[House Report 119-441]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2nd Session } { 119-441
======================================================================
PARENTAL RIGHTS OVER THE EDUCATION AND
CARE OF THEIR KIDS ACT
_______
January 13, 2026.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Walberg, from the Committee on Education and Workforce, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2616]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Education and Workforce, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 2616) to require public elementary and
middle schools that receive funds under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 to obtain parental consent
before changing a minor's gender markers, pronouns, or
preferred name on any school form or sex-based accommodations,
including locker rooms or bathrooms, having considered the
same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Parental Rights Over The Education and
Care of Their Kids Act'' or the ``PROTECT Kids Act''.
SEC. 2. PARENTAL CONSENT REQUIREMENT RELATED TO GENDER MARKERS,
PRONOUNS, AND PREFERRED NAMES ON SCHOOL FORMS AND
SEX-BASED ACCOMMODATIONS.
(a) Requirement.--As a condition of receiving funds under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et
seq.), a public school that receives funds under such Act 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.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Covered student.--The term ``covered student'' means a
minor who is--
(A) an elementary school student; or
(B) a student in any of the middle grades.
(2) ESEA terms.--The terms ``elementary school'', ``middle
grades'', and ``parent'' have the meanings given such terms in
section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
PURPOSE
The purpose of H.R. 2616, the Parental Rights Over The
Education and Care of Their (PROTECT) Kids Act, is to ensure
parents remain central in their children's lives, particularly
when it comes to sensitive decisions made at school. The bill
requires, as a condition of receiving funds under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), public schools
not to socially transition elementary and middle school
students without parental consent.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2616.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ACTION
118TH CONGRESS
First Session--Hearings
On February 8, 2023, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a hearing on ``American Education in Crisis.''
The purpose of the hearing was to examine the state of American
education, including the need to protect and restore the rights
of parents to have a say in their children's upbringing and
education. Testifying before the Committee were Ms. Virginia
Gentles, Director, Education Freedom Center, Independent
Women's Forum, Arlington, VA; Dr. Monty Sullivan, President,
Louisiana Community and Technical College System, Baton Rouge,
LA; Mr. Scott Pulsipher, President, Western Governors
University, Salt Lake City, UT; and the Honorable Jared Polis,
Governor, State of Colorado, Denver, CO.
On May 16, 2023, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a hearing on ``Examining the Policies and
Priorities of the U.S. Department of Education.'' The purpose
of the hearing was to review the Fiscal Year 2024 budget
priorities of the U.S. Department of Education. Additionally,
then-Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) asked witness Secretary
Miguel Cardona whether he believed that ``teachers,
administrators, and school boards should defer to parents as
the primary teachers of their children, not undercut and work
against them.'' Secretary Cardona agreed, stating ``the schools
that are most effective are those that honor and engage parents
in a meaningful way.'' Testifying before the Committee was U.S.
Department of Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, Washington,
D.C.
Legislative Action
On March 1, 2023, Representative Julia Letlow (R-LA)
introduced H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of Rights Act, with then-
Chairwoman Foxx and Representatives Burgess Owens (R-UT), Rick
W. Allen (R-GA), Elise M. Stefanik (R-NY), Glenn Thompson (R-
PA), Steve Scalise (R-LA), Tom Emmer (R-MN), Mike Johnson (R-
LA), Richard Hudson (R-NC), Mary E. Miller (R-IL), Scott
Fitzgerald (R-WI), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Glenn Grothman (R-WI),
Jim Banks (R-IN), Lloyd Smucker (R-PA), Michelle Steel (R-CA),
Aaron Bean (R-FL), Brandon Williams (R-NY), Erin Houchin (R-
IN), Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA), John R. Moolenaar (R-MI), Dan
Newhouse (R-WA), Marianette Miller-Meeks (R-IA), Vern Buchanan
(R-FL), Clay Higgins (R-LA), Brad Finstad (R-MN), Claudia
Tenney (R-NY), Scott DesJarlais (R-TN), Pat Fallon (R-TX), Mike
Kelly (R-PA), Chuck Edwards (R-NC), Tom Tiffany (R-WI), Jerry
Carl (R-AL), Ken Calvert (R-CA), David Valadao (R-CA), Ashley
