A U.S. federal judge has issued an injunction, stopping the Trump administration from cutting federal funds for sex education programs that address gender identity. This crucial decision safeguards grants from programs like the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) and Title V Sexual Risk Avoidance Education, which offer education on abstinence and contraception to prevent pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
This preliminary injunction is the result of a lawsuit brought by 16 states and the District of Columbia. They argued that the Health and Human Services Department’s actions were unlawful and breached the separation of powers. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison expressed satisfaction, stating that he was “pleased to have protected funding for important health education programs.”
Judge Cites Lack of Evidence and Procedural Irregularities
U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken delivered the ruling, highlighting that the department failed to provide evidence of factual findings, or consideration of statutory objectives, requirements, relevant data, and anti-sex-discrimination statutes. Furthermore, court documents show she found the department unable to demonstrate the reasonableness of the new grant conditions.
The administration had previously attempted to remove federal funding from programs it labeled as promoting “gender ideology.” In communications with states, it asserted that including diverse gender identities in sex education curricula was incompatible with established biological and medical science.
PREP and Title V Programs Face Funding Threats
States were instructed by the department to submit their curricula for a “medical accuracy review,” with a clear warning: programs that didn’t eliminate references to gender diversity would risk losing their funding. California, for instance, had $12 million cut from its PREP grant after it declined to comply.
The plaintiff states contended that cutting these funds would significantly harm programs designed for youth at high risk of pregnancy or STIs. Their complaint projected a potential loss of at least $35 million if federal grants were terminated. These states also asserted the medical accuracy of their curricula, supported by expert testimonies. For example, Kate Millington, a pediatric endocrinologist at Brown University, declared that asserting gender as strictly binary is inconsistent with current medical and scientific understanding of gender identity.
States and Experts Champion Inclusive Sex Education
The lawsuit was spearheaded by Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington, with additional participation from Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Notably, all these plaintiff states are led by Democratic governors.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown revealed that the department had threatened to revoke PREP grants if high school curricula weren’t altered to remove statements like: “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.”
This preliminary injunction ensures that federal funding will continue during the ongoing legal battle, allowing sex education programs to keep providing medically accurate information that includes diverse gender identities.