Category: LGBTQ

  • The Trump administration’s biggest impact on education in 2025 

    The Trump administration’s biggest impact on education in 2025 

    by Nirvi Shah, The Hechinger Report
    December 18, 2025

    Even with a conservative think tank’s blueprint detailing how the second Trump administration should reimagine the federal government’s role in education, few might have predicted what actually materialized this year for America’s schools and colleges. 

    Or what might be yet to come. 

    “2025 will go down as a banner year for education: the year we restored merit in higher education, rooted out waste, fraud and abuse, and began in earnest returning education to the states,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon told The Hechinger Report. She listed canceling K-12 grants she called wasteful, investing more in charter schools, ending college admissions that consider race or anything beyond academic achievement and making college more affordable as some of the year’s accomplishments. 

    “Best of all,” she said, “we’ve begun breaking up the federal education bureaucracy and returning education control to parents and local communities. These are reforms conservatives have championed for decades — and in just 12 months, we’ve made them a reality.” 

    Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education. 

    McMahon’s characterization of the year is hardly universal. Earlier this month, Senate Democrats, led by independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, called out some of the administration’s actions this year. They labeled federal changes, especially plans to divide the Education Department’s duties across the federal government, dangerous and likely to cause chaos for schools and colleges. 

    “Already, this administration has cancelled billions of dollars in education programs, illegally withheld nearly $7 billion in formula funds, and proposed to fully eliminate many of the programs included in the latest transfer,” the senators wrote in a letter to Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, chair of the committee that oversees education. “In our minds, that is unacceptable.” 

    So, what really happened to education this year? It was almost impossible for the average observer to keep track of the array of changes across colleges and universities, K-12 schools, early education and education research — and what it has all meant. This is a look back at how the education world was transformed. 

    Related: Tracking Trump: How he’s dismantling the Education Department and more 

    Higher education

    The administration was especially forceful in the higher education arena. It used measures including antidiscrimination law to quickly freeze billions of dollars in higher education research funding, interrupting years-long medical studies and coercing Columbia, Brown, Northwestern and other institutions into handing over multimillion-dollar payments and agreeing to policy changes demanded by the administration.

    A more widespread “compact” promising preference for federal funding to universities that agreed to largely ideological principles had almost no takers. But in the face of government threats, universities and colleges scrapped diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs that provided support based on race and other characteristics, and banned transgender athletes from competing on teams corresponding to genders other than the ones they were assigned at birth.

    As the administration unleashed its set of edicts, Republicans in Congress also expanded taxes on college and university endowments. And the One Big Beautiful Bill Act made other big changes to higher education, such as limiting graduate student borrowing and eliminating certain loan forgiveness programs. That includes public service loan forgiveness for graduates who take jobs with organizations the administration designated as having a “substantial illegal purpose” because they help refugees or transgender youth. In response, states, cities, labor unions and nonprofits immediately filed suit, arguing that the rule violated the First Amendment. 

    The administration has criticized universities, colleges and liberal students for curbing the speech of conservatives by shouting them down or blocking their appearances on campuses. However, it proceeded to revoke the visas of and begin deportation proceedings against international students who joined protests or wrote opinions criticizing Israeli actions in Gaza and U.S. government policy there.  

    Meanwhile, emboldened legislatures and governors in red states pushed back on what faculty could say in classrooms. College presidents including James Ryan at the University of Virginia and Mark Welsh III at Texas A&M were forced out in the aftermath of controversies over these issues. — Jon Marcus

    Related: How Trump 2.0 upended education research and statistics in one year  

    K-12 education

    Since Donald Trump returned to office earlier this year, K-12 schools have lost millions of dollars in sweeping cuts to federal grants, including money that helped schools serve students who are deaf or blind, grants that bolstered the dwindling rural teacher workforce and funding for Wi-Fi hotspots. 

