Federal Government
HHS official discusses agency’s proposed LGBTQ-inclusive nondiscrimination rule
Proposed regulation change published Tuesday
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Tuesday for a new regulation that clarifies nondiscrimination rules on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
“The department is doing all that it can to protect access to health and human services,” Melanie Fontes Rainer, director of HHS’s Office of Civil Rights, told the Washington Blade by phone on Tuesday.
“This proposed rule is a step in that effort,” she said.
Health programs administered by the agency are covered by the nondiscrimination rules in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, Fontes Rainer said, so, “This rule is meant to get to that other slice of the pie that encompasses really important work at the Department of Human Services.”
Nondiscrimination, here, is a priority, “specifically nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity,” she said.
If finalized pursuant to the 60-day public comment period, HHS’s rule will apply to such programs as those administered by the “Administration for Children and Families, SAMHSA, and some other organizations within HHS that have grants,” Fontes Rainer said.
Examples include Head Start, which provides educational, health, nutritional and other services to low income children and their families.
The agency’s legal authority to enforce inclusive nondiscrimination rules was statutorily ordained by Congress, but clarified with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which “made clear that sexual orientation and gender identity were part of this protected sex based discrimination class,” Fontes Rainer said.
The decision helped to accelerate the Biden-Harris administration’s coordination of efforts across the federal government to shore up protections for LGBTQ Americans, she noted, beginning with the Justice Department and then the U.S. Department of Education and HHS.
Those agencies and federal courts have since made clear the law applies not just in the Title VII context — which covers nondiscrimination in employment, the legal question at issue in Bostock — but also “to other federal programs like Title IX,” Fontes Rainer said.
HHS is coordinating efforts with the White House, which last month unveiled a series of new actions to better protect LGBTQ Americans, including through programs administered by HHS, such as those targeting queer youth and their families.
Last June, Fontes Rainer noted, the administration announced that the department’s Administration for Children and Families would pursue a new rule making to “clarify that state child welfare agencies must ensure LGBTQI youth are treated in a safe and appropriate manner.”
The agency’s rule “is inclusive of some grants and services that are inclusive of homelessness services for LGBTQI youth,” Fontes Rainer said. “That’s certainly a part of it. And this grants rule is certainly a part of that effort in the Human Services context.”
“It’s really important right now to have the federal government be strong in the LGBTQI space, whether it’s healthcare, human services or some other service that the federal government provides and [also to] be very clear about what non discrimination means,” she said. “Because, you know, there there is a tsunami of these [anti-trans] healthcare bans across the country.”
According to the Human Rights Campaign, almost 30 percent of transgender youth in the U.S. live in places that have passed bans on gender affirming care, criminalizing healthcare interventions that are backed by every mainstream scientific and medical society.
“We’re seeing a shift right now, where there are a lot of healthcare bans,” Fontes Rainer said. “And, I think, ultimately, these are decisions that are going to be taken into litigation in various contexts, which we’re already seeing across the country.”
Meanwhile, on the federal level, Congressional Republicans are moving to add riders restricting access to healthcare for trans youth into must-pass appropriations bills. Asked to respond to these efforts, Fontes Rainer was quick to note that, “my job is not on the legislative front, here.”
At the same time, she said, when it comes to HHS’s proposed regulation, for “every single program and service we’ve identified, these [nondiscrimination] protections already exist in the law,” so the agency is therefore confident that “we are on good authority and legal footing here.”
While the regulation and its implementation would be new, Fontes Rainer said, HHS is acting under its statutory authority as established long ago by the legislature.
Policy carries real impact on people, families
Last month, HHS hosted a Pride Summit, where officials at the agency from Fontes Rainer to Assistant Secretary Adm. Rachel Levine and Secretary Xavier Becerra, along with other high ranking members of the Biden-Harris administration like White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, spoke about the government’s work advancing rights and protections for the LGBTQ community.
At the event, Becerra dedicated a portion of his remarks to recounting discussions he had with LGBTQ families about how his agency can better serve their needs across the various health and human services programs that comprise its book of business.
Fontes Rainer told the Blade she has participated in many of these conversations, with and without the secretary. “I have made a point to visit with providers, advocates, parents and kids, in many of the states that either have passed or are seeking to pass bans on healthcare for trans youth,” she said.
“Every time I have these conversations, I feel emotional afterwards,” she said. “For a lot of these kids and families, you know, they’re not asking for much. They’re asking to go to the doctor. They’re asking to be treated with respect. They’re asking to have the appropriate pronouns used — things that are very basic.”
The circumstances vary, Fontes Rainer said. Some families have the resources to travel or even relocate to states that are committed to protecting their transgender residents’ access to healthcare.
Others, however, do not. Parents, she said, often “don’t know what they’re gonna do as their child is [forcibly] tapered off of medication, mid treatment” and many are unsure how to respond to the resulting impacts on their child’s mental health.
