HR-2617-119
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 378.
Sponsored by Burgess Owens (R-UT)
What it does
This bill would amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to prohibit schools from using federal funds under that Act to teach or promote concepts related to "gender ideology," a term defined by reference to a 2025 executive order. Schools and districts that receive covered federal funds would be barred from using those funds for instruction or materials advancing the defined concepts, joining an existing list of other prohibited uses of the funds under the same statutory section.
Who benefits
Parents and advocacy groups who object to classroom instruction on gender identity concepts; policymakers and officials who support the executive branch's current definitional approach to sex and gender; potentially private and religious schools not affected by the restriction, which could see families shift enrollment.
Who is hurt
Public school teachers and administrators who may need to revise curricula, lesson plans, or teacher training funded by federal grants; LGBTQ students, families, and educators who may see reduced classroom discussion or support resources related to gender identity; school districts that could face funding uncertainty or compliance costs while interpreting the new restriction; students and parents who support current instructional approaches to gender-related topics.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that parents, not federal grant-funded curricula, should decide how and when their children are taught about gender identity, and that federal education dollars should not be used to advance a specific ideological viewpoint on a contested social topic. They contend this bill simply restricts the use of taxpayer funds rather than banning private speech, similar to existing restrictions in the same statute on other prohibited uses of federal education money.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's definition, borrowed from an executive order rather than defined independently by Congress, is vague and could be applied to suppress a wide range of legitimate instruction, counseling, or anti-bullying programs addressing transgender and gender-nonconforming students. They contend the restriction could have a chilling effect on teachers and could disproportionately harm LGBTQ students by cutting off federally funded support services and inclusive curricula.
Constitutional context
Because this bill attaches a content-based condition to the use of federal education funds, it raises Spending Clause questions under South Dakota v. Dole (1987) about whether the condition is sufficiently clear and not unduly coercive; it may also raise First Amendment concerns about viewpoint-based restrictions on speech in federally funded programs and vagueness concerns from incorporating a definition set by executive order rather than statute.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority to restrict speech content within federally funded curricula by amending the underlying statute, while incorporating an executive branch definition ties the scope of the restriction to executive discretion, with courts able to review any challenge for vagueness or First Amendment violations.
Historical precedent
Section 8526 of the ESEA already contains similar categorical restrictions on the use of federal education funds for other purposes, and this bill follows that same legislative approach by adding a new prohibited use.