    Last summer, the Trump administration briefly froze billions of dollars in federal funding for schools on June 30, one day before districts would typically apply to receive it. Although the money was restored in late July, some school leaders said they no longer felt confident they’ll receive all expected federal funds next year. And they are braced for more cuts to federal budgets as the U.S. Department of Education is dismembered.

    That process, as well as the end goal of returning the department’s responsibilities to the states, has raised uncertainty about whether federal money will continue to be earmarked for the same purposes. If the state of Illinois is in charge of federal funding for every school in the state, said Todd Dugan, superintendent of a rural Illinois district, will rural schools still get money to boost student achievement or will the state decide there are more pressing needs?  

    As part of layoffs at the Education Department during the government shutdown in the fall, the Trump administration cut loose almost everyone who works in the Office of Special Education Programs, alarming many parents and advocates. About 7.5 million children ages 3 to 21 are served under federal law protecting students with disabilities, and the office had already lost staffers after the Trump administration dismissed nearly half the Education Department’s staff in March. Some worry this additional round of layoffs is a big step toward moving oversight of how states treat students with disabilities to the Department of Health and Human Services.

    Even as the Trump administration attempts to push more control over education to the states, it has aggressively expanded federal power over school choice and transgender student rights in public schools. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act will create a federal school voucher program, allowing taxpayers to donate up to $1,700 for scholarships that families can use to pay for private school. The program won’t start until 2027, and states can choose whether to participate — setting up potentially divisive fights over new money for education in Democratic-controlled states. 

    Already, some Democratic-led states have come to the defense of schools in funding and legal fights with the federal government over transgender athletes participating in sports. The U.S. departments of Education and Justice launched a special investigations team to look into complaints of Title IX violations, targeting school districts and states that don’t restrict accommodations or civil rights protections for transgender students. Legal experts expect the U.S. Supreme Court to ultimately decide how Title IX — a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education — applies to public schools.

    The federal government directly runs just two systems of schools — one for military families and the other for children of tribal nations. In an executive order signed in January, the president directed both systems to offer parents a portion of federal funding allocated to their children to attend private, religious or charter schools. 

    And as part of the dismantling of the federal Education Department, the Interior Department — which oversees 183 tribal schools across nearly two dozen states — will assume greater control of Indian education programs. In addition to rolling out school choice at its campuses, the department will take over Indian education grants to public schools across the country, Native language programs, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian programs, tribally controlled colleges and universities, and many other institutions. — Ariel Gilreath and Neal Morton

    Related: Trump administration makes good on many Project 2025 education goals

    Early education

    Early education was not at the top of Trump’s agenda when he returned to office. On the campaign trail, when asked if he would support legislation to make child care affordable, he gave an unfocused answer, suggesting tariff revenue could be tapped to bring down costs. Asked a similar question, Vice President JD Vance suggested that care by family members was one potential solution to child care shortages. 

    However, many of the administration’s actions, including cuts to the government workforce and grants, have affected children who depend on federal support. In April, the administration abruptly closed five of 10 regional offices supporting Head Start, the free, federally funded early childhood program for children from low-income families. Head Start program managers worried they would be caught up in a freeze on grant funding that affected all agencies. Even though administration officials said funds would keep flowing to Head Start, some centers reported having problems drawing down their money. The prolonged government shutdown, which ended Nov. 12 after 43 days, also forced some Head Start programs to temporarily close. 

    Though the shutdown is over, Head Start advocates are still worried. Many of the administration’s actions have been guided by the Project 2025 policy document created by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Project 2025 calls for eliminating Head Start, which serves about 715,000 children from birth to age 5, for a savings of about $12 billion a year. 

    The One Big Beautiful Bill Act contained some perks for parents, including an increase in the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,200. The bill also created a new program called Trump accounts: Families can contribute up to $5,000 each year until a child turns 18, at which point the Trump account will turn into an individual retirement account. For children born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028, the government will provide a $1,000 bonus. Billionaires Michael and Susan Dell have also promised to contribute $250 to the account of each child ages 10 and under who lives in a ZIP code with a median household income of $150,000 or less. 