Hinson (R-IA), Ralph Norman (R-SC), Mike Bost (R-IL), Daniel
Meuser (R-PA), Michael Waltz (R-FL), David Kustoff (R-TN), Mike
Garcia (R-CA), Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Nancy Mace (R-SC), Bryan
Steil (R-WI), Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), John Rutherford (R-FL),
Garret Graves (R-LA), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Jeff
Duncan (R-SC), Max Miller (R-OH), Tom McClintock (R-CA), Daniel
Crenshaw (R-TX), Alex Mooney (R-WV), Lance Gooden (R-TX),
Carlos Gimenez ((R-FL), Diana Harshbarger (R-TN), Michael Guest
(R-MS), Tony Gonzales (R-TX), Bill Huizenga (R-MI), Anna
Paulina Luna (R-FL), Troy Balderson (R-OH), Rob Wittman (R-VA),
David Rouzer (R-NC), Rick Crawford (R-AR), Mike Ezell (R-MS),
Mike Carey (R-OH), Kat Cammack (R-FL), Ryan Zinke (R-MT),
Michael McCaul (R-TX), John Joyce (R-PA), Kevin Hern (R-OK),
and Jake Ellzey (R-TX) as original co-sponsors. The bill was
referred solely to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce. On March 8, 2023, the Committee considered H.R. 5 in
legislative session and reported it favorably, as amended, to
the House of Representatives by a recorded vote of 25-17. The
Committee adopted, among several others, the following
amendments to H.R. 5:
1. Representative Letlow offered an Amendment in the
Nature of a Substitute (ANS) that added language to the
Title I ``Parents Right-To-Know'' provisions to ensure
that parents have the right to inspect books and other
reading materials in school libraries. The amendment
also made one technical change. The ANS was adopted by
a voice vote.
2. Representative Tim Walberg (R-MI) offered the
PROTECT Kids Act as an amendment to the ANS. The
PROTECT Kids Act requires elementary and middle schools
that receive federal funds to obtain parental consent
before changing a minor child's gender markers,
pronouns, or preferred name on any school form, or
before allowing a child to change the child's sex-based
accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.
The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
Second Session--Legislative Action
On February 1, 2023, Representative Walberg introduced H.R.
736, the PROTECT Kids Act. The bill was referred solely to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce. On September 11,
2024, the Committee considered H.R. 736 in a legislative
session and reported it favorably, as amended, to the House of
Representatives by a recorded vote of 22-12. The Committee
considered the following amendment to H.R. 736:
1. Representative Walberg offered an ANS that struck
section 2 and amended section 3 to apply the funding
condition of the bill only to funds received under
ESEA. The ANS was adopted by a voice vote.
119TH CONGRESS
First Session--Hearing
On February 5, 2025, the Committee on Education and
Workforce held a hearing on ``The State of American
Education.'' The purpose of the hearing was to examine the
state of American education. During the hearing, Representative
Mark Harris (R-NC) asked witness Mrs. Nicole Neily to provide
an example of parental rights violations related to gender
identity in schools. Mrs. Neily mentioned a school district in
Wisconsin that provided teacher training materials that told
teachers parents must earn the right to know their child's
gender identity. Testifying before the Committee were Mrs.
Nicole Neily, President, Parents Defending Education,
Arlington, VA; Dr. Preston Cooper, Senior Fellow, American
Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C.; Mrs. Janai Nelson,
President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense Fund,
Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Johnny C. Taylor, Jr., President and
CEO, Society for Human Resource Management, Alexandria, VA.
Legislative Action
On April 3, 2025, H.R. 2616, the PROTECT Kids Act, was re-
introduced by Chairman Walberg. The bill was referred solely to
the Committee on Education and Workforce. On April 9, 2025, the
Committee considered H.R. 2616 in legislative session and
reported it favorably, as amended, to the House of
Representatives by a vote of 18-12. The Committee considered
the following amendment to H.R. 2616:
1. Representative Walberg offered an ANS that made
minor technical changes. The amendment was adopted by
voice vote.
COMMITTEE VIEWS
INTRODUCTION
The Committee is steadfast in its support for families and
for the role of parents in shaping their children's lives. This
includes ensuring that parents remain central in the lives of
their children, particularly when it comes to sensitive
decisions made at school.
Unfortunately, the nation has seen troubling developments
in states like California where school districts can facilitate
gender transitions without parental knowledge or consent. This
is simply wrong, for the most important stakeholders in a
child's life are his or her parents.
Parents, not bureaucrats, should decide when substantial
changes are made regarding how their child is identified or
accommodated.
