The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Tuesday ordered 46 states and territories to remove all references to so-called “gender ideology” from their federally funded sex education programs, or risk losing millions in funding, Reuters reports.
The directive, delivered through HHS’s Administration for Children and Families, gives states 60 days to revise their curricula under the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP), which teaches abstinence and contraception with a focus on vulnerable youth.
Last week, California lost its PREP funding after refusing to comply, with HHS officials labeling parts of its curriculum as “radical gender ideology.” On Tuesday, HHS warned the other states and territories, including Massachusetts, Alabama, New York, Washington, DC, Puerto Rico, and Guam, that failure to comply could result in similar suspensions or terminations of funds. In total, about $81 million is at stake.
A Shift in the Federal Role
What makes this directive unusual is the extent to which the federal government dictates the content of classroom instruction. Traditionally, Washington has influenced K–12 education through funding incentives or accountability requirements tied to broad goals, such as improving reading scores or reducing dropout rates; however, it has stopped short of dictating what teachers can and cannot say. Even highly controversial efforts, such as the Common Core State Standards, were just that: standards. They defined what students should know, but explicitly left states and districts free to choose curricula and teaching methods.
This tension over federal authority in education is not a new phenomenon. In the 1990s, the Clinton administration’s “Goals 2000” history standards sparked a political firestorm when critics accused them of being unpatriotic or too focused on America’s flaws. Congress eventually withheld funding, underscoring the deep resistance to federal direction over what gets taught. In the early 2000s, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) expanded federal oversight by requiring standardized testing and tying results to funding. But even then, the law avoided dictating curriculum: it measured outcomes, not lesson content. The backlash to NCLB eventually helped usher in the Every Student Succeeds Act, which restored even more power to states.
From Guidance to Censorship?
By contrast, HHS’s move goes beyond setting outcomes or enforcing safety. It prescribes the removal of specific concepts from classroom instruction, raising concerns that the agency is leveraging federal funds not to protect students, but to censor educational content. This shift blurs the traditional boundary between federal authority and local control. That boundary is rooted in the recognition that schools serve diverse communities with diverse needs.
Critics argue that while sex education programs may benefit from modernization, erasing references to gender identity is a step backward. “HHS is leaning hard on bias instead of science,” Reuters quoted a spokesperson for GLAAD as saying, noting that the students served by PREP (often homeless youth, those in foster care, or those in communities with high teen birth rates) stand to lose the most from curtailed programming.
Judicial Precedent on Curriculum Control
The courts have long reinforced the principle that curriculum decisions rest primarily with states and local school boards. In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973), the Supreme Court emphasized that education is not a fundamental right under the US Constitution, leaving control largely to states. Later cases, such as Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988), reaffirmed the broad authority of local educators to determine the content of school-sponsored programs. Even when federal funds are at stake, courts have generally treated curricular choices as matters of state sovereignty, unless they directly implicate civil rights protections, such as Title VI.
That history raises questions about whether HHS’s directive could withstand legal scrutiny. By demanding the removal of specific content, rather than ensuring broad compliance with nondiscrimination statutes, the agency risks overstepping into territory courts have usually reserved for local discretion. Challenges are likely if enforcement actions go beyond funding threats and begin shaping what students are taught in classrooms.
Part of a Broader Pattern
The order comes amid a series of Trump administration actions restricting transgender rights, including bans on military service, participation in female sports, and funding for school programs addressing gender identity. For advocates, the latest move represents not just another rollback of LGBTQ rights but also a troubling precedent: the federal government using its financial leverage to dictate classroom content in ways it has historically avoided.
Legal challenges are almost certain if HHS moves to suspend or terminate additional grants. States that view the directive as federal overreach could argue that the agency is straying beyond its statutory authority and encroaching on curricular decisions long left to local control. Advocacy groups are also expected to mobilize, framing the move as part of a broader pattern of restricting LGBTQ rights and undermining science-based health education.
Congress may be drawn into the debate as well, particularly if lawmakers from affected states face pressure from schools and communities dependent on PREP funding. For now, the clock is ticking: states and territories have just 60 days to decide whether to comply, risk legal battle, or forfeit millions in federal aid. The outcome could determine not only the future of sex education for vulnerable youth, but also the balance of power between federal agencies and local schools in shaping what gets taught.