Fontes Rainer said she has also seen the impacts of legislative restrictions on the healthcare system. “I’ve talked to providers who tell me that they provide gender affirming care in a state where it’s not banned and it’s impossible to get appointments now, because they have so many people traveling there,” she said.
“These efforts by the Biden administration, while they don’t solve everything, they’re really important — both in being strong on the policy and what the law means, but also in being very clear to parents and families and doctors that we have your back,” Fontes Rainer said.
“I’ve been in rooms with the secretary where people, providers, you know, hug him and cry,” she said, “because they feel like it’s really important to have somebody that understands the law in this moment, and they feel like it’s important that, you know, from the secretary on up to the president of the United States, they have support from the Biden administration.”
Fontes Rainer told the Blade she is proud of HHS’s legacy of leadership on LGBTQ rights. With a ceremony last year, the agency became the first to raise the Progress Pride flag, which includes colors to represent Black and brown LGBTQ communities and incorporates the stripes of the transgender Pride flag.
“Now, this year, almost every single agency did that,” she said, adding that last month, “my husband and I put up a Pride Unity flag in our yard” too.
“Right now is not the time to be shy,” Fontes Rainer said. “Now is not the time to like go hide in a hole. Now is the time to be loud and vocal and use your power for good.”
Federal Government
DOE investigates Smith College’s trans-inclusive policy
Mass. college accused of violating Title IX
The U.S. Department of Education announced on Monday that it opened an investigation into Smith College for admitting transgender women.
Smith College, a private and famously all-women’s college in Northampton, Mass., established in 1871 and opened in 1875, has a long list of women who make up its historic alumni — including first ladies, influential political figures, and cultural leaders.
The DOE released a statement about the investigation into the institution through the Department’s Office for Civil Rights, saying it was looking into the possibility that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was violated by allowing trans women, referred to in the statement as “biological males,” into women’s intimate spaces protected by IX.
The statement explicitly highlighted that this stems from trans women being granted “access to women-only spaces, including dormitories, bathrooms, locker rooms, and athletic teams” while also allowing their audience into the school itself.
This is the first time the Trump-Vance administration has taken a step into admissions processes, a stark jump past investigating policies that allowed trans women to participate in women’s sports and use women’s bathrooms, and allows for the administration to go more after trans acceptance policy as a whole.
Smith’s admission policy allows for “any applicants who self-identify as women,” including “cis, trans, and nonbinary women,” according to the college’s website, and has since 2015, when it updated its policy.
“The college is fully committed to its institutional values, including compliance with civil rights laws,” Smith’s statement in response to the DOE’s investigation said. “The college does not comment on pending government investigations.”
“An all-women’s college loses all meaning if it is admitting biological males,” said Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey. “Allowing biological males into spaces designed for women raises serious concerns about privacy, fairness, and compliance under federal law. The Trump administration will continue to uphold the law and fight to restore common sense.”
This move continues to align with actions the Trump-Vance administration has taken to curtail LGBTQ — and specifically trans — rights in America, as members of the administration attempt to break down safeguards and protections that have long been used to protect marginalized communities.
Since Trump took office in his second term, there have been significant legal challenges. According to the National LGBTQ+ Bar Association, there are over 35 court cases that have emerged since his second swearing-in that directly relate to the administration’s attempts to minimize the rights and protections of trans Americans — from medical care and educational protections to military policy.
Much of this anti-trans policy direction was outlined beginning in 2022 with the Project 2025 playbook, which Trump officials have used as a guide to scale back protections for LGBTQ people, Black Americans, poor and Indigenous communities, while also increasing costs for lower-income Americans and providing tax cuts to the wealthy and ultra-wealthy. The plans also “erode” Americans’ freedoms and remove crucial checks and balances that have allowed the executive branch to remain in line with the Constitution without becoming too powerful over either the courts or the legislative branch.
Federal Government
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Spending package would restrict Pride flags on federal buildings, trans healthcare, LGBTQ envoys
As Congress finalizes its funding for fiscal year 2027, Republicans are attempting to include five anti-LGBTQ riders in the National Security and Department of State Appropriations Act.
A rider is an unrelated provision tacked onto a bill that must pass — in this instance, the bill provides funding for national security policy and for the State Department.
The riders range from restricting Pride flags in federal buildings to banning transgender healthcare, but all aim to limit the visibility and rights of LGBTQ Americans.
The five riders are:
Section 7067(a) prohibits Pride flags from being flown over federal buildings.
Section 7067(c) restricts the United States’ ability to appoint special envoys, representatives, or coordinators unless expressly authorized by Congress. These roles have historically been used to promote U.S. interests in international forums — including advancing human and LGBTQ and intersex rights and other policy priorities. The change would halt what the Congressional Equality Caucus describes as providing “critical expertise to U.S. foreign policy and leadership abroad.”
Section 7067(d) reinforces multiple anti-equality executive orders signed by President Donald Trump, effectively requiring that foreign assistance funded by the United States comply with those orders. This includes rescinding federal contractor nondiscrimination protections, including for LGBTQ people.
