California faces August deadline to remove transgender and gender identity materials or lose $6 million in federal funding
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has issued a 60-day ultimatum to California, demanding the state remove all “gender ideology” content from its federally-funded sex education curriculum or risk losing millions in grant money.
The Federal Directive
In a June 20, 2025 letter, Acting Assistant Secretary Andrew Gradison of the Administration for Children and Families informed California’s Department of Public Health that a recent review uncovered “egregious content teaching young students that gender identity is distinct from biological sex and that boys can identify as girls.”
The directive targets California’s Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP), which receives approximately$6 million annually in federal funding to provide comprehensive sexual health education to at-risk youth, including those in homeless shelters and juvenile justice facilities.
HHS officials argue that teaching gender identity falls outside the scope of PREP’s authorizing law (42 U.S.C. § 713), which focuses on preventing teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. “The statute includes no mention of gender ideology, which is both irrelevant to teaching abstinence and contraception,” the letter states.
California’s Response
Governor Gavin Newsom’s office expressed surprise and defiance, noting they learned of the letter “via Fox News, not HHS.” State officials emphasized that the targeted curriculum is not California’s standard K-12 sex education but rather a specialized federal grant program serving vulnerable youth populations.
“To be clear: this is NOT California’s K-12 sex education curriculum,” said spokesperson Elana Ross, defending the materials as “medically accurate, comprehensive, and age-appropriate.”
The Curriculum in Question
The disputed content includes:
- Middle school lessons introducing transgender and genderqueer concepts
- High school materials discussing social vs. medical gender transition
- Teacher training on terms like “cisgender” and “non-binary”
- Instruction stating that “all people have a gender identity”
HHS contends this content exceeds the program’s legal boundaries, while California argues it falls under required topics like “adolescent development” and “diversity.”
Advocacy Groups Divided
LGBTQ+ Rights Organizations have condemned the order as politically motivated censorship. “This appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to erase mentions of the transgender community,” said Jorge Reyes Salinas of Equality California.
Conservative Groups applaud the federal intervention, arguing that gender identity topics are inappropriate for minors and that taxpayer funds shouldn’t support what they view as ideological indoctrination.
What’s at Stake
The PREP program, created in 2010 as part of the Affordable Care Act, serves high-risk youth populations nationwide with $75 million in annual funding. California’s portion specifically targets:
- Foster care youth
- Teens experiencing homelessness
- Rural youth
- LGBTQ+ adolescents
- Youth in juvenile justice systems
State data shows the program has significantly improved participants’ knowledge of safe sex practices, with condom knowledge rising from 22-34% to around 70% after instruction.
The August 19 Deadline
California must submit revised materials to HHS by August 19, 2025, or face funding termination. The state appears unlikely to comply, potentially setting up a legal battle over federal authority in education and LGBTQ+ rights.
Options for California include:
- Replacing the federal funds with state money
- Filing a legal challenge claiming HHS misinterpretation of the law
- Submitting revised curriculum under protest
The conflict represents a broader clash between the Trump administration’s policies recognizing only binary genders and California’s commitment to LGBTQ-inclusive education. As Governor Newsom stated on social media: “We won’t let our kids be used as pawns in a culture war.”
The outcome will likely set a national precedent for how far federal administrations can go in dictating curriculum content through grant conditions, making this a closely watched test case for education policy and LGBTQ+ rights nationwide.
