Trump administration orders California to remove gender identity from sex education lessons
The order is the latest clash between the administration California related to LGBTQ+ issues. These culture war-tinged disputes have raged on many fronts, but date back substantially to Trump's Jan. 20 executive order that recognized two sexes, male and female, a dictum that has moved across all departments under his jurisdiction.
In youth sports, this divide has unfolded with Trump threatening to withhold vast sums of federal funding unless California bars transgender athletes from girls' and women's sports.
California has not complied to date.
Within the classroom, the Trump policy has meant opposing curriculum that allows for more than a binary — male or female — expression of gender. Historically, federal authority over local curriculum has been limited, but Trump has been quick to use federal funding as leverage.
In this case, it's the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that is applying pressure.
The children and families department administers a grant program that annually distributes $75 million nationally 'to educate adolescents on ... both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS,' according to federal statute.
For a three-year period, through the next fiscal year, California has been allotted funding worth more than $18.2 million, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The state could lose $12.3 million that it has not yet received, covering multiple years.
California is not being accused of failing to carry out the abstinence and contraception message. Rather, the state has included additional content that the Trump administration defines as objectionable and 'outside the scope' of the grant's purpose.
'The Trump Administration will not tolerate the use of federal funds for programs that indoctrinate our children,' said Acting Assistant Secretary Andrew Gradison. 'The disturbing gender ideology content ... is both unacceptable and well outside the program's core purpose.'
A June 20 letter to a senior California official cited, as one of several examples, sample wording from a middle school lesson:
'We've been talking during class about messages people get on how they should act as boys and girls — but as many of you know, there are also people who don't identify as boys or girls, but rather as transgender or gender queer. This means that even if they were called a boy or a girl at birth and may have body parts that are typically associated with being a boy or a girl, on the inside, they feel differently.'
In a statement, the California Department of Public Health did not say how it would respond to the federal demand, but defended the materials as 'medically accurate, comprehensive, and age-appropriate.'
The federal grant supports the California Personal Responsibility Education Program, or CA PREP, which provides 'comprehensive sexual health education to adolescents via effective, evidence-based or evidence-informed program models,' the state statement said.
The California department also noted that 'the curricula have been federally pre-approved, in accordance with federal regulations.'
The Trump administration did not deny this, but said the Biden administration 'erred in allowing PREP grants to be used to teach students gender ideology.'
The funding helps pay for sex education programs in juvenile justice facilities, homeless shelters and foster care group homes, as well as some schools, reaching an estimated 13,000 youth per year through 20 agencies.
'Data show that participants who completed CA PREP had a better understanding of sexual and reproductive health topics and improved health outcomes,' the health department stated.
California law requires school districts to provide students with comprehensive sexual health education, along with information about HIV prevention, at least once in high school and once in middle school.
The Trump administration has asserted complete authority over federal grants, including those in progress. Its grant cancellations are being challenged in court.
Times staff writer Daniel Miller contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
EU's Von der Leyen to Meet Trump in Bid to Clinch Trade Deal
(Bloomberg) -- European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said she will travel to Scotland this weekend to meet with US President Donald Trump, as the two sides aim to conclude a trade deal ahead of an Aug. 1 deadline when 30% tariffs on the bloc's exports are otherwise due to kick in. Trump Awards $1.26 Billion Contract to Build Biggest Immigrant Detention Center in US The High Costs of Trump's 'Big Beautiful' New Car Loan Deduction Can This Bridge Ease the Troubled US-Canadian Relationship? Salt Lake City Turns Winter Olympic Bid Into Statewide Bond Boom Trump Administration Sues NYC Over Sanctuary City Policy After months of talks and shuttle diplomacy between Brussels and Washington DC, the two sides have been zeroing in on an agreement this past week that would see the EU face 15% tariffs on most of its trade. Limited exemptions are expected for aviation, some medical devices and generic medicines, several spirits, and a specific set of manufacturing equipment that the US needs, Bloomberg previously reported. Steel and aluminum imports would likely benefit from a quota under the arrangements under discussion but above that threshold they would face a higher tariff of 50%. 'We'll see if we make a deal,' Trump said as he arrived in Scotland on Friday. 