BACKGROUND ON RADICAL GENDER THEORY IN SCHOOLS
Parents across the country have raised concerns as schools
push progressive gender ideology and, in many cases, hide
students' attempts to transition from their parents. According
to Parents Defending Education, at least 21,000 schools in
1,200 districts (covering over 12 million students) have
policies that prevent faculty and staff from disclosing a
student's gender identity to his or her parents without that
student's permission.\2\ Such policies are to the detriment of
all children and are also a violation of parents' rights to
direct the upbringing and education of their own child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\https://defendinged.org/investigations/list-of-school-district-
transgender-gender-nonconform ing-student-policies/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the precise details of each of these district's
policies may vary, they are unified by a radical leftist vision
of sex and gender. One of these 1,200 districts is the Los
Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), whose guidance defines
``gender'' as ``a person's actual or perceived sex, and
includes a person's gender identity and gender expression''
[emphasis added]. The guidance further clarifies that a
student's professed gender identity may be different ``from
that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or
assigned sex at birth.'' Students are not restricted to
choosing between two sexes. LAUSD affirms that students may be
``agender, genderqueer, gender fluid, Two Spirit, bigender,
pangender, gender nonconforming or gender variant.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\https://ca01000043.schoolwires.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/
Centricity/Domain/383/BUL-6224.2
%20Transgender%20Policy%205%2013%2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Public Schools similarly defines ``gender
identity'' as ``the deeply held sense or psychological
knowledge that individuals have of their gender, regardless of
the biological sex they were assigned at birth,'' and notes
that ``common examples may include `male/man/boy,' `female/
woman/girl,' `trans/transgender,' `gender variant,' `gender
nonconforming,' `agender,' `gender nonbinary,' or any
combination of these terms.'' Chicago also asserts that
``preferred gender pronouns''' may include ``common'' words
such as ``ze.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\https://www.cps.edu/globalassets/cps-pages/about-cps/department-
directory/education-policy- and-procedures/
tl_transgendernonconformingstudents_guidelines.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh Public Schools teaches that ``[o]ne's gender
identity can be the same or different from [his or her] sex
assigned at birth.''\5\ Seattle Public Schools asserts that
students may be ``gender-expansive,'' which they define as ``a
wider, more flexible range of gender identities than those
typically associated with the binary,'' and that students may
proceed ``from living and identifying as one gender to living
and identifying as another.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\https://go.boarddocs.com/pa/pghboe/Board.nsf/files/AAVNG25B8B5D/
$file/102.3_Nondiscrimin
ation_Transgender_and_Gender_Expansive_Students_June2016.pdf.
\6\https://www.seattleschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/
I09_20200624_Approval-of-new-BP -No.-3211-Gender-Inclusive-Schools.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND ON POLICIES TO EXCLUDE PARENTS
Local district policy can keep parents in the dark about
their child's gender transition. LAUSD's guidance, for example,
mandates that ``[s]tudents shall be addressed by the name and
pronoun that corresponds to their gender identity asserted at
school without obtaining a court order, changing their pupil
records or obtaining parent/legal guardian permission''
[emphasis added]. Further, the guidance openly acknowledges
that parents may not be aware of their student's attempts to
transition genders (``school personnel should be aware that the
student may not have disclosed their gender identity to their
parents.'') In fact, the guidance mandates that before school
administrators talk to parents, administrators should consider
whether ``the parent is aware of the student's gender identity
or expression and is supportive of the student.'' If
administrators deem a parent not ``supportive,'' there is no
requirement that the parent(s) be informed at all when a school
acts to transition a student.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\https://ca01000043.schoolwires.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/
Centricity/Domain/383/BUL-6224.2
%20Transgender%20Policy%205%2013%2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Public Schools has plainly stated that correctly
identifying a student by his or her biological sex could be
grounds for disciplinary action: ``The intentional or
persistent refusal by students or school staff to respect a
student's gender identity (for example, intentionally referring
to the student by a name or pronoun that does not correspond to
the student's gender identity) is a violation of these
Guidelines, the Student Code of Conduct, and Comprehensive Non-
Discrimination, Title IX and Sexual Harassment Policy. Such
violations will result in appropriate consequences for
offending staff and students.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.cps.edu/globalassets/cps-pages/about-cps/
department-directory/education-policy-and-procedures/
tl_transgendernonconformingstudents_guidelines.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland Public Schools in Oregon also pledges to cut out
parents and discipline any school staff that dissents, stating
that``[t]he District will not require caregiver/guardian
consent before honoring the student's self-reported gender
identity, asserted name, and gender expression,'' and that
``[r]efusal to use a student's pronouns may result in
disciplinary action.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\https://www.pps.net/cms/lib/OR01913224/Centricity/Domain/4814/
4.30.061-AD.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local district policies often include no provisions
protecting or exempting school staff who may have conscientious
objections or sincerely held religious beliefs against
addressing students as anything other than the student's sex.
