The Trump administration says it will withhold some federal funding from Chicago Public Schools over an initiative to improve outcomes for Black students and guidelines allowing transgender students to play sports and use facilities based on the gender with which they identify.
Craig Trainor, the acting assistant secretary of civil rights in the U.S. Department of Education, wrote the district Tuesday saying his office has found CPS violated anti-discrimination laws and will lose grant dollars through the Magnet School Assistance Program. The district, with a budget of roughly $10.2 billion, has a five-year, $15 million Magnet Schools Assistance Program grant it received last year.
The feds are demanding that the district abolish the Black Student Success Plan it unveiled in February and issue a statement saying it will require students to compete in sports or use locker rooms and bathroom facilities based on their biological sex at birth, among other demands.
However, Illinois law conflicts on both fronts, putting CPS in a difficult position. The state issued guidance in March that outlines compliance with the Illinois Human Rights Law, including that schools must allow transgender students access to facilities that correspond to their gender identity. Separately, an Illinois law passed in 2024 requires the Chicago school board to have a Black Student Achievement Committee and plan for serving Black students.
Chicago Public Schools said Wednesday in an emailed statement that it “does not comment on ongoing investigations.” Previously, its leaders have said that the Black Students Success Plan is a priority to address longstanding academic and discipline disparities that Black students face. They have vowed to forge ahead with the five-year plan in defiance of the Trump administration’s crackdown on race-based initiatives.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson said earlier this year that he would take the Trump administration to court if it takes federal funding away from CPS because of the district’s diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. His office also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In response to a complaint from a Virginia-based conservative nonprofit earlier this year, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights opened an investigation into the Black Student Success Plan, which sets goals to double the number of male Black teachers, reduce Black student suspensions, and teach Black history in more classrooms. Trainor said in his department’s interpretation, the initiative runs afoul of a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year banning the consideration of race in college admissions by offering added support to Black students and teachers exclusively.
“This is textbook racial discrimination, and no justification proffered by CPS can overcome the patent illegality of its racially exclusionary plan,” he wrote.
The OCR also launched an investigation in March of CPS, the Illinois State Board of Education, and suburban Deerfield Public School District 109 to look into their policies on transgender students using facilities and participating in school sports. Trainor said Chicago’s Guidelines Regarding the Support of Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students violate Title IX, the federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education.
District officials told Chalkbeat recently that the members of a new school board Black Student Achievement Committee tasked with overseeing the plan’s rollout will be unveiled later this month.
Stacy Davis Gates, the president of the Chicago Teachers Union, issued a statement decrying the federal move to withhold funds from CPS and saying the district will stay the course.
“We will not back down,” she said in the statement. “We will not apologize. Our duty is to our students, and no amount of political bullying will shake our commitment to them.”
Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Do transgender student athletes’ involvement in girls’ and women’s sports — an issue that has recently jeopardized schools’ federal funding — fall under government efficiency and oversight? That question starkly divided lawmakers among party lines in a nearly 4-hour hearing on Wednesday held by the Delivering on Government Efficiency Subcommittee, a newly-formed subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability.
The DOGE Subcommittee hearing — meant to discuss the politically charged issue of Title IX and transgender student rights that has taken center stage under the Trump administration — quickly deteriorated to repeated gavel-banging, a motion to adjourn the meeting, disagreement over the committee’s purpose, arguments over lawmakers’ allotted speaking times, and discussions of differences in male and female elbow-joint anatomy and muscle mass.
The subcommittee was created to oversee “federal civil service, including compensation, classification, and benefits; federal property disposal; government reorganizations and operations, including transparency, performance, grants management, and accounting measures generally,” according to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s rule book.
Witnesses included two cisgender female athletes advocating for athletic teams without transgender students, the chair for the USA Fencing Board of Directors, and the CEO of National Women’s Law Center, a nonprofit organization that advocates for LGBTQ+ rights.
Republican lawmakers, who have called for less federal oversight of education and a return of that power to the states, said the hearing was necessary because it related to Title IX, a federal law meant to prohibit sex discrimination in federally funded education programs.
“It’s an important issue that biological men stay out of women’s sports,” said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, chair of the committee and Republican from Georgia.
Rep. William Timmons, R-S.C., said the hearing was meant to “shine a light not only on the integrity of women’s sports,” but also on how institutions like USA Fencing and others may be misusing their authority to “push controversial policies that violate basic human rights and disregard their Congressionally-authorized mission.”