    That program will launch in summer 2026. — Christina A. Samuels

    Contact staff writer Nirvi Shah at 212-678-3445, on Signal at NirviShah.14 or [email protected].   

    This story about the Trump administration’s impact on education was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/how-education-changed-in-one-year-under-trump/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=113955&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/how-education-changed-in-one-year-under-trump/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • The politics of representation

    The politics of representation

    When I searched for Sarah McBride’s name on March 12, the first thing I saw was a story about a member of the U.S. Congress calling her “Mr. McBride” in an official hearing.

    Ms. McBride is the first congressional representative in United States history to be openly transgender.

    Since 18 November 2024, when McBride was elected to Congress, I’ve seen dozens of articles in which the only thing in question is her gender identity. It’s funny that Republicans in the U.S. Congress have made such a fuss over McBride’s gender, while McBride – the only congressperson representing the state of Delaware – has done nothing of the sort.

    For someone so polarised and one-dimensional by the media, McBride seems intent on collaboration.

    Delawareans have been overwhelmingly supportive of McBride. A University of Delaware poll, which recorded the pre-election numbers, had McBride at 52% of the vote, while her opponent, John Whalen, received 30%. Sarah McBride ended up with a 58% return, which could be considered a landslide.

    This starkly contrasted primaries across the country, with many states flipping Republican, that had gone Democrat in 2020.

    So, what’s the difference between Delaware and McBride, compared to the rest of the nation?

    What voters care about

    For starters, Delaware, where I live, is minuscule compared to its sister states. These conditions make Delaware not only ideal grounds to break history on, but also the only place it could have happened for McBride.

    Delaware does not boast a large number of gay and trans people. A UCLA poll found that only 4.5% of citizens in Delaware are queer and trans and over half are under voting age. By and large, McBride was elected by a primarily straight electorate.

    This election did not contrast with the national sentiment of Democrats. A Pew Research study found that about 64% of Americans believe trans people should be protected from discrimination when it comes to employment, housing, and education. Additionally, democrats had even stronger support of the notion that gender is not assigned at birth.

    Simply put, Delaware and McBride are a good fit.

    McBride is calm, composed, and focusing on her Delaware constituents more than anything else. In fact, she is the first freshman democrat in the 119th Congress to bring a bill to the floor. A bipartisan bill protecting consumers from credit appraisal scams.

    Opposition from Republicans

    Some congressional Republicans prefer to call McBride names rather than work to make a stronger nation.

    Describing McBride’s welcome to D.C. can be summarized in two words: Political Theatre.

    On McBride’s first visit to D.C., she was greeted by a ban on the use of bathrooms in the house by transgender people brought forward by Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace. This pointed attack by Representative Mace didn’t seem to affect McBride, who was more focused on: “Delivering on the issues that keep Delawareans up at night.”

    In recent months, McBride has been subject to even more unwarranted scrutiny and misnomers from her republican colleagues.

    I spoke with McBride to hear her plans for Delaware, her response to President Trump’s actions, and what she has accomplished thus far in her congressional term.

    Jack McConnel: What was your main reason to run for congressional office? 

    Sarah McBride: So my interest in politics was really rooted in my own journey to authenticity as a young person, as someone growing up here in Delaware, I was scared. I wondered whether the heart of this country was big enough to love someone like me.

    And I faced a crisis of hope. And in that crisis of hope, I went searching for solutions and examples of our world becoming kinder and fairer. And I found a little glimmer of hope as I read history books and saw the through line of every chapter was a story of advocates, activists and a handful of courageous and effective elected officials working together to right the wrongs of our past, to address injustice, to bring people from the shadows and the margins of society into the circle of opportunity.

    I ultimately decided to run for office, though, in 2019 for the state Senate was really the byproduct of my experience as a caregiver to my husband during his battle with terminal cancer.