'Ursula will be here, highly respected woman. So we look forward to that.' Trump reiterated that he believed there was 'a 50-50 chance' of a deal with the EU, saying there were sticking points on 'maybe 20 different things' that he did not want to detail publicly. Trump gave similar odds in Washington before leaving, but also said the EU had a 'pretty good chance' of reaching an agreement. Trump announced tariffs on almost all US trading partners in April, declaring his intent to bring back domestic manufacturing, to pay for a massive tax-cut extension and to stop the rest of the world from taking advantage of the US. He has also sought to remove what he describes as barriers for American companies to do business around the world. Alongside a universal levy, the US president has hit cars and auto parts with a 25% levy, and steel and aluminum with double that. He's also threatened to target pharmaceuticals and semiconductors with new duties as early as next month, and recently announced a 50% tariff on copper. The EU has been seeking quotas and a ceiling on future sectoral tariffs that the US has yet to implement but it's unclear if an initial agreement will shield the bloc from potential future levies at this stage. The agreement would also cover non-tariff barriers, cooperation on economic security matters and strategic purchases by the EU in sectors such as energy and artificial intelligence. The terms of any initial deal, which is expected to take the form of a short joint statement, would need to be approved by member states, according to people familiar with the matter. The statement is seen as a stepping stone toward more detailed negotiations. Because of the ongoing uncertainty, the EU has in parallel put together countermeasures in the event of a no-deal scenario, which would see it quickly hit American exports with up to 30% tariffs on some €100 billion ($117 billion) worth of goods — including Boeing Co. aircraft, US-made cars and bourbon whiskey — in the event of no-deal and if Trump carries through with his threat to impose that rate on most of the bloc's exports after Aug. 1 or in future. The package also includes some export restrictions on scrap metals. In a no-deal scenario, the bloc is also prepared to move forward with its anti-coercion instrument, a potent trade tool that would eventually allow it to also target other areas such as market access, services and restrictions on public contracts, provided that there is a majority of member states backing its use. (Updates with Trump remarks in paragraphs 4-6.) Burning Man Is Burning Through Cash Confessions of a Laptop Farmer: How an American Helped North Korea's Wild Remote Worker Scheme It's Not Just Tokyo and Kyoto: Tourists Descend on Rural Japan Elon Musk's Empire Is Creaking Under the Strain of Elon Musk A Rebel Army Is Building a Rare-Earth Empire on China's Border ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
From Columbia University to Paramount, Trump keeps getting his way as America's 1st 'suer in chief'
Donald Trump is no stranger to lawsuits. In fact, he was involved in more than 4,000 of them before winning the White House in 2016. Since then, Trump has made headlines mostly as a defendant — that is, the individual getting sued (for sexual abuse and defamation; for business fraud; for hush-money payments; for trying to end birthright citizenship; and so on). But now, six months into his second presidential term, Trump is positioning himself as something new: America's first 'suer in chief.' And the strategy seems to be working. Late Wednesday, the Trump administration and Columbia University announced that they had settled a months-long dispute that started when the White House accused the Ivy League school of failing to protect Jewish students from discrimination during recent Gaza War protests — then froze the majority of its $1.3 billion a year in federal research grants and funding. To end the ordeal, Columbia agreed to pay the U.S. treasury more than $200 million over the next three years while scrutinizing international students more closely and releasing data to show that admissions and hiring are based on 'merit' rather than 'diversity.' (An independent monitor will oversee the deal and report to the government every six months.) In return, the administration agreed to restore Columbia's federal cash flow. Trump's spat with Columbia didn't technically take the form of a lawsuit; instead, the president has been using his executive powers — launching investigations, withholding money — to pressure elite campuses to conform to his ideological preferences. (The University of Michigan, Duke University and Cornell University are negotiating with the White House as well.) The logic, however, is the same: imposing your will through aggressive — and expensive — lawfare. As a real-estate mogul, Trump perfected this tactic long ago under the tutelage of his pugnacious lawyer Roy Cohn. But no one else has ever really used it as president. Here are a few of the suer in chief's recent wins. Paramount In October, then-candidate Trump sued Paramount, the parent company of CBS News, over the way that 60 Minutes edited an interview with his Democratic rival, Kamala Harris. Trump's allegation? That the program violated Texas's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, which generally targets false advertising, by only including part of her answer to a question about the Gaza War in its main broadcast. 'The work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region,' Harris said in the interview. 'We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.' The second part of Harris's answer aired on 60 Minutes. The first part did not, appearing instead on CBS's social-media accounts and in a promo that aired on another CBS program, Face the Nation. 'To paper over Kamala's 'word salad' weakness, CBS used its national platform on 60 Minutes to cross the line from the exercise of judgment in reporting to deceitful, deceptive manipulation of news,' Trump's lawsuit claimed. In response, CBS insisted that Trump's 'repeated claims against 60 Minutes are false. The interview was not doctored and 60 Minutes did not hide any part of Vice President Harris's answer to the question at issue. 60 Minutes fairly presented the interview to inform the audience and not to mislead it. The lawsuit Trump brought against CBS is completely without merit and we will vigorously defend against it.' Editing for brevity is commonplace in television, and many legal experts agreed that the case was frivolous, arguing that Paramount would win in court on First Amendment grounds. Yet on July 2, the company decided to settle with Trump and pay $16 million to his future presidential library. Skeptics claimed that Paramount's decision — which involves no admission of wrongdoing — had less to do with journalism than with business, insisting that what the company really wanted was for Trump's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to sign off on its proposed $8 billion mega-merger with the Hollywood studio Skydance. On July 18, Paramount announced that it would be cancelling its long-running Late Show with host Stephen Colbert, a frequent Trump critic. The company said the decision was 'purely financial.' And then on Thursday, the FCC approved the Paramount-Skydance merger. Trump has claimed that as part of the Paramount settlement, he 'also anticipate[s] receiving $20 Million Dollars more from the new Owners, in Advertising, PSAs, or similar Programming' on CBS in the future. If the Skydance deal goes through, Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison and his son, David, will control Paramount. The elder Ellison is a Trump friend and donor. Earlier this week, South Park kicked off its 27th season with an episode about religion in schools that skewered Paramount — just one day after signing its own $1.5 billion deal with the company. 