the department’s conditions. The plaintiffs contend that those grant conditions violate federal law, the separation of powers, and Congress’s spending power, arguing the administration is attempting to rewrite policy through funding requirements rather than through the statute’s appropriate channels.

The potential financial impact is substantial. The complaint notes that terminating funding under PREP and SRAE could deprive the plaintiff states of at least $35 million in federal grants. In August, HHS warned states that they had 60 days to modify their curricula or risk losing PREP funding. California was among the states previously warned, and its $12 million PREP grant was stripped on Aug. 21.

Oregon, Washington and Minnesota are co-leading the lawsuit. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said in a statement that HHS threatened to cancel PREP grants if his state did not remove language from a high school curriculum stating that “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 described the choice before states as “the unacceptable option between losing funding and cutting sexual health education programs or excluding the transgender community from those programs.” The other plaintiffs include Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.

The suit underscores a broader clash over how gender identity is treated in education policy and the use of federal funding to enforce curricular standards. Supporters of the administration’s position argue that curricula should be free of what they describe as “gender ideology,” while opponents say the policy seeks to marginalize transgender and gender-diverse students and chills local officials’ ability to provide comprehensive sex education.

Advocates for the states say the funding terms threaten to coerce states into altering content to align with the administration’s social policy goals, rather than allowing state and local educators to determine what is most appropriate for their communities. The case is likely to hinge on questions of statutory authority, the limits of executive power in grant conditions, and the extent to which Congress can control federal dollars after they are dispersed.

As the litigation unfolds, observers note that the outcome could have implications beyond sex education, touching on how federal funds may be conditioned on compliance with policy positions related to gender identity in other areas of education and health. The plaintiffs emphasize that the threatened loss of grants would disproportionately affect students in states with larger LGBTQ+ populations or with more expansive sex-ed programs, potentially widening disparities in access to information about sexual health and prevention.

The administration has framed its stance as a matter of safeguarding policy priorities and ensuring that education materials reflect certain institutional values. Courts will weigh whether the federal government can attach broad ideological requirements to ongoing grant programs and whether such conditions fall within the statutory scope of the programs or overstep Congress’s spending powers. Until the court rules, states facing the possibility of funding losses remain in a period of negotiation and policy adjustment while continuing to deliver sexual health education under the existing guidelines.