In brief
U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled against the Trump administration, halting plans to withdraw funding for sexual education programs that mention diverse gender identities. The lawsuit, brought by 16 states and the District of Columbia, claims the action undermines education and harms transgender youth. The judge emphasized that the administration failed to provide evidence justifying the changes to grant conditions, which could potentially affect up to $35 million in funding.
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal judge in Oregon has blocked President Trump’s administration from withdrawing funding for sexual education programs that discuss diverse gender identities. U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken issued a preliminary injunction on Monday as part of a lawsuit filed by 16 states and the District of Columbia against the Health and Human Services Department.
The plaintiffs contended that the cuts to funding violated the separation of powers and federal law, and accused the administration of targeting transgender and gender-diverse youth. The complaint stated that the department was attempting to compel states to rewrite their sexual health curricula ‘to erase entire categories of students.’
Judge Aiken stated that the Health and Human Services Department failed to present evidence that supported its actions or that the new grant conditions were reasonable. The ruling addressed the agency's lack of justification for its decision to impose these changes to funding, which could result in at least $35 million in losses for the states in question.
The administration previously claimed its authority to impose conditions for receiving federal grants but faced pushback from several states emphasizing the necessity of comprehensive sexual education to effectively serve young people, particularly those at risk of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.
Attorney General Keith Ellison, of Minnesota, whose state led the lawsuit alongside Oregon and Washington, expressed his satisfaction with the ruling, which he believes safeguards essential health education funding.
The case also hinges on the definition of 'medically accurate' curricula, a requirement of federal law, which the department argues must exclude what it terms 'gender ideology'. Meanwhile, experts from the plaintiff states insist that a binary view of gender contradicts established medical understanding.
The conflict is emblematic of broader national debates surrounding gender identity, education, and federal authority, with multiple states backing the lawsuit, all under Democratic governance.