'I didn't want to come back and be in the school, but I had to because it was part of a lawsuit and the agreement with Paramount,' Jesus tells some reluctant South Park parents. He then urges them to settle with Trump, who has threatened to sue for $5 billion if they don't let Jesus in. 'You guys saw what happened to CBS? Well, guess who owns CBS. Paramount,' Jesus says. 'You really want to end up like Colbert? You guys got to stop being stupid. … He also has the power to sue and take bribes and he can do anything to anyone.' At the end of the episode, the townspeople agree to pay Trump $3.5 million and create 'pro-Trump messaging.' ABC News In a similar (though much simpler) case, Trump sued ABC News and its This Week host George Stephanopoulos last March for defamation over a segment in which Stephanopoulos repeatedly said that Trump had been found liable for 'rape' in a sexual assault case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll. Stephanopoulos's statements were incorrect. Asked on its verdict sheet whether Carroll had proved by a preponderance of evidence that Trump had 'raped' her under New York's narrow legal definition — which requires vaginal penetration by a penis — the jury answered no. Instead, they found Trump liable for 'sexual abuse.' At the time, the judge said that Trump's behavior — which, according to Carroll, included yanking down her tights and shoving his hand inside her — would mean that 'Mr. Trump 'raped' her as many people commonly understand the word rape.' 'Indeed,' the judge added, 'the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.' But legal experts largely agreed that Stephanopoulos should have used the phrase 'sexual abuse' rather than the word rape, and in December 2024 ABC News agreed to settle the lawsuit by paying $15 million toward Trump's future presidential library and another $1 million in legal fees. Meta Way back in July 2021, Trump sued Meta and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, for suspending his Facebook and Instagram accounts following the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Privately owned social media platforms are permitted under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act to moderate their services by removing posts that violate their standards — as long as they are acting in 'good faith.' Users agree to these terms of service when they sign up. Yet Trump claimed in his suit that Meta was engaging in 'illegal, shameful censorship of the American people.' Not much happened in the case for a few years — until Trump won the 2024 election. At that point, Zuckerberg visited Trump at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, where the incoming president 'brought up the litigation and suggested they try to resolve it,' according to the Associated Press. Two months later, in January of this year, Meta agreed to donate $22 million to Trump's presidential library and pay $3 million in legal fees. Around the same time, Meta announced that it was ending its diversity, equity and inclusion programs and eliminating fact-checking on Facebook — both longtime priorities of Trump and his allies. The company also made a $1 million donation to Trump's inaugural committee, and Zuckerberg sat front and center at his swearing-in. Law firms In the early weeks of his second term, Trump issued executive orders targeting three prominent law firms that had pursued what he viewed as politically motivated investigations and lawsuits against him and his allies. One was Perkins Coie, a firm that represented Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and repeatedly won election law cases in 2020 against Trump's campaign. Another was Covington & Burling, a firm that provided legal advice to Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought two federal indictments against Trump. And the third was Paul Weiss — a firm whose chairman, Brad Karp, 'has a long history of fund-raising for Democrats [and] sought to unite major law firms in 'a call to arms' to fight Mr. Trump in court on issues like his administration's policy of separating migrant children from their parents,' according to the New York Times. In his orders, Trump effectively sought to cripple these firms by revoking their lawyers' security clearances — which they need to represent key clients — and limiting their access to government buildings and officials. Again, it wasn't a lawsuit, per se — but it was a form of lawfare. And again, it worked. In March, Trump announced Karp had agreed to represent clients regardless of their political affiliation; to contribute $40 million in legal services to causes Trump has championed, including 'the President's Task Force to Combat Antisemitism'; and to end its internal DEI policies. In exchange, Trump rescinded his order against Paul Weiss. A few days later, however, the president issued a new order directing the heads of the Justice and Homeland Security departments to 'seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States' or in matters that come before federal agencies. Eventually, eight other firms followed Paul Weiss's lead, committing a combined total of nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services to initiatives supported by the Trump administration in order to avoid becoming targets themselves. 'This is certainly the biggest affront to the legal profession in my lifetime,' Samuel Buell, a longtime professor of law at Duke University and a former federal prosecutor, told the New York Times.
Associated Press
18 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen states remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The states have argued Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' 'The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer,' Sorokin wrote.