On the contrary, LAUSD's guidance threatens that ``persistent
refusal to respect a student's gender identity is a violation
of District policy and may constitute discrimination under
State law.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\https://ca01000043.schoolwires.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/
Centricity/Domain/383/BUL-6224.2
%20Transgender%20Policy%205%2013%2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2024, California became the first state to forbid school
districts from having any policy that would require school
staff to notify parents about changes in a student's professed
gender identity.\11\ The bill was introduced after California's
attorney general sued a Southern California school district
that implemented a policy that required teachers to inform
parents if their child identifies as transgender or goes by a
different name or pronouns at school.\12\ On the other hand, at
least eight states have passed legislation that requires
teachers or administrators to inform parents if their child has
requested to transition genders. In North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Indiana, Idaho, North Dakota, and
Iowa, if a student asks to go by pronouns or a name different
from the one in a district's record, teachers must report the
student's request to an administrator, who then has to report
it to the student's parent or guardian.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/
billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1955.
\12\https://apnews.com/article/california-sues-chino-valley-
parental-notification-transgender-stu dents; https://apnews.com/
article/gender-identity-schools-california-law.
\13\https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=SF496.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND ON FEDERAL LAW ABOUT PARENTAL RIGHTS AND SCHOOL-BASED GENDER
TRANSITIONS
Parental exclusion policies such as these are in conflict
with the rights of parents. As the Heritage Foundation has
written,
A century of Supreme Court jurisprudence supports the
notion that parents enjoy the fundamental
constitutional right to direct the upbringing, health,
and education of their children. As recently as 2000,
in fact, the court called it ``perhaps the oldest of
the fundamental liberty interests recognized.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/parents-are-fed-
public-schools-secretly- transitioning-children.
Additionally, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
(Title IX) prohibits any education program or activity
receiving federal financial assistance from discriminating on
the basis of sex. In practice, Title IX applies to most public
elementary and secondary schools (including private elementary
and secondary schools participating in the school meals
programs) and to public and private colleges and
universities.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-11127/pdf/COMPS-
11127.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Biden administration weaponized Title IX by expanding
the definition of ``sex'' to include sexual orientation and
gender identity. Under the Biden administration's
interpretation, schools were required to allow students to use
sex-based facilities such as bathrooms and locker rooms based
on the student's claimed gender identity.\16\ The Biden-Harris
administration's rewrite of Title IX drew numerous lawsuits and
court orders, and the rewrite was eventually blocked by a
nationwide court order.\17\ The Trump administration
immediately reversed the Biden administration's executive
overreach on Title IX. On January 31, the Trump Department of
Education announced it would enforce the 2020 Title IX
regulations, which had been in place before the Biden
administration's rewrite of those rules.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\https://heritageaction.com/toolkit/stop-bidens-title-ix-rule-
change.
\17\https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/09/federal-judge-vacates-
bidens-title-ix-rule-00197353; https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/
which-states-have-sued-to-stop-bidens-title-ix-rule/2024/07; https://
www.insidehighered.com/news/government/2024/07/17/title-ix-rule-hold-
more-670-colleges; https://hechingerreport.org/title-ix-regulations-on-
sex-discrimination-can-be-trump-era-or-biden-era-depending-on-your-
state-or-school/; https://www.insidehighered.com/news /government/
politics-elections/2025/02/03/department-education-reverts-trumps-
title-ix-rule.
\18\https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-
elections/2025/02/03/department-education-reverts-trumps-title-ix-rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parental exclusion policies are also legally suspect under
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). FERPA is
section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act, and it
requires recipients of Department of Education funding to
provide parents (or students once they reach age 18 or that are
attending an institution of higher education) access to the
education records of their children.\19\ Parents Defending
Education has compiled a list of school districts that require
or allow school district personnel to keep a student's
transgender status hidden from parents.\20\ States and school
districts with these policies argue that information about a
student's gender transition is not part of the student's
education record under FERPA and therefore not required to be
disclosed at a parent's request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\General Education Provisions Act, Sec. 444.