“This is what happens when you allow God to be pushed out of everything,” added Rep. Eli Crane, R-Ariz.
Democratic lawmakers at the hearing, however, said it was a waste of the subcommittee’s time and did not fall under the body’s jurisdiction, which instead includes issues like proposed cuts across the government.
“This subcommittee could be focusing on the layoffs that President Trump has executed: over 200,000 firings of federal employees,” said Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass. “That does affect the efficiency of our government programs.”
Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., concurred, saying the subcommittee has “never really talked about government efficiency or any serious legislative work,” and that he was “surprised that this subcommittee is not apparently in charge of policing women’s sports.”
Stephanie Turner, left, a fencer who refused to compete against a transgender athlete, and Payton McNabb, right, a former North Carolina high school volleyball player injured by a transgender opponent, are sworn in during the hearing held by the Delivering on Government Efficiency Subcommittee at the U.S. Capitol on May 7, 2025, in Washington, D.C.
Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images via Getty Images
DOGE impacts on K-12
The DOGE Subcommittee is among the latest in a series of efforts by the Trump administration and Republicans to cut back on what they say are instances of abuse, fraud and waste in the government. Its formation is an extension of similar efforts conducted by the Department of Government Efficiency, also referred to as DOGE.
Those efforts have had major implications for the K-12 sector in recent months, including gutting the Education Department by laying off more than 1,300 employees, closing or significantly reducing its offices, canceling grants entirely or retracting grant competitions, and proposing a 15% cut to the department’s funding.
The reduction in expenses from DOGE’s efforts is also expected to put a strain on K-12 finances, according to a Moody’s report released in April.
Among DOGE cuts were seven of the Education Department’s 12 local offices for the Office for Civil Rights, leaving schools with reduced oversight of civil rights compliance. Those offices were in charge of investigating allegations of Title IX violations — the subject of the hearing Wednesday — for half of states.
The Education Department has since announced a Title IX Special Investigations Team, which taps the Department of Justice for investigations and ultimate enforcement of the separation of transgender students from girls’ and women’s athletics teams and spaces in schools and colleges.
One such investigation recently conducted by the Education Department and referred to the Justice Department for enforcement has put on the line almost $864 million of Maine’s federal education funding, which it said could be cut for past and present Title IX violations. Those violations were found over the state’s policy allowing transgender athletes to play on girls’ and women’s sports teams.
The Department of Justice, in suing the state last month, said “many, many states” were next, including California and Minnesota, which are currently under investigation for alleged Title IX and FERPA violations related to transgender issues like school sports participation and gender support plans.
Title IX civil rights complaints have historically come second to disability-related complaints when excluding thousands of sex discrimination complaints that were filed by a single person in recent fiscal years, skewing OCR data.
Disability-related complaints were briefly paused by the administration after Trump took office and then resumed after reports emerged of thousands of OCR investigations coming to an abrupt halt.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Almost immediately after taking office, President Donald Trump launched a flurry of executive orders and policy directives that threaten to roll back the civil rights of transgender and nonbinary students and erase their identities. The administration has also targeted colleges that support transgender inclusion.
Despite these moves, legal experts and transgender rights experts say college leaders can protect transgender and nonbinary students and make their campuses welcoming spaces. That type of support can be crucial to recruit those students, as well as improve their mental health and well-being on campus.
But implementing affirming policies for those students can be challenging, as institutions risk losing federal funding or facing Title IX investigations under the policies now in place.
Another executive order, which was blocked by a federal court, withheld federal funding to medical providers that provide gender-affirming care, such as puberty blockers and hormone therapies, to transgender people under the age of 19. An additional order directed federal agencies to end “equity-related” grants “to the maximum extent allowed by law.”
The U.S. Department of Education also issued guidance in late January advising education leaders to follow the previous Trump administration’s Title IX regulations after the Biden-era version of the rules were struck down. The Trump administration’s letter stated the department will enforce Title IX in a way that is consistent with Trump’s executive order mandating the federal government only recognize two sexes that cannot be changed.
This interpretation stands in contrast with the Biden-era version of the Title IX rules, which had prohibited discrimination based on gender identity.The Biden administration also withdrew proposed Title IX rules in December that would have barred blanket bans on transgender students participating on sports teams aligning with their gender identity.