    Because I know despite the fact that Andy lost his life to cancer, I know how lucky we were. I know how lucky he was to have health insurance that allowed him to get care that prolonged his life. And I know how lucky both of us were to have flexibility with our jobs that allowed him to focus on the full-time job of getting care and me to focus on the full-time job of caring for him.

    McConnel: What are you most proud of so far in your term?

    McBride: First is that I’ve introduced multiple bipartisan bills.

    One with [California Republican] Young Kim that provides consumer protections for Americans against the predatory practices of so-called credit repair organizations.

    The second more recently with [Republican] Representative Mike Lawler from New York, which protects farmers and in so doing helps to lower costs for Delawareans at the grocery store by investing in combating avian flu.

    McConnel: How do you think the Democratic party should respond to the results of the 2024 election?

    McBride: What we can do is we can help to mobilize the public against [President Donald Trump]. Public opinion still matters. We are still under democracy. These people still care about their popularity. They still care about the next election and the goal in this moment as we defend Medicaid in the short run.

    The goal in this moment also has to be to make sure that this president, that the public understands the harms that this president is inflicting on people of every political persuasion across the country. As the public mobilizes against this president, it throws sand in the gears of an authoritarian machine that slows it down, that extends the runway of our democracy so that we can get to the next election and get to the next election.

    McConnel: How do you plan on responding to these movements?

    McBride: Fighting back against that is at the top of my priority list at this moment. In the longer term, obviously, there is an answer to your question, a real effort by this president to illegally and unconstitutionally consolidate power to essentially create absolute power.

    I mean, his first step is to employ what’s called the unitary executive theory, which is absolute authority within the executive branch under the purview of Congress. But he’s also clearly trying to undermine the main power of Congress, the power of the purse. He’s questionable about whether he’s going to listen to the Supreme Court and when all is said and done, making sure that we can’t stop every action by this president. The results of the last election give us limited institutional levers.

    McConnel: Thank you, Representative McBride.

    The main concern McBride reiterated again and again was what she was doing for the Delawareans who elected her. McBride took every opportunity during our interview to highlight the issues most relevant to her constituents. She talked to me about the effort to defund programs Delawareans rely on.

    When asked about what the Democratic Party should be doing going forward, McBride said that Democrats have lost the “art of social change” and that they must be willing to meet people where they are and engage in conversations where people disagree. She pointed towards the 2026 midterms as a place to build momentum towards.

    McBride said when Democrats try to sound the alarm about everything the president is doing, it dilutes the effect of the message. “We can’t ever go to 10 if we’re always at 10,” she said.

    McBride’s goal? Slow down Trump where she can and build support going into 2026.

     

    Questions to consider: 

    1. In what way does Representative Sarah McBride get treated differently than her Congressional colleagues?

    2. What did Delaware voters care about when they voted to elected McBride to Congress?

    3. If you were to vote for a government representative, what issues do you most want that person to tackle?

     

    Source link

  • HHS Condemns Gender-Affirming Care in Report That Finds ‘Sparse’ Evidence of Harm – The 74

    HHS Condemns Gender-Affirming Care in Report That Finds ‘Sparse’ Evidence of Harm – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    This story was originally reported by Orion Rummler of The 19th. Meet Orion and read more of his reporting on gender, politics and policy.

    On Thursday, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a 400-page analysis of research on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, as directed by President Donald Trump. The agency used the release of the report to declare that available science does not support providing gender-affirming care to trans youth. LGBTQ+ advocacy groups worry the report will be used to further restrict gender-affirming care and to change medical guidelines in ways that harm trans youth.

    The president mandated the report in an executive order condemning the medical treatment — without evidence — as a form of mutilation, amid a broader push by the administration to exclude trans people from public life. Trump’s order asked the health agency to review the “best practices for promoting the health of children who assert gender dysphoria,” while pressuring youth clinics to halt treatment or lose federal funding.