\20\https://defendinged.org/investigations/list-of-school-district-
transgender-gender-nonconform ing-student-policies/
::text=Last%20Update:%20March%2018%2C%202025,list%2C%20please%2
0notify %20 PDE %20here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 28, 2025, Secretary McMahon issued a Dear
Colleague Letter stating that such policies violate FERPA. The
letter correctly reminds school districts that FERPA ``does
require that a school provide a parent with an opportunity to
inspect and review education records of their child, upon
request,'' including any documentation of gender transition
plans.\21\ The Department has opened FERPA investigations into
California and Maine related to those states' policies of
withholding gender transition information from parents.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/sites/default/files/
resource_document/file/Secretary_Comb_ SPPO_DCL_Annual%20Notice_0.pdf.
\22\https://www.chalkbeat.org/2025/03/28/schools-must-share-child-
gender-identity-info-with- parents-trump-education-department-says/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
The PROTECT Kids Act accomplishes three critically
important goals.
First, the bill empowers parental involvement in their
children's education. The PROTECT Kids Act emphasizes the
fundamental role of parents in making sensitive decisions
regarding their child's identity and accommodations in schools.
Children do best when parents are involved in their education,
and this bill protects that fundamental principle.
Second, the bill protects teachers' consciences. This bill
helps prevent teachers from being pressured by administrators
to keep secrets from their students' parents. Teachers should
be able to tell parents about important changes regarding their
students.
Finally, this bill is a direct response to urgent needs in
local schools. This legislation addresses recent developments
in states such as California, where parental rights have been
trampled on. Parents should never be misled or lied to by
school administrators.
SUMMARY
The PROTECT Kids Act was introduced by Chairman Walberg in
April 2025. The bill requires that, as a condition of receiving
funds under the ESEA, any elementary school or middle school
must obtain parental consent before changing a minor child's
name or pronouns and before receiving any sex-based
accommodations (including use of bathrooms and locker
rooms).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2616.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2616 SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY
Section 1. Short title
Names the bill the ``Parental Rights over the
Education and Care of Their Kids Act'' or the ``PROTECT Kids
Act.''
Section 2. Parental consent requirement related to gender markers,
pronouns, and preferred names on school forms and sex-based
accommodations
Requires that, as a conditions of receiving funds
under ESEA, public schools obtain parental consent before
changing an elementary or middle school student's gender
markers, pronouns, preferred name, or sex-based accommodations
(including locker rooms and bathrooms).
EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS
The amendment in the nature of a substitute is explained in
the body of this report.
APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this bill to the legislative
branch. H.R. 2616 requires public elementary and middle schools
to obtain parental consent before changing a minor's gender
markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form or sex-
based accommodations, which includes bathrooms or locker rooms.
H.R. 2616 is applicable to elementary and secondary schools
that receive funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 and therefore does not apply to the Legislative
Branch.
UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-344 (as amended
by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995, Pub. L. No. 104-4), the Committee adopts as its own the
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) pursuant to section 402 of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
EARMARK STATEMENT
H.R. 2616 does not contain any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9 of House Rule XXI.
ROLL CALL VOTES
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee Report to include for
each record vote on a motion to report the measure or matter
and on any amendments offered to the measure or matter the
total number of votes for and against and the names of the
Members voting for and against.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
In accordance with clause (3)(c) of House rule XIII, the
goal of H.R. 2616, is to require public elementary and middle
schools that receive federal funding under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 to obtain parental consent
before changing a minor's gender markers, pronouns, or
preferred name on any school form or sex-based accommodations,
which includes bathrooms or locker rooms.
DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
No provision of H.R. 2616 establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
the committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in the body of this report.
REQUIRED COMMITTEE HEARING
In compliance with clause 3(c)(6) of rule XIII the
following hearing held during the 119th Congress was used to
develop or consider H.R. 2616: On February 5, 2025, the
Committee on Education and Workforce held a hearing on ``The
State of American Education.''
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CBO COST ESTIMATE
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect
to requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee adopts as its
own the cost estimate for the bill prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office.
H.R. 2616 would require public elementary and secondary
schools that receive funds under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to obtain parental consent before
changing a student's gender markers, pronouns, or preferred
name on any school form or their sex-based accommodations, such
as locker rooms or bathrooms. The requirements would apply only
to students through grade eight.
CBO expects that schools will comply with the new
requirements. As a result, CBO estimates enacting the bill
would have no effect on federal spending for grants to
elementary and secondary schools.
Based on the cost of similar activities, CBO estimates that
the costs to the Department of Education to implement H.R. 2616
would be insignificant; any related spending would be subject
to the availability of appropriated funds.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Garrett
Quenneville. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss,
Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director, Congressional Budget Office.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison of the
costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 2616.
