Introduction to the Controversy
The Trump administration has sparked a heated debate by instructing 40 states to remove parts of their sex education lessons that focus on LGBTQ+ issues from federally funded materials. This move has been met with criticism from various mainstream medical groups, including the American Medical Association, which asserts that sex and gender exist on a spectrum rather than being strictly male or female.
Background on the Funding
The funds in question are part of the Personal Responsibility Education Program, totaling over $81 million for the 40 states, the District of Columbia, and five territories. States have been given 60 days to revise their lessons or risk losing their grants. California was previously warned and had its $12 million grant stripped on August 21. Other states now face a similar deadline, which falls in late October.
Reaction from States and Organizations
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong has suggested that there could be legal challenges to the administration’s effort, stating that threatening to defund schools over this issue is "completely unhinged." The grants are used to teach adolescents about abstinence and contraception, targeting vulnerable populations such as the homeless, those in foster care, and minority groups, including LGBTQ+ individuals. Alison Macklin, spokesperson for SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change, emphasized the importance of this funding for supporting sex education and building critical life skills for young people.
Specific Examples of Objectionable Content
The federal Administration for Children and Families has pointed to specific examples in textbooks and curricula that they find objectionable. For instance, a curriculum used in Alabama encourages instructors to ask participants to share their pronouns and acknowledges that people may identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or straight, and as male, female, or transgender. Such content is seen as promoting "gender ideology," which the administration seeks to eliminate from sex education.
Political Reactions
South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster has applauded the warnings, stating that such content has no place in sex education lessons. However, this stance is not universally supported, with many arguing that inclusive sex education is essential for the well-being and understanding of all students, regardless of their background or identity.
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding the removal of LGBTQ+ content from sex education materials highlights a deep divide in beliefs about gender, sexuality, and the role of education in addressing these topics. As states decide how to proceed, they must weigh the potential loss of federal funding against the importance of providing comprehensive and inclusive sex education to their students. The outcome of this debate will have significant implications for the future of sex education in the United States and the support available to LGBTQ+ youth.
FAQs
- Q: What is the basis for the Trump administration’s decision to remove LGBTQ+ content from sex education?
A: The administration cites the need to eliminate "gender ideology" from federally funded programs, arguing that such content is inappropriate for inclusion in sex education. - Q: How much funding is at risk for states that do not comply with the administration’s directive?
A: Over $81 million in funding for the Personal Responsibility Education Program is at risk for the 40 states, the District of Columbia, and five territories that received the warning. - Q: What is the deadline for states to decide whether to comply with the directive or risk losing their funding?
A: States have until late October to revise their sex education lessons to comply with the administration’s requirements or face the loss of their grants. - Q: What are the potential legal implications of the administration’s effort to defund states that do not comply?
A: There could be legal challenges to the administration’s actions, with some states suggesting that the move is unconstitutional or otherwise legally flawed. - Q: How do mainstream medical groups view the concept of gender and its inclusion in sex education?
A: Groups like the American Medical Association support the view that gender exists on a spectrum and that inclusive sex education is crucial for the health and well-being of all individuals, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation.
By GEOFF MULVIHILL, Associated Press
President Donald Trump’s administration this week told 40 states to eliminate parts of lessons that focus on LGBTQ+ issues from federally funded sexual education materials or that they will lose funding.
The move is the latest in a line of efforts since Trump returned to the White House in January to recognize people as only male or female and to eliminate what he calls “gender ideology.”
“Federal funds will not be used to poison the minds of the next generation or advance dangerous ideological agendas,” Acting Assistant Health and Human Service Secretary Andrew Gradison said in a statement.
That position contradicts what the American Medical Association and other mainstream medical groups say: that extensive scientific research suggests sex and gender are better understood as a spectrum than as an either-or definition.
The funds in question in the Personal Responsibility Education Program total over $81 million for the 40 states plus the District of Columbia and five territories where officials were also sent the letter. The officials were told they have 60 days to change the lessons or could lose their grants.
California was warned previously, and the $12 million grant for that state was stripped on Aug. 21.
Now, other states will have until late October to decide whether to comply or give up the funding.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong also suggested there could be legal challenges to the administration’s effort. “Threatening to defund our schools over this is completely unhinged and we’re not going to let Trump steal money from our kids,” he said in a statement.
The grants are used to teach adolescents about abstinence and contraception. They target education for those who are homeless, in foster care, living in rural areas or places with high teen birth rates — and minority groups, including LGBTQ+ populations.
Alison Macklin, spokesperson for SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change, said the grant money is used for things like training sex education instructors and for groups that present lessons in schools or after-school groups.
“This money is essential to states and territories to support sex education,” she said. “They build critical life skills for young people.”
She noted that some states have laws requiring education about lesbian, gay and transgender people.
In the letters, the federal Administration for Children and Families pointed to specific examples in textbooks and curricula that they find objectionable.
For instance, a curriculum used in Alabama encourages the instructor to ask participants to share the pronouns they use.
It also tells the instructor to tell the class that people “may identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or straight. Some may identify as male, female or transgender. All of these differences make us unique. Regardless of how you see yourself, your background, previous relationships or experience, each of you has a place in this group.”
South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster applauded the warnings during a question-and-answer period with reporters this week.
“The things they describe there really have got no business being in there,” he said. “Somebody has gone crazy somewhere trying to put all this stuff” in lessons.
Associated Press reporters Jeffrey Collins in Columbia, South Carolina, and Susan Haigh in Hartford, Connecticut, contributed to this article.
<p>Originally Published: August 29, 2025 at 2:38 PM EDT</p>
