[House Report 119-442]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2nd Session } { 119-442
======================================================================
SAY NO TO INDOCTRINATION 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. 2617]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Education and Workforce, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 2617) to amend the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 to prevent the use of funds
under such Act to teach or advance concepts related to gender
ideology, and for other purposes, 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 ``Say No to Indoctrination Act''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITING USE OF ESEA FUNDS TO TEACH GENDER IDEOLOGY.
Section 8526 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 7906) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``or'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
``(7) to teach or advance concepts related to gender
ideology, as defined in section 2 of Executive Order 14168 (90
Fed. Reg. 8615; relating to defending women from gender
ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the
Federal Government); or''.
Purpose
The purpose of H.R. 2617, the Say No to Indoctrination Act,
is to prevent federal funding from supporting the spread of
radical gender theory in K-12 schools. The bill requires that
no funds expended under the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) be used to teach or advance ``gender ideology'' as
defined by the January 20, 2025, Trump Executive Order,
``Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring
Biological Truth to the Federal Government.''
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
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 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. 2617, the Say No to Indoctrination
Act, was introduced by Rep. Owens. The bill was referred solely
to the Committee on Education and Workforce. On April 9, 2025,
the Committee considered H.R. 2617 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. 2617:
1. Rep. Owens 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 students are not indoctrinated with
radical ideology about the nature of gender. Many schools have
begun teaching students that gender is a spectrum, that gender
is a personal choice, and that feelings primarily determine
one's gender. These teachings have no basis in biological
reality. What's worse is that some schools have assisted
students in transitioning to a different gender and have even
hidden these efforts from the child's parents. This is wrong.
School administrators should not suggest to young children the
possibility that they were born in the wrong body. Parents, not
school administrators, should make decisions about their child.
BACKGROUND ON RADICAL GENDER THEORY IN SCHOOLS
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.\1\ Such policies are detrimental to all
children and also violate parents' rights to direct the
upbringing and education of their own child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\https://defendinged.org/investigations/list-of-school-district-
transgender-gender-
nonconforming-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.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\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 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.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\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.''\4\ 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.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\https://go.boarddocs.com/pa/pghboe/Board.nsf/files/AAVNG25B8B5D/
$file/
102.3_Nondiscrimination_Transgender_and_Gender_Expansive_Students_June20
16.pdf.
\5\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 AND
DISCIPLINE DISSENTING TEACHERS
Local district policy can keep parents in the dark about
what their child is learning about gender and what gender the
child identifies as. 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 parents be informed at all when a school acts
to transition a student.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\https://ca01000043.schoolwires.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/
Centricity/Domain/383/BUL-
6224.2%20Transgender%20Policy%205%2013%2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Public Schools states 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.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\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
in district policy guidance 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.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\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 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.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\https://ca01000043.schoolwires.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/
Centricity/Domain/383/BUL-
6224.2%20Transgender%20Policy%205%2013%2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND ON FEDERAL LAW AND RADICAL GENDER THEORY
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 public
and private colleges and universities.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-11127/pdf/COMPS-
11127.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Biden-Harris administration weaponized Title IX by
expanding the definition of ``sex'' to include sexual
orientation and gender identity. Under the Biden-Harris
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.\11\ 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.\12\
The Trump administration immediately reversed the Biden-Harris
administration's executive overreach on Title IX. On January
31, the Trump Department of Education announced it would
enforce the 2020 Title IX regulations in place before the Biden
administration's rewrite of those rules.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\https://heritageaction.com/toolkit/stop-bidens-title-ix-rule-
change.
\12\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.
\13\https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-
elections/2025/02/03/department-education-reverts-trumps-title-ix-rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Trump administration has rejected the Biden-Harris
administration's radical view of gender. On January 20, 2025,
President Trump issued an executive order stating that ``[i]t
is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male
and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in
fundamental and incontrovertible reality.'' The executive order
rejects ``gender ideology,'' which it defines as a construct
that ``replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-
shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity,'' permits
``the false claim that males can identify as and thus become
women and vice versa,'' and includes ``the idea that there is a
vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one's
sex.'' The Trump executive order clearly articulates the
problem of gender ideology as ``maintain[ing] that it is
possible for a person to be born in the wrong sexed body.''\14\
The current administration's policy regarding there being two
genders determined by biology should be codified in law so that
this policy remains constant regardless of presidential
administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/
defending-women-from-gender-
ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-
government/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any school receiving federal funds that facilitates a
child's gender transition and then deceives parents is already
in violation of federal law. The Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act (FERPA) 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.\15\ While the Biden-Harris administration failed to
properly apply and enforce the law, on March 28, 2025,
Secretary McMahon issued a Dear Colleague Letter correctly
reminding 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.\16\ The
Department has opened FERPA investigations into California and
Maine related to those states' policies of withholding gender
transition information from parents.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\General Education Provisions Act, Sec. 444.