Yet another executive order targeted an extremely small sliver of student athletes nationwide by threatening to withhold federal funding from colleges or K-12 schools that allow transgender girls and women from competing in sports aligning with their gender identity. The NCAA revised its policies to comply with the order.
The new administration has already opened Title IX investigations into San José State University, the University of Pennsylvania, the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, and othersthat allow or have allowed transgender women or girls to participate on teams corresponding with their gender identity.
However, the enforceability of the Trump administration’s recent executive orders, which are essentially “ideological policy statements,” has not yet been determined, said Elana Redfield, federal policy director at the University of California, Los Angeles’ Williams Institute.
At the very least, colleges shouldn’t be rushing to implement “harmful and discriminatory policies” before they are legally required to do so, said Jose Abrigo, an attorney and HIV project director for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. The policies could be blocked or modified by the courts and preemptive compliance could “needlessly harm students,” he said.
The executive orders try to suppress speech, erase identities and punish those who affirm the existence of transgender and nonbinary people on college campuses — institutions that are meant to be “bastions of free thought and open discourse,” Abrigo said.
“Academic institutions should be places where truth is explored, not dictated,” Abrigo said, “where students are empowered to live authentically, not forced into silence by discriminatory and unconstitutional edicts from the president.”
How colleges can protect trans students
College leaders have several ways to affirm and protect their transgender and nonbinary students, experts say.
Higher ed institutions are in the business of education, so they should be informing students about what gender-affirming care is available and how they can access it, said Genny Beemyn, director of the Stonewall Center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
They should also educate students about their options for changing their name and gender markers on legal documents and their rights concerning use of locker rooms or restrooms corresponding to their gender identities both nationally and in their own states, they added.
Policies allowing students to easily change their names across campus can be effective, said Sarah Lipson, a public health professor at Boston University. These allow a transgender student to enter a new classroom and avoid a faculty member referring to them by their deadname — a name given to them that they no longer use, she said.
But those policies should be flexible, such as including a transgender student’s deadname in communications to their family if they are not out at home, she said.
Colleges also need to provide support to transgender and nonbinary students through campus counseling centers, Beemyn said. Smaller colleges without counseling centers can refer students to outside therapists that work with transgender or nonbinary people, they said.
Gender-inclusive housing is also critical for transgender students, Lipson said. Placing transgender students in single occupancy dorms to avoid pairing them with another student who shares their gender assigned at birth is “not inclusive,” she said.
“That’s really changing the college environment for the trans student by saying you have to live by yourself in order to be part of this community,” Lipson said.
Public colleges in red states with transgender-affirming restrictions have other options to support or recruit transgender and nonbinary students, Lipson said. For instance, they could limit pronoun use on admission documents, referring instead to students by their names. Colleges could also use plural or gender-neutral pronouns instead of “he or she” or “your son or daughter,” she said.
“It requires combing through a lot of materials, but most importantly the front-facing admissions materials to ensure that those are not unnecessarily reinforcing a gender binary,” Lipson said.
The biggest thing colleges could do now is not erase their transgender and nonbinary students, Abrigo said. Instead, campus officials should recognize their existence, affirm their identities, and ensure they have access to the resources and support they need, he said.
College leaders can simply send messages to students, reminding them that transgender and nonbinary students matter, that they’re part of the campus community and that they’re aware of the threats against them, Lipson said.
“Some of these students that we’ve talked to in red states were really reflecting that,” Lipson said. “‘We feel that people are really looking out for us to the extent that they can.’”
Non-affirming campuses could impact mental health
The mental health impact of the executive orders on students can vary — depending in part on where they are in the process of coming out as transgender or nonbinary, Beemyn said.
Beemyn is working on a study that asks transgender students if the national climate is affecting whether they are willing to be out about their gender identity.
Some students in liberal states or at progressive colleges — especially those with a strong support network — don’t feel the effects of national politics as much, Beemyn said. However, the national discourse has prompted some students to say they are less likely to come out to new people and want to be less visible, they said.
“It would make logical sense that if someone can’t be themselves and has to hide who they are, that’s going to have negative effects on someone’s sense of well-being and sense of belonging, community and self-worth,” Beemyn said.
The prevalence of mental health issues is disproportionately high among higher ed students who are transgender and nonbinary — but those rates can differ from campus to campus, Lipson said.
