Connect with us

Politics

Department of Education’s draft Title IX rule draws mixed reactions

Public comment period to come

Published

on

U.S. Department of Education headquarters in D.C. (Photo courtesy of GSA/U.S. Department of Education)

The U.S. Department of Education has drawn mixed reactions over its issuance on Thursday of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for a draft regulation governing the eligibility frameworks for transgender athletes who compete on school sports teams.

According to an agency fact sheet, the proposal would affirm “that policies violate Title IX when they categorically ban transgender students” from participating on teams that align with their gender identity.

However, if the policy is adopted as written, schools may implement criteria that — in some circumstances and when certain conditions are met — may be used to prohibit these student athletes from competing.

“At this time, the department is only issuing a proposed rule, which does not require changes in policies or practices by recipients of federal funding,” an agency spokesperson told the Washington Blade in an emailed statement.

“We look forward to comments from states and others during the public comment period,” the spokesperson said, adding, “Title IX is the law of the land, and all federally funded education programs and activities must comply with Title IX and the department’s regulations implementing Title IX.”

Public comments on the draft proposal will be solicited for 30 days beginning when the document is published in the Federal Register, and interested parties are urged to provide input via the Federal eRulemaking Portal.

Under the proposed policy, schools could lawfully limit the participation of trans athletes “in some instances, particularly in competitive high school and college athletic environments,” including for purposes of “ensuring fairness in competition or preventing sports-related injury.”

However, such eligibility criteria must “minimize harms to students whose opportunity to participate on a male or female team consistent with their gender identity would be limited or denied” while considering “differences in grade and education level, level of competition, and sports.”

The fact sheet indicates that “the proposed regulation supports Title IX’s nondiscrimination requirement, while providing flexibility for schools to achieve important educational objectives through their athletic program.”

For purposes of limiting or denying eligibility, schools may include criteria such as “a sex marker or an identification document, such as a birth certificate, passport or driver’s license,” as well as other means of collecting this information like “physical examinations or medical testing or treatment related to a student’s sex characteristics.” 

Proposal earns criticism and support from Democrats and trans stakeholders

“The National Center for Transgender Equality applauds the Department of Education for acknowledging in this proposed rule that categorical bans on participation in school sports based on transgender status are inappropriate, unlawful and fundamentally un-American,” the group’s president, Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen, said in a statement Friday.

“While there is still more to be accomplished surrounding this proposal, we appreciate the robust action of the Department of Education,” Heng-Lehtinen said, adding, “NCTE looks forward to submitting public comments, as well as working alongside the administration to further remove these inappropriate barriers, allowing for equal participation by transgender youth.”

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, issued a similar statement on Thursday in which he and the caucus pledged to “continue to further analyze this rule and what restrictions may or may not be permitted.”

“We will be providing our feedback to the Department of Education to ensure trans students are afforded their full civil rights protections under Title IX,” Pocan said.

GOP lawmakers like U.S. Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) — who introduced a federal ban that would prohibit all trans women and girls from participating in sports teams consistent with their gender identity — denounced the proposal as an attempt to “erase women’s sports.”

Shannon Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, tweeted praise for the Department’s move, writing: “As a transgender lawyer who has represented many transgender athletes over the past 20 years, I appreciate this proposed rule, which will be a huge help in challenging state bans that are devastating for trans kids.”

Minter also re-tweeted an article by Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who wrote, “It is clearly designed to survive a legal challenge by locating a middle ground that grants protections to transgender students that are strong but not absolute.”

Stern’s piece called the rule “certainly a huge improvement from the Department of Education’s bigoted position under former President Donald Trump,” adding that “LGBTQ advocates expect much more of Biden, and any apprehension about the rule’s less-than-complete support for equality is understandable.”

Meanwhile, Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) slammed the draft rule on Twitter, urging the Biden administration to “walk this back.”