\16\https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/sites/default/files/
resource_document/file/
Secretary_Comb_SPPO_DCL_Annual%20Notice_0.pdf.
\17\https://www.chalkbeat.org/2025/03/28/schools-must-share-child-
gender-identity-info-with-
parents-trump-education-department-says/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While these actions are in the right direction, it should
not take deception of parents for schools to be caught running
afoul of federal law. No school should be able to use the
privilege of federal taxpayer funds to facilitate a gender
transition or teach radical gender theory.
CONCLUSION
There are only two sexes: male and female. Sex is a
biological classification and not subject to gender identity
ideologies: a boy is a boy; a girl is a girl. Throughout human
history, none of these statements would have provoked much
controversy--until today. Unfortunately, these biological
truths are increasingly under attack in school districts. The
radical Left is pushing a vision of gender that is extremist,
ignores basic biology, and is at odds with what the vast
majority of parents believe. Classrooms should be places of
learning, growth, and achievement--not taxpayer-funded
political activism.
Summary
On April 3, 2025, Rep. Owens introduced H.R. 2617, the Say
No to Indoctrination Act, which would effectively codify
President Trump's January 20th executive order as it relates to
K-12 schools. The bill stipulates that no school may use
federal funds received under ESEA to teach or advance radical
``gender ideology'' as defined by the Trump executive order.
H.R. 2617 Section-by-Section Summary
Section 1--Short title
Names the bill the ``Say No to Indoctrination
Act.''
Section 2--Prohibiting use of ESEA funds to teach gender ideology
Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
to stipulate that no funds under the Act may be used to teach
or advance concepts related to ``gender ideology,'' as defined
in President Trump's January 20 Executive Order ``Defending
Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological
Truth to the Federal Government.''
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. 2617 amends the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 to prevent the use of funds under such Act to teach
or advance concepts related to gender ideology, and for other
purposes. H.R. 2617 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. 2617 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. 2617, is to amend the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 to prevent the use of funds under such
Act to teach or advance concepts related to gender ideology,
and for other purposes.
Duplication of Federal Programs
No provision of H.R. 2617 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. 2617: 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. 2617 would prohibit schools from using funds
authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 to teach or advance concepts related to gender ideology as
defined in Executive Order 14168, published in January 2025.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Executive Order 14168, ``Defending Women From Gender Ideology
Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,''
Presidential Document, 90 Fed. Reg. 8615 (January 20, 2025) https://
tinyurl.com/yjdsy7bn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBO expects schools to comply with the requirements in H.R.
2617 and that any federal funds that would have been used for
that purpose under current law would be used for other
purposes.
Based on the cost of implementing similar prohibitions, CBO
estimates that the costs to the Department of Education to
implement H.R. 2617 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. 2617.
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
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965
* * * * * * *
TITLE VIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
PART F--UNIFORM PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Subpart 2--Other Provisions
* * * * * * *
SEC. 8526. PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS.
No funds under this Act may be used--
(1) for construction, renovation, or repair of any
school facility, except as authorized under this Act;
(2) for transportation unless otherwise authorized
under this Act;
(3) to develop or distribute materials, or operate
programs or courses of instruction directed at youth,
that are designed to promote or encourage sexual
activity, whether homosexual or heterosexual;
(4) to distribute or to aid in the distribution by
any organization of legally obscene materials to minors
on school grounds;
(5) to provide sex education or HIV-prevention
education in schools unless that instruction is age
appropriate and includes the health benefits of
abstinence;
(6) to operate a program of contraceptive
distribution in schools; [or]
(7) to teach or advance concepts related to gender
ideology, as defined in section 2 of Executive Order
14168 (90 Fed. Reg. 8615; relating to defending women
from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological
truth to the Federal Government); or
[(7)] (8) for the provision to any person of a
dangerous weapon, as defined in section 930(g)(2) of
title 18, United States Code, or training in the use of
a dangerous weapon, except that this paragraph shall
not apply to the use of funds under this Act for
activities carried out under programs authorized by
this Act that are otherwise permissible under such
programs and that provide students with educational
instruction or educational enrichment activities, such
as archery, hunting, other shooting sports, or culinary
arts.