“It would make logical sense that if someone can’t be themselves and has to hide who they are, that’s going to have negative effects on someone’s sense of well-being and sense of belonging, community and self-worth.”
Genny Beemyn
Director, Stonewall Center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Boston Universityresearchers analyzed national data from more than 11,000 transgender and nonbinary students at about 250 U.S. colleges and universities collected between 2022 and 2024.
Overall, the research showed just 16% of transgender and nonbinary students are “flourishing” on campus. But that rate is much higher at some campuses, reaching 50% at some institutions, said Lipson.
The rate of students experiencing symptoms of depression also fluctuated widely across colleges, from about 33% to upwards of 90% of transgender and nonbinary students, Lipson said. The rate of anxiety varied dramatically as well, ranging between 28% and 82%, she said.
The researchers haven’t yet examined which institutional policies might account for differences in mental health outcomes across campuses, but they plan to explore that next, said Lipson.
Even so, researchers already know access to mental health care varies greatly. At some campuses, as few as 30% of transgender students said they had access to competent mental health care, compared with over 80% at other institutions,Lipson said.
“There is a lot of variation in all of these outcomes — mental health, treatment use, and discrimination as well,” said Lipson. “That suggests that college campuses are playing a role in explaining this variation.”
Complying with the anti-trans laws
Many conservative states have enacted anti-transgender laws, including statutes barring transgender students from participating in athletics or using locker rooms or bathrooms that align with their gender identities. Finding a balance between complying with anti-trans policies while minimizing harm to transgender and nonbinary students can be challenging.
In February, new restroom signs at the University of Cincinnati reading “biological men” and “biological women” sparked student outcry.
The university stated it was following a Ohio law that took effect Feb. 25 requiring schools to designate multi-person student restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms and showers to be used exclusively by students of the male or female “biological sex only.”The law requires “clear signage” to make those designations.
But on Feb. 26, university administrators apologized in a letter to students and said they would replace the signs,adding that use of the term “biological” on the signs was “an error on our part.”Republican state Rep. Adam Bird, who cosponsored the bill, reportedly said the term “biological” wasn’t needed on the signs to comply with the law.
“Academic institutions should be places where truth is explored, not dictated.”
Jose Abrigo
HIV project director, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
As with state laws, colleges should take Trump’s executive orders as serious threats that merit a response to protect the organization, UCLA’s Redfield said. A loss of federal funding could be consequential, considering higher ed institutions provide a wealth of research and data collection about the experiences of transgender people, she said.
College leaders should likewise understand the threats are motivated not by science, but by ideology and bias against transgender and nonbinary people, Redfield said.
Beemyn echoed those comments. The laws make it “impossible for [transgender and nonbinary students] to live their lives in a way that’s right for them. That’s a real denial of their humanity,” Beemyn said.
The University of Washington said it’s not taking any “preemptive actions” until it receives further guidance on how to comply with the Education Department’s Dear Colleague letter regarding Title IX enforcement.
“We are committed to providing access to excellence and a welcoming environment for all and believe that a breadth of perspectives and experiences make for a richer educational experience for everyone,” the University of Washington said in a Feb. 25 statement to Higher Ed Dive.
If higher education institutions like the University of Washington and others want transgender and nonbinary students at their schools, they need to figure out ways to recognize their existence, said Redfield.
“They have to make it clear that their intention is to create an environment where trans and nonbinary students can thrive,” she said.
Australian researchers who receive United States funding have been asked to disclose links to China and whether they agree with US President Donald Trump’s “two sexes” executive order.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
Two transgender high school athletes are challenging in federal court President Donald Trump’s Feb. 5 executive order banning transgender girls and women from participating in sports aligned with their gender identity.
Originally filed against a New Hampshire state law that bars transgender girls in grades 5-12 from playing school sports, the lawsuit filed by Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle, is expanding to include Trump and the federal departments of justice and education among the defendants.
Tirrell and Turmelle, represented by GLAD Law and the ACLU of New Hampshire, allege Trump’s executive order is discriminatory and violates their federal equal protection guarantees under the 14th Amendment and their rights under Title IX.
Dive Insight:
Henry Klementowicz, deputy legal director at ACLU of NH, said in a Wednesday statement that every child in the state deserves “a right to equal opportunities at school.”
“We’re expanding our lawsuit to challenge President Trump’s executive orders because, like the state law, it excludes, singles out, and discriminates against transgender students and insinuates that they are not deserving of the same educational opportunities as all other students,” Klementowicz said.