However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that Rule provides that this
requirement does not apply when, as with the present report,
the Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate for the bill
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
H.R. 2616 makes no changes to existing law.
MINORITY VIEWS
INTRODUCTION
H.R. 2616, the Parental Rights Over The Education and Care
of Their Kids Act (PROTECT Kids Act), would require public
schools, as a condition of receiving funds under the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act\1\ (ESEA), to ``obtain parental
consent before changing'' a middle or high school student's
``gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school
form'' or their ``sex-based accommodations, including locker
rooms or bathrooms.''\2\ This bill further marginalizes certain
student populations while simultaneously turning a blind eye to
the dismantling of our nation's public education system and
supports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\20 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 6301-8601.
\2\Parental Rights Over The Education and Care of Their Kids Act,
H.R. 2616, 119th Cong. Sec. 2(a) (2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF CONCERNS
H.R. 2616 is Overbroad and Does Nothing To Address Issues of Concern to
Parents, Students, and Families
The bill is written to encompass all public students in
elementary and middle grades, meaning that it implicates any
student who wants to be called a name different than the name
on their birth certificate. Therefore, in order for a teacher
to write down that a student wants to be called by a nickname,
something that kids have done since the dawn of time, a school
has to obtain parental consent. According to one media report,
in order to conform to a similar Florida law requiring parental
consent, a school district in Florida sent out a form with the
following example: ``As an example, if the student is named
Robert, but likes to be called the nickname Rob, the form must
be filled out authorizing teachers and other personnel to call
Robert the nickname Rob.''\3\ This bill simply creates more
paperwork and bureaucracy for teachers, administrators,
schools, and parents, wasting valuable time, resources, and
taxpayer money. Furthermore, if implemented with fidelity, this
legislation would inflict punitive punishment on every student
in a school by withholding federal funding from all students
for perhaps one accidental oversight of a teacher calling a
student by a nickname without first obtaining parental consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Chris Gollon, Students Now Need Parental Permission to Use
Nicknames in School, WNDB--News Daytona Beach (Aug. 10, 2023), https://
www.newsdaytonabeach.com/stories/students-now-need-parental-permission-
to-use-nicknames-in-school,52303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of questioning this Administration's efforts to
undermine Congress and illegally dismantle the U.S. Department
of Education (Department), the Majority is moving a bill that
will needlessly penalize our nation's public schools, teachers,
and students. We are spending no time addressing the
President's dubious executive order to effectively close the
Department\4\ or the elimination of the Department's education
research and work on evidence-based practices and student
achievement.\5\ To date, the Majority has held no hearings on
the Reduction in Force (RIF) that cut the Department's staff in
half.\6\ We know the attempted closure of the Department has
resulted in, and will continue to result in, delays in federal
funds getting to states, which have few options for
recourse.\7\ Rather than focusing on this bill, the Majority
ought to be utilizing our time on education issues that are
priorities to the American people, such as protecting our
nation's public schools, closing the achievement gap, investing
in school infrastructure, and preventing gun violence in our
schools, none of which are addressed or improved by this
legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Exec. Order No. 14,242, 90 Fed. Reg. 13679 (Mar. 20, 2025).
\5\Jonaki Mehta & Cory Turner, Trump administration targets
Education Department research arm in latest cuts, NPR (Feb. 10, 2025,
10:38 PM), https://www.npr.org/2025/02/10/nx-s1-5292444/trump-musk-
education-department-schools-students-research-cuts.
\6\U.S. Department of Education Initiates Reduction in Force, U.S.
Dep't of Educ. (Mar. 11, 2020), https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-
release/us-department-of-education-initiates-reduc tion-force.
\7\Mark Lieberman, States Get Antsy as Education Department Layoffs
Delay Millions for Schools, Education Week (Mar. 27, 2025), https://
www.edweek.org/policy-politics/states-get-antsy-as-education-
department-layoffs-delay-millions-for-schools/2025/03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2616 Would Further Marginalize Transgender Students and Has The
Potential To Increase Their Risks Of Physical Harm And Adverse
Mental Health Outcomes
Despite being couched in a broad manner to capture all
students, the real victims of this legislation will be
transgender students. The requirements of H.R. 2616 will have
the effect of forcibly outing transgender students. It will
foster a culture of fear and distrust between parents and
schools and between students and teachers, inappropriately
insert politicians into the parent-child relationship, and puts
school staff in control of how and when families have deeply
personal conversations.