* * * * * * *
MINORITY VIEWS
INTRODUCTION
H.R. 2617, the Say No to Indoctrination Act, would prohibit
public schools from using funds provided through programs
authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act\1\
(ESEA), ``to teach or advance concepts related to gender
ideology'' as defined in the recently issued executive order
claiming to ``defend women from gender ideology.''\2\ This bill
is yet another attempt to promote culture wars by forcing
public schools to follow partisan ideology in the use of
federal education funds. The bill negatively targets
transgender youth under the guise of ``biological truth and
defending women.''\3\ In actuality, this bill does nothing to
protect girls in the classroom, however it does have the
potential to cause further marginalization and harm to trans
students. Ultimately, this bill does nothing to address actual
challenges public K-12 schools are facing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\20 U.S.C. Sec. 7906.
\2\Say No to Indoctrination Act, H.R. 2617, 119th Cong. (April 9,
2025) https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr2617/BILLS-119hr2617ih.pdf;
Exec. Order 14,168, 90 Fed. Reg. 8,615 (Jan. 20, 2025).
\3\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF CONCERNS
This Bill Aims To Infuse Curriculum and All Other Aspects of Public
Schools With Divisive Ideology
ESEA already states that schools cannot use federal dollars
provided by programs authorized by the ESEA to promote sexual
activity (whether homosexual or heterosexual), distribute or
aid in the distribution of legally obscene materials to minors
on school grounds, teach sex education/ HIV prevention, or
distribute contraception in schools.\4\ This provision does not
tell school districts how or what they can teach, but merely
prohibits how federal funds can be spent. As such it does not
infringe on the longstanding prohibition that prevents the
federal government from exercising ``any direction,
supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of
instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational
institution, school, or school system . . . ''.\5\ Schools are
free to use to use their own funds to provide sex education and
HIV prevention classes, and often do, tailoring their curricula
and programs to the prevailing opinions of the locality and not
the federal government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\20 U.S.C. Sec. 7906. Even the provision prohibiting sex
education allows for federal funds to be used if, ``that instruction is
age appropriate and includes the health benefits of abstinence;''. Id.
\5\20 U.S.C. Sec. 1232a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On its face, it would appear that the prohibition in H.R.
2617 operates in the same manner. This bill prohibits schools
from using federal funds to ``teach or advance gender
ideology''. The problem comes however, in the use of the
legally ambiguous term ``advance'' and the codification of the
radical definition of ``gender ideology'' from Executive Order
(EO) 14168. Taken together this phrase will make it difficult
for schools to use their funds to take any position on gender
counter to those espoused in EO 14168, effectively limiting how
state and local education authorities can use their own
funding.
This is how EO 14168 defines gender ideology:
``Gender ideology'' replaces the biological category
of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed
gender identity, permitting the false claim that males
can identify as and thus become women and vice versa,
and requiring all institutions of society to regard
this false claim as true. Gender ideology includes the
idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are
disconnected from one's sex. Gender ideology is
internally inconsistent, in that it diminishes sex as
an identifiable or useful category but nevertheless
maintains that it is possible for a person to be born
in the wrong sexed body.
This definition also includes several other terms defined
within the EO itself, including ``sex'', ``gender identity'',
``male'', and ``women''.\6\ Both the definitions of ``gender
ideology'' and other terms cross-referenced within the EO are
defined counter to prevailing scientific and psychological
discourse regarding sex and gender. Trans people exist and are
recognized in scientific study and research.\7\ However, in a
suit filed to block the EO, the National Urban League, National
Fair Housing Alliance, and the AIDS Foundation of Chicago argue
that ``[t]he Anti-Gender Order seeks to erase transgender
people from public life and poses an existential threat to
transgender people themselves.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Exec. Order 14,168, 90 Fed. Reg. 8,615 (Jan. 20, 2025).
\7\Hillary B. Nguyen et al., Gender-Affirming Hormone Use in
Transgender Individuals: Impact on Behavioral Health and Cognition, 20
Curr Psychiatry Reps. 110 (2018), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
articles/PMC6354936/; Carme Uribe et al., Brain Network Interactions in
Transgender Individuals with Gender Incongruence, 211 NeuroImage,
116613 (2020), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1053811920301002?via%3Dihub#sec3.