Some trans activists, including legislative researcher Erin Reed, also spoke out against the proposed rule, arguing it would provide pathways for schools to implement discriminatory policies while incentivizing intrusive gender policing of female student athletes.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

The White House

HRC files class action over federal ban on gender-affirming care coverage

Lawsuit filed Monday challenges White House effort to restrict care

Published

on

Gender-affirming care activists outside of the D.C. Attorney General's office on Feb. 13, 2026 in support of care for trans youth. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the nonprofit sister organization to the largest LGBTQ human rights lobbying and advocacy organization in the U.S., along with law firms Correia & Puth and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, filed a class action lawsuit against the government as it attempts to restrict gender-affirming healthcare for federal employees.

The suit, filed on Monday, alleges that the Office of Personnel Management, run by Trump appointee Scott Kupor, is discriminating against LGBTQ federal employees (and their families and retired employees) by prohibiting health insurance coverage for gender-affirming care under the Federal Employees Health Benefits and Postal Service Health Benefits plans. There are five plaintiffs named in the complaint, but it extends to others who have those healthcare plans.

The document asserts that OPM’s prohibition on coverage for “gender transition” care in the FEHB and PSHB programs violates Title VII, the federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, or national origin.

The policy, which was implemented on Jan. 1 following the 2025 issuing of Program Carrier Letter, mandated that insurance providers in these programs deny any coverage for gender-affirming care. In February, HRC filed a federal complaint with OPM over the change in healthcare policy, which was ultimately passed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for review. That complaint is now an officially filed class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Research from the Williams Institute at UCLA Law, a think tank that collects data and conducts research on issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity, indicates that this policy denying gender-affirming care will impact healthcare access for at least 39,400 current and former federal employees and their dependents.

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson released a statement following the lawsuit’s filing.

“Our message to the Trump administration is simple: we’ll see you in court,” said Robinson. “Healthcare access should never be weaponized to advance discrimination — and the denial of coverage for critical healthcare based simply on who you are blatantly violates the rights of all of us.”

Gender-affirming care has been under constant attack by the Trump-Vance administration since its return to the White House, despite the practice being considered as extensively evidence-based but also supported by nearly every major medical organization. This type of care is provided to all people—not just transgender people—and includes things such as social affirmation, including using correct names and pronouns and wearing clothing that matches a person’s gender identity; mental health support, such as counseling to reduce depression and anxiety; and, in some cases, medical interventions such as reversible puberty blockers or hormone therapy when deemed medically appropriate.

“Federal employees have been through the wringer with the Trump administration,” said Cathy Harris, partner at Correia & Puth. “We draw the line at blatant discrimination to deny healthcare to our nation’s dedicated civil servants.”

“This odious policy is the latest example of the Trump administration’s obsession with targeting transgender people, using shameful and cruel tactics to threaten their employment, their health, and the well-being of themselves and their families,” Robinson added. “OPM’s actions will not go unchallenged, and we’ll continue to fight so that federal employees and their families receive the dignity they deserve.”

This is not the first time the White House has directly attacked gender-affirming care.

In January 2025, the administration issued Executive Order 14187, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” The order directs federal agencies to restrict gender-affirming medical care — including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries — for individuals under the age of 19.

For more information on how to get involved with the lawsuit, visit hrc.org.

Continue Reading

Politics

Buttigieg indicates he may run for president in 2028 

Former Transportation Secretary was in Biden-Harris administration’s Cabinet

Published

on

Former U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg speaking at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told a podcaster he is considering throwing his hat in the ring for president once again.

“I don’t know,” Buttigieg told Steven Bartlett, the British host of The Diary of a CEO, the most popular top business and tech podcast on Spotify, which aired Monday. “I think I’m more inclined than not, but there’s so much we don’t know.”

“There’s so much I don’t even know about what’s going to happen this year, let alone … what we need to know later,” he added.

Buttigieg is no stranger to running for the Oval Office.