Section 7067(e) prohibits funding for any organization that provides or promotes medically necessary healthcare for trans people or “promotes transgenderism” — effectively banning funds for organizations that recognize trans people exist. This is despite the practice of gender-affirming care being supported by nearly every major medical association.
Section 7067(g) reinforces two global gag rules put forward by the Trump-Vance administration. One is the Trans Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that acknowledge the existence of trans people or advocate for nondiscrimination protections for them, among other activities. The second is the DEI Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that engage in efforts to address the ongoing effects of racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry outside the United States.
The global gag rule has its roots in anti-abortion policy introduced by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, when the 40th president barred foreign organizations receiving U.S. global health assistance from providing information, referrals, or services for legal abortion, or from advocating for access to abortion services in their own countries. Planned Parenthood notes that the policy also affects programs beyond abortion, including efforts to expand access to contraception, prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, combat malaria, and improve maternal and child health.
If organizations funded by the State Department engage in these activities, they could lose funding.
This anti-LGBTQ push aligns with broader actions from the Trump-Vance administration since the start of Trump’s second term, which have focused on restricting human rights — particularly those of trans Americans.
The House Appropriations Committee is responsible for drafting the appropriations legislation. U.S. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) serves as chair, with U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) as ranking member. The committee includes 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.
For FY27 appropriations, Congress is supposed to pass and have the president sign the funding bills by Sept. 30, 2026.
Federal Government
House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
Measures would restrict federal funding for LGBTQ-affirming schools
Republicans have been gaining ground in reshaping education policy to be less inclusive toward LGBTQ students at the state level, and now they are turning their focus to Capitol Hill.
Some GOP lawmakers are pushing for a nationwide “Don’t Say Gay” and “Don’t say Trans” bill, doubling down on their commitment to being the party of “traditional family values” by excluding anyone who does not identify with their sex at birth.
The largest anti-LGBTQ education legislation to reach the House chamber is Bill 2616 — the Parental Rights Over the Education and Care of Their Kids Act, or the PROTECT Kids Act. The PROTECT Kids Act, proposed by U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), and co-sponsored by U.S. Reps. Burgess Owens (R-Utah), Mary Miller (R-Ill.), Robert Onder (R-Mo.), and Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.), would require any public elementary and middle schools that receive federal funding to require parental consent to change a child’s gender expression in school.
The bill, which was discussed during Tuesday’s House Rules Committee hearing, would specifically require any schools that get federal money from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 — which was created to minimize financial discrepancies in education for low-income students — to get parental approval before identifying any child’s gender identity as anything other than what was provided to the school initially. This includes getting approval before allowing children to use their preferred locker room or bathroom.
It reads that any school receiving this funding “shall obtain parental consent before changing a covered student’s (1) gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form; or (2) sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.”
LGBTQ rights advocates have criticized both national and state efforts to require parental permission for a child to use their preferred gender identity, arguing it raises serious at-home safety concerns — especially in non-LGBTQ-affirming households — and could lead to the outing of transgender or gender-curious students.
The bill has since been combined with another measure, H.R.2617 – Say No to Indoctrination Act which would prohibit the use of federal funding to “advance concepts related to gender ideology,” using the definition outlined in President Donald Trump’s 2025 Executive Order 14168. This would codify that definition of sex into law, rather than leaving it solely as an executive order. A companion measure with the same text is also making its way through the Senate as Senate Bill 2251.
Advocates have also criticized this follow-up legislation, as it would restrict school staff — including teachers and counselors — from acknowledging trans students’ identities or providing any support. They have said that this kind of isolation can worsen mental health outcomes for LGBTQ youth and allows for education to be politicized rather than being based in reality.
David Stacy, the Human Rights Campaign’s vice president of government affairs, called this legislation out for using LGBTQ children as political pawns in an ideology fight — one that could greatly harm the safety of these children if passed.
“Trans kids are not a political agenda — they are students who deserve safety and affirmation at school like anyone else,” Stacy said in a statement. “Despite the many pressing issues facing our nation, House Republicans continue their bizarre obsession with trans people. H.R. 2616 does not protect children. It targets them. This bill is cruel, and we’re prepared to fight it.”
This is similar to Florida House Bills 1557 and 1069, referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill and “Don’t Say They” bill, respectively, restricting classroom discussions on sexual orientation and gender identity, prohibiting the use of pronouns consistent with one’s gender identity, expanding book banning procedures, and censoring health curriculum.
The American Civil Liberties Union is tracking 233 bills related to restricting student and educator rights in the U.S.
Comings & Goings
Learn more about queer love
Calendar: May 8-14
Va. Supreme Court invalidates Democrat-backed redistricting plan
Maren Morris to headline Capital Pride Concert
Under new extremism laws, LGBTQ Russians must fight to survive
How do you vote a child out of their future?
Gay ICE detainee freed after 150 days in detention
A reign defined by commitment and human impact