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire previously ordered in September that the two students could play sports on teams corresponding with their gender identities while Tirrell and Turmelle v. Edelblut advanced.
Trump’s “No Men in Women’s Sports” executive order, which is now being targeted by the lawsuit, calls for a recission of all federal funds from educational programs that allow transgender girls and women to participate in girls’ sports. The order also directs the U.S. secretary of education to zero in on Title IX enforcement against K-12 schools and colleges where girls and women are required “to compete with or against or to appear unclothed before males.”
The day after Trump issued that executive order, the U.S. Department of Education opened Title IX investigations into a middle and high school athletics association in Massachusetts, as well as two universities, on the basis that they allowed transgender girls and women to play on teams aligned with their gender identity.
Trump’s order further directs the U.S. Department of Justice to abide by the nationwide vacatur from a recent court order by a federal judge who struck down the Biden administration’s Title IX rule in January. The Biden-era Title IX rule was the first time protections were codified for LGBTQI+ students and employees at federally funded schools under the anti-sex discrimination law.
After that January court decision, the Education Department said it would enforce the Title IX regulations finalized in 2020 during the first Trump administration.
On February 5, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.” The order aims to bar transgender women and girls from participating in women’s sports by directing agencies to withdraw federal funding from schools that refuse to comply with the order.
The EO claims that, in recent years, educational institutions and athletic associations have allowed men to compete in women’s sports, which the Trump administration believes denies women and girls equal opportunity to participate in competitive sports, thus violating Title IX. As a result, the EO sets policy to “rescind all funds from educational programs that deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities” and to “oppose male competitive participation in women’s sports more broadly.”
With respect to the specific actions ordered, the EO directs the secretary of education to ensure compliance with the court order to vacate the Biden administration’s Title IX rule and to take other actions to ensure that the 2024 regulations do not have effect. It also directs the secretary to take action to “protect all-female athletic opportunities” by setting forth regulations and policy guidance that clearly specifies and clarifies “that women’s sports are reserved for women.”
Notably, the EO further directs all federal agencies to review grants to educational programs and to rescind funding to programs that fail to comply with policy set forth in the EO. Institutions with grant programs deemed to be noncompliant with this order could, therefore, risk losing federal funding for that program.
The EO also seeks quick enforcement by federal agencies. The EO orders the Department of Education to prioritize Title IX enforcement actions against educational institutions and athletic associations that “deny female students an equal opportunity to participate in sports and athletic events.” The Department of Justice is also tasked with providing resources to relevant agencies to ensure “expeditious enforcement” of the policy set forth in the EO.
Finally, the EO directs the assistant to the president for domestic policy to convene both major athletic organizations and state attorneys general to promote policies consistent with Title IX and identify best practices in enforcing equal opportunities for women to participate in sports.
On February 6, the NCAA updated its policy regarding transgender student-athlete participation in response to the EO. According to the NCAA, the new policy limits competition in women’s sports to student-athletes assigned female at birth, but it allows student-athletes assigned male at birth to practice with women’s teams and receive benefits while practicing with them. For men’s sports, student-athletes may participate in practice and competition regardless of their sex assigned at birth or their gender identity, assuming all other eligibility requirements are met.
Institutions should review their policies and practices in light of the EO and the NCAA’s policy change. CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for Title IX updates and keep members apprised of new enforcement under the Trump administration.
From an executive order that requires colleges to ban transgender women from gender-aligning sports teams to a multi-billion shortfall in the Pell Grant program, here are the top-line figures from some of our biggest stories of the week.
By the numbers
100%
The portion of federal funding to colleges, K-12 schools and other education programs could lose if they allow transgender girls and women to participate on sports teams aligning with their gender identity. The new policy stems from an executive order President Donald Trump signed Wednesday.
42
The number of pages in a lawsuit seeking to block Trump’s executive orders targeting diversity, equity and inclusion activities, including those in higher education. The complaint — filed by the American Association of University Professors and the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education — described Trump’s orders as overly vague, an overstep of presidential authority, and a threat to free speech.
$2.7 billion
The projected deficit of the federal Pell Grant program at the end of fiscal year 2025, according to a January report from the Congressional Budget Office. One nonprofit warned the shortfall could lead to program cuts in fiscal 2026 on par with those seen during the Great Recession.
