HR-7981-119
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Sponsored by Anna Luna (R-FL)
What it does
This bill would amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to cut off all federal funding under that Act to any public K-12 school whose employees or contractors provide counseling, therapy, or guidance related to gender identity to students under 18. It would also prohibit school staff from encouraging students to hide information about their gender identity or social transition from their parents. Parents would gain the right to sue schools directly in federal court for injunctive relief if a violation occurs.
Who benefits
Parents who want to be informed about and involved in any gender-related discussions their children have at school. Parents who object to school staff discussing gender identity with their children without parental knowledge or consent. School districts that currently lack clear policies on this topic and would receive a federal standard. Advocacy groups that argue parental rights in education should be strengthened.
Who is hurt
Students under 18 who are questioning their gender identity and currently rely on school counselors as a confidential resource, particularly those in unsupportive home environments. School counselors and mental health professionals whose scope of practice would be restricted. LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations. School districts that would risk losing significant federal funding — which can represent 8–10% of a district's budget — for a single employee's conduct. Students in low-income districts that are most dependent on federal Title I funding. School administrators who would bear new compliance and litigation costs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children, a principle recognized by the Supreme Court in Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) and Troxel v. Granville (2000). They contend that school staff who counsel students on gender identity without parental knowledge effectively undermine the parent-child relationship on a sensitive medical and social matter, and that the bill's parental notification requirement simply ensures families — not schools — lead these conversations. They further argue that the funding condition is a legitimate use of Congress's Spending Clause authority under South Dakota v. Dole (1987), attaching a clear, germane condition to federal education dollars.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that professional school counselors are trained to provide a confidential space for students in crisis, and that removing this resource could harm vulnerable minors — particularly those in homes where disclosure of gender identity could lead to rejection or abuse, a population research associates with elevated rates of homelessness and suicide. They contend the bill's broad prohibition on any "guidance related to gender identity" could prevent counselors from addressing bullying, mental health distress, or mandatory reporting situations. They further argue the funding condition may be coercive under the Spending Clause framework from South Dakota v. Dole, since the threat of losing all ESEA funding for a single employee's conduct could cross the line from incentive to compulsion.
Constitutional context
The bill operates under Congress's Spending Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 1), attaching conditions to ESEA funds. Under South Dakota v. Dole (1987), such conditions must be unambiguous, germane to the federal interest, and not unduly coercive — the last prong is the most likely point of legal challenge, since the bill would strip all ESEA funding for any violation. The bill may also implicate the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause, as it restricts what school employees may say to students, and the Tenth Amendment, since education is traditionally a state function.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority to condition federal education funding on school speech and counseling practices; states and school districts retain the ability to comply or forgo federal funds, and federal courts serve as a check through the new private right of action and potential constitutional challenges.
Historical precedent
Several states (including Florida and Alabama) have enacted laws restricting classroom instruction or counseling on gender identity and sexual orientation in K-12 schools, but no directly analogous federal funding condition on this specific topic has previously been enacted.