In 2019, the former South Bend, Ind., mayor was a serious contender in the Democratic primary for the 2020 presidential election but ultimately ended his campaign and endorsed Joe Biden.

In May, an Emerson College Polling survey found Buttigieg at the top of the list of potential presidential contenders, leading California Gov. Gavin Newsom, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, former Vice President Kamala Harris, and others.

In addition to discussing his future in federal politics, Buttigieg also discussed President Donald Trump’s handling of the Iran war — which reached its 5-month mark two weeks ago — the changing landscape of U.S. jobs due to the rise of artificial intelligence, and the growing national debt, all issues he could face if he ultimately returns to the White House.

Following his 2020 presidential campaign, Buttigieg gained prominence within the Democratic Party, eventually leading to his confirmation as Transportation Secretary. In February 2021, he became the first openly gay Cabinet member to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

In addition to his experience as an elected official, the 44-year-old served as a Navy intelligence officer in the reserves from 2009-2017, including a seven-month deployment to Afghanistan in 2014. Buttigieg came out as gay in 2015 and later married his husband, Chasten Glezman, in 2018. The couple now has two children: twins.

Buttigieg also has an extensive educational background.

He graduated from Harvard University with a bachelor’s degree in history and literature and later became a Rhodes Scholar, attending the University of Oxford, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in philosophy, politics, and economics.

This is not the first time Buttigieg has made headlines this year.

In June, he went public about being falsely accused of posing a threat to his children’s safety. An anonymous police report claimed he was a danger to his 4-year-old twins and was not allowed to be with them until after police interviews were conducted.

The police report was later determined to be false. The Washington Blade reached out to the Michigan State Police to ask what course of action, if any, would be taken against the woman who filed the false report, but the agency did not answer the question.

The Blade reached out to Buttigieg’s team for comment on his potential 2028 presidential bid, but did not hear back before publication. 

Continue Reading

Congress

House blocks effort to codify transgender servicemember ban into law

Lawmakers approved two anti-trans NDAA amendments

Published

on

The Pentagon (Photo by icholakov/Bigstock)

The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday rejected an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have codified a ban transgender servicemembers in the military.

The bipartisan vote was 212-217.

The NDAA is for the 2027 fiscal year and sets policies for the Defense Department programs and activities and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.

U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) proposed the amendment on July 21. It stated that all personnel are required to serve in accordance with their biological sex, citing military readiness and discipline.

Human Rights Campaign Senior Director of Government Affairs Jennifer Pike Bailey stated that she is grateful for the bipartisan vote that rejected President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “dangerous and discriminatory policy that has kicked brave transgender servicemembers out of the military and weakened our national security.”

“Everyone who meets the same rigorous standards should be able to serve their country. We should honor that patriotism, particularly in this moment where we are witnessing brave servicemembers making the ultimate sacrifice for our country, instead of ending their careers and politicizing their existence. We’re grateful that a permanent extension of this ban failed, and we will keep fighting to reverse this senseless policy,” Bailey said.

Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, stated that he and his members put in countless hours of work to kill the amendment.

“When Americans know they or their families are going to be targeted by or not supported by the military, that leads them to avoid signing up to serve or staying in the service — making it harder to keep the ranks of the armed services full and our nation safe. My colleagues in the Equality Caucus and I will continue working to prevent these attacks on our servicemembers and their families from becoming law,” Takano said.

According to the Congressional Equality Caucus, two other bills could potentially be passed that would also target the transgender community, both of which were proposed by U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.).

The first was a bill that would have prohibited gender-related medical care under TRICARE and to prevent TRICARE from covering certain gender-related medical procedures and treatments, which was approved in a vote of 219-208.

The second was a bill that would have prohibited male participation in female sports at DoDEA schools. DoDEA schools are Department of Defense Dependents Schools, which is a network of primary and secondary schools.

The amendment was approved in a vote of 221-203. 

Continue Reading

Popular