    Now, the HHS has produced that report. The agency combed through research on the outcomes of puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy, social transition, psychotherapy, and the rare cases of surgeries on adolescents and young adults diagnosed with gender dysphoria. 

    Gender dysphoria, the reason that most trans people undergo gender-affirming care, is a strong and persistent distress felt when one’s body is out of sync with their gender identity. Without treatment, gender dysphoria can lead to severe negative impacts in day-to-day life. 

    The agency states in its executive summary of the report that the document is not meant to provide clinical practice guidelines or issue legislative or policy recommendations. However, the report does imply that health care providers should refuse to offer gender-affirming care to adolescents and young adults on the basis that such care comes with the potential for risk — despite little evidence for that risk actually being found in the report. 

    “The evidence for benefit of pediatric medical transition is very uncertain, while the evidence for harm is less uncertain,” the executive summary states. “When medical interventions pose unnecessary, disproportionate risks of harm, healthcare providers should refuse to offer them even when they are preferred, requested, or demanded by patients.”

    In its research review, the HHS determined that evidence measuring the effects of gender-affirming care on psychological outcomes, quality of life, regret and long-term health is of “very low” quality. This conclusion ignores decades of research, as well as a recent survey of more than 90,000 transgender people in the United States that found an overwhelming majority report more life satisfaction after having transitioned. Access to gender-affirming care has been linked to lower odds of suicidality and depression in trans youth, while gender-affirming surgeries have been found to lower psychological distress for adults.

    Even when analyzing research that the administration deemed low-bias, the HHS found “sparse” to no evidence of harm from gender-affirming care. What’s more, the report frequently found evidence demonstrating the benefits of gender-affirming care — though it ultimately downplays those findings as not significant. 

    Available research on puberty blockers found high satisfaction ratings and low rates of regret. A systematic review of hormone replacement therapy described improved gender dysphoria and body satisfaction. Another found that hormone treatment leads to improved mental health. Two before-and-after studies reported reduced treatment needs or lower levels of suicidality and self-harm after hormone treatment. When measuring safety outcomes of hormone treatment, side effects did not have a major impact on treatment and complications were limited. 

    Despite these findings, the Department of Health and Human Services advertised the report in a Thursday news release as one that “highlights a growing body of evidence pointing to significant risks” of gender-affirming care. At the White House briefing room Thursday, deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller touted the new report and attributed the idea of being transgender as part of a “cancerous communist woke culture” that is “destroying this country.” 

    There are side effects to many of the medications that transgender people — and cisgender people — take to receive gender-affirming care, as is the case with most medical treatments. These side effects, like the risk of decreased bone density when taking puberty blockers, are closely monitored and treated by doctors and communicated to patients.

    LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations denounced the report as a political attack on transgender youth. Multiple groups said that the report’s endorsement of psychotherapy as a “noninvasive alternative” to puberty blockers and hormone treatment amounts to an endorsement of conversion therapy — a practice wherein mental health professionals try to change a youth’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

    “It is already clear that this report is a willful distortion of the evidence intended to stoke fear about a field of safe and effective medicine that has existed for decades, in order to justify dangerous practices which amount to conversion therapy,” said Sinead Murano Kinney, health policy analyst at Advocates for Trans Equality. 

    The Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest LGBTQ+ rights organization, accused the HHS of producing a report that is attempting to lay the groundwork to replace medical care for trans and nonbinary people with conversion therapy. 

    “Trans people are who we are. We’re born this way. And we deserve to live our best lives and have a fair shot and equal opportunity at living a good life,” said Jay Brown, chief of staff at the Human Rights Campaign. “This report … lays the groundwork to push parents and doctors aside and allow politicians to subject our kids to the debunked practice of conversion therapy.” 

    No authors or contributors are named in the report or in its executive summary. The agency says these names are being initially withheld to “maintain the integrity of this process,” and states that chapters of the document were subject to peer review.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link