If passed into law, H.R. 2616 would disproportionately
impact transgender students. It is not hard to imagine a
situation where a school system did not follow the law every
time a cisgendered child asked to be called by a nickname and
only completed the required notifications when a transgender
student requested a name change. This would be disparate
treatment, in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments
of 1972 (Title IX),\8\ and it is easy to contemplate the
likelihood of its occurrence. Further the second provision of
H.R. 2616 would likely only come into use in the case of
transgender youth. The mere act of changing ones preferred
gender accommodations would only effect transgender students in
everyday practice, which suggests the law itself would have a
disparate impact on these students, again in violation of Title
IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many transgender children have the support of their
parents. However, some transgender children may fear abuse by
their parents or being kicked out of their house because of
their gender identity. A 2024 study showed that children who
were outed to their parents have higher symptoms of depression
and are less likely to have family support.\9\ Moreover,
transgender youth experience disproportionate rates of
homelessness (``38% of transgender girls/women, 39% of
transgender boys/men'') either because they were mistreated or
kicked out due to their gender identity, which in turn
negatively impacts their mental health.\10\ ``Transgender youth
in particular face higher rates of childhood abuse than their
peers and significantly higher rates of anxiety, depression,
and suicidal ideation.''\11\ The bill provides no consideration
for situations in which revealing the student's gender identity
to parents would endanger the child at home or impact their
ability to stay in the home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Peter S. McCauley et al., Stress of being outed to parents,
LGBTQ family support, and depressive symptoms among sexual and gender
diverse youth, J. of Rsch. on Adolescence (Jan. 29, 2024), https://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jora.12912; Beth Hawkins, Report:
Higher Rates of Depression, Anxiety for LGBTQ Teens Forcibly Outed, The
74 (June 13, 2024), https://www.the74million.org/article/report-higher-
rates-of-depression-anxiety-for-lgbtq-teens-forcibly-outed/.
\10\J.P DeChants et al., Homelessness and Housing Instability Among
LGBTQ Youth, The Trevor Project (2021), https://
www.thetrevorproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Trevor-Project-
Homelessness-Report.pdf.
\11\Markup of H.R. 2616 Before the H. Comm. on Educ. & Labor, 119th
Cong. (Apr. 9, 2025) (statement of Rep. Mark Takano), https://
www.youtube.com/live/wmS_n6GR57I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For transgender students who do not have or do not believe
they will have the support of their families, school may
provide a safe space for them. All students deserve a quality
education in a safe and affirming learning environment. H.R.
2616 would make that impossible. It would impose government
interference in parent-child relationships and potentially
cause teachers to alienate children from their parents. It
could also require teachers to--sometimes knowingly--place
students in physical danger and/or emotional harm. Moreover, in
many states, this bill could force teachers to violate mandated
reporter laws or force them to be required to report the danger
to the state simultaneously with contacting a student's parents
to obtain the consent required under the bill. The bill would
place a giant boulder on the shoulders of our nation's teachers
who are already overworked in a profession with a nationwide
shortage. Teachers should be caring and supportive and work
with parents towards a child's success, but teachers should
also be trusted professionals who have the ability to use their
judgment to know when a student is lacking support in the home
in a way that could lead to mistreatment.
Unfortunately, forced outing bills are being proposed
across the country. According to the ACLU, in 2024, 59 state
legislative bills forcing outing in schools were introduced and
five of those bills were signed into law.\12\ In contrast, in
June 2024, California became the first state to pass a law that
bans policies that force educators to out students who ask to
be known by a different pronoun or name.\13\ In cases across
the country where states haven't taken action, some school
boards are creating both supportive and harmful policies.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Mapping Attacks on LGBTQ Rights in U.S. State Legislatures in
2024, ACLU, https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights-
2024?impact=75145 (last visited Apr. 6, 2025).
\13\Jill Cowan, California Becomes the First State to Ban Student
Gender Notification Policies, N.Y. Times (July 16, 2024), https://
www.nytimes.com/2024/07/16/us/gender-identity-bill-
california.html.