4.3%
The rise in state funding for higher ed in fiscal 2025 before inflation, according to early data from the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association’s annual Grapevine report. In all, 41 states increased their higher funding or held it flat, while nine cut it back.
3
The number of military colleges under control of the U.S. Department of Defense. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the trio to nix all race-, ethnicity- or sex-based admissions goals and DEI efforts, and required them to teach that “America and its founding documents remain the most powerful force for good in human history.”
June is Pride Month, dedicated to celebrating the richness and history of the LGBTQIA+ community. In addition to ensuring regulatory compliance, higher ed HR has an important role to play in creating a truly inclusive campus. A fundamental part of celebrating Pride is actively learning from and listening to this community, especially as the population of LGBTQIA+ employees continues to grow.
This Pride, CUPA-HR is spotlighting the voices of transgender and nonbinary employees by offering resources to empower HR in improving culture, policies and procedures for this group. Even if significant institutional change is not something you’re in a position to initiate, individual actions can add up. In addition to learning from the below resources, you can network with your colleagues at other institutions to provide support, personally recognize national days of awareness or remembrance, and encourage allyship.
Inclusion of Transgender and Nonbinary Employees in the Workplace: A Critical Conversation (Watch Now)
In this webinar, recorded in May, Jon Humiston of Central Michigan University and Aaric Guerriero of the Froedtert Health System explore ways to celebrate and embrace transgender and nonbinary employees.
They address frequently asked questions about transgender and nonbinary issues, including what terms are commonly used within the LGBTQIA+ community and what happens if you accidentally misgender someone. They also recommend best practices for inclusion, including:
Using gender-neutral language. For example, instead of “ladies and gentleman,” Jon suggests “amazing humans,” “everyone,” or “y’all.”
Changing paperwork and job descriptions if they mention just two gender pronouns — for example, he or she — to inclusive language like “they.”
Sharing your pronouns in your email signature and Zoom profile, so others feel comfortable doing the same.
Gender-Inclusive HR Strategies: Are You on the Right Track? (Read Now)
This blog post proposes a framework for higher ed HR practitioners to address their gender inclusion strategies. A checklist of questions will help you audit your efforts on campus, covering: policies and procedures (for example, do you have a name-in-use policy or chosen-name policy that is easy to access and navigate?); programmatic support (e.g., do you have LGBTQIA+ safe-zone training available for all employees?); and visibility (e.g., does your institution have a presence at local LGBTQIA+ pride events?). Reviewing these questions will help you identify gaps in your inclusion efforts.
This Knowledge Center toolkit, while not specifically about trans and nonbinary employees, covers legal obligations under Title VII and Title IX and supplies applicable guidelines from the Equal Opportunity and Employment Commission and Office for Civil Rights. Best practices and example policies are also included — for example, on name changes in official forms.
On April 6, the U.S. Department of Education released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on student eligibility for athletic teams under Title IX. The proposed rulemaking focuses on transgender students’ eligibility to participate on athletic teams as legislation and policies at the federal, state and local levels have been introduced to ban transgender student participation in athletic programs.
Under the NPRM, schools that receive federal funding would not be permitted to adopt or apply a “one-size-fits-all” ban on transgender students participating on teams consistent with their gender identity. Instead, the proposal allows schools the flexibility to develop team eligibility criteria that serves important educational objectives, such as fairness in competition and preventing sports-related injuries. The Department further explains that the eligibility criteria must take into account the sport, level of competition, and grade or education level of students participating, and the criteria would have to minimize harm to students whose opportunity to participate on a team consistent with their gender identity would be limited or denied.
The NPRM comes after the Biden administration announced its intention to release such a proposed rule after it excluded language on transgender student eligibility in athletics in its June 2022 Title IX proposed rule. The rule comes as policymakers at the federal, state and local levels have introduced and passed legislation that bans transgender participation on women’s athletic teams. Most recently, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 734, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, out of the Education and the Workforce Committee, where it now awaits a full floor vote. The bill would prohibit federally-funded education programs or activities to operate, sponsor or facilitate athletic programs or activities that allow individuals of the male sex to participate in programs or activities that are designated for women or girls, defining “sex” as an individual’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.
Public comments in response to the NPRM will be due 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. CUPA-HR will work with other higher education associations to fully analyze the NPRM and respond accordingly.