\14\Mark Walsh, Supreme Court Turns Down Case Challenging School
District's Transgender Policies, Ed Week (May 20, 2024), https://
www.edweek.org/policy-politics/supreme-court-turns-down-case-
challenging-school-districts-transgender-policies/2024/05; Cameron
Kiszla, Court temporarily halts Chino school district's `forced outing
policy', KTLA (Sept. 6, 2023), https://ktla.com/news/local-news/
california-temporarily-halts-cvusd-forced-outing-policy-for-trans-
nonbinary-
students/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2616 is in lock step with the culture wars against
transgender students this Administration is leading. This was
made clear by the President's signing of Executive Order 14,168
(EO) on January 20.\15\ The EO makes it the policy of the
federal government to only recognize two sexes, male and
female, and makes those sexes immutable.\16\ Any discussion of
consideration of ``gender'' outside of biological sex is
eliminated in all federal departments and agencies, with
implications for transgender individuals in all areas of
interaction with the federal government.\17\ This ignores the
reality that transgender students exist in our schools, and
there is a rational basis for educating all students in a safe
and inclusive environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Exec. Order No. 14,168, 90 Fed. Reg. 8,615 (Jan. 20, 2025).
\16\Id.
\17\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bill Does Not Support or Expand Parental Engagement
Parental engagement is critical to student success.
Parental engagement in schools is closely linked to better
student behavior, higher academic achievement, and enhanced
social skills.\18\ Pursuant to the Family Educational Rights
and Privacy Act\19\ (FERPA), in order to receive federal funds
under applicable programs--including ESEA--federal law already
requires that parents be permitted to inspect and review any
education records pertaining to their minor student maintained
by the student's school.\20\ H.R. 2616 does not amend FERPA,
and despite the Majority's assertions about parents' rights,
the bill does not expand parental involvement in their child's
education in a meaningful way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\See, e.g., Parental Involvement in Your Child's Education,
Annie E. Casey Foundation, https://www.aecf.org/blog/parental-
involvement-is-key-to-student-success-research-shows (Dec. 14, 2022).
\19\20 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1232g-1232j.
\20\20 U.S.C Sec. 1232g(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bill Constitutes Federal Overreach and Undermines Local Control
The Majority claims that H.R. 2616 ``protects a parent's
right to have access to information regarding his or her
child's school environment.''\21\ To the contrary, the bill in
no way addresses the schools' overall environment, nor does it
address student learning. Moreover, the bill represents a
contradiction to the Majority's belief that there should be
greater local control over education,\22\ and instead it
micromanages educators in public school classrooms. This bill
creates a one-size-fits-all solution in search of a problem
that does not exist, and it stands as an example of the type of
federal overreach that congressional Republicans have long
claimed would harm children, teachers, and schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\Markup of H.R. 2616 Before the H. Comm. on Educ. & Labor, 119th
Cong. (Apr. 9, 2025) (statement of Chair Tim Walberg), https://
www.youtube.com/live/wmS_n6GR57I.
\22\See, e.g., Walberg: Restore Local Control in Education, Website
of Congressman Tim Walberg, https://walberg.house.gov/media/press-
releases/walberg-restore-local-control-education (last visited Apr. 21,
2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEMOCRATIC AMENDMENTS OFFERED DURING MARKUP OF H.R. 2616
Committee Democrats did not offer any amendments to H.R.
2616.
CONCLUSION
This bill does not address any widespread education issue.
Instead, it makes the responsibility to educate all students
more difficult and endangers transgender students. It is silent
on issues that would actually help families, students, and
schools. Meanwhile, the Administration is continuing its
efforts to abolish the Department and privatize education in
the United States. The Majority is ignoring what is actually
important to the American people, such as protecting our
nation's public schools, supporting student academic success,
addressing chronic neglect of our school infrastructure, and
confronting the nation's epidemic of gun violence and school
shootings. During the 118th Congress, the language of this bill
was offered as an amendment and accepted during the markup of
H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of Rights Act, a bill that ultimately
passed the House of Representatives with no Democratic Member
support and five Republicans opposing the bill.\23\ It was then
marked up as a standalone bill by the Committee and ordered to
be reported to the House of Representatives along a party line
vote.\24\ This bill stalled in the 118th Congress, and it
should stall again this Congress. For the reasons stated above,
Committee Democrats unanimously opposed H.R. 2616 when the
Committee on Education and Workforce considered it on April 9,
2025. We urge the House of Representatives to do the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\Parents Bill of Rights Act, H.R. 5, 118th Cong. (2023).
\24\Parental Rights Over The Education and Care of Their Kids Act,
H.R. 736, 118th Cong. (2023).
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Ranking Member.
Joe Courtney,
Mark Takano,
Mark DeSaulnier,
Summer Lee,
Yassamin Ansari,
Members of Congress.
[all]