\8\Complaint at 10, Nat'l Urb. League v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00471,
(D.D.C. Feb. 19, 2025), https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/
2025.02.19-ECF-1-Complaint.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By prohibiting the use of ESEA funds to ``advance'' the
concept of gender identity generally, schools would have to
make critical decisions on issues of curricula, program of
instruction, administration, and personnel, all aspects of
school governance that federal law prohibits Departmental
involvement. Any school that receives ESEA funds would have to
ensure that actions taken with those funds would not ``advance
gender ideology''. ESEA funds can support a wide array of
activities including: teacher salaries, programs to help
students meet challenging state academic standards, well-
rounded education services, and school-based mental health
programs. Any service or program where a transgender student or
teacher could be involved would force a school to confront
whether ESEA funds could be spent for that service if doing so
would ``advance gender ideology''. In practice this would be an
unworkable standard for schools. Schools should be able to use
federal dollars without the threat of micromanagement of every
decision to determine if it adheres to the Majority's ideology.
The Bill Does Nothing To Address Real Issues for Schools and Students
and Intentionally Causes Harm for a Vulnerable Population of
Young People
While the Majority continues to center culture war issues
as Committee business, K-12 schools continue to face pressing
issues. During the markup, Rep. Mark Takano (D CA) highlighted
that this bill is a ``waste of time and energy'' and that this
bill targets ``an already vulnerable population of students and
ensuring that they won't be able to find support or
representation in the place where they go to learn every
day.''\9\ H.R. 2617 does nothing to address the slew of
concerns public schools have faced since January. Late in
March, the Department of Education (ED) canceled late
liquidation for Elementary and Secondary School Emergency
Relief (ESSER) dollars under the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act
creating a loss of over $2.5 billion for public K-12 schools
across the nation.\10\ Additionally, a court ruled the
Administration could move forward with canceling all Teacher
Quality Partnership (TQP) and Supporting Effective Educator
Development (SEED) grants\11\ at a time when educator
preparedness is at a crisis level in many states.\12\ Finally,
the Administration is attempting to illegally dismantle ED
through executive order\13\ and a Reduction in Force (RIF)
which cut ED staff in half\14\, which has resulted in a delay
in federal funds to states\15\ with little to no options for
recourse.\16\ Now is simply not the time to consider H.R. 2617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Markup Hearing of H.R. 2617 Before the H. Comm. On Educ. & the
Workforce, 119th Cong. (Statement of Rep. Mark Takano); Kara Arundel,
House committee advances `gender ideology' bills, K-12 Dive (Apr. 9,
2025), https://www.k12dive.com/news/house-committee-advances-
gender-ideology-in-schools-bills/744950/.
\10\Juan Perez Jr., States scramble to address `catastrophic' halt
to federal pandemic education aid, Politico, Apr. 1, 2025, https://
www.politico.com/news/2025/04/01/maryland-new-jersey-and-other-states-
scramble-to-address-halt-to-covid-19-education-aid-00262345.
\11\Josh Gerstein, Supreme Court, in a win for Trump, lets admin
cancel $65M in teaching grants, Politico, Apr. 4, 2025, https://
www.politico.com/news/2025/04/04/supreme-court-ruling-education-grants-
00273427; Press Release, Notice to Members'' Fourth Circuit Decision in
AACTE, NCTR and MACTE v. McMahon, (Apr. 10, 2025) https://aacte.org/
2025/04/notice-to-members-fourth-circuit-decision-in-aacte-nctr-and-
macte-v-mcmahon/.
\12\Julia H. Kaufman, Teacher Preparation Needs to Catch Up with
School Reform, RAND, Feb. 28, 2025, https://www.rand.org/pubs/
commentary/2025/02/teacher-preparation-needs-to-catch-up-with-school-
reform.html.
\13\Fact Sheet, The White House, President Donald J. Trump Empowers
Parents, States, and Communities to Improve Education Outcomes, Mar.
20, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-
president-donald-j-trump-empowers-parents-states-and-communities-to-
improve-education-outcomes/.
\14\Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Educ., U.S. Department of
Education Initiates Reduction in Force, Mar. 11, 2025, https://
www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-
initiates-reduction-force.
\15\Jonaki Mehta, How the Education Department Cuts Could Hurt Low-
Income and Rural Schools, NPR, Mar. 21, 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/
03/21/nx-s1-5330917/trump-schools-
education-department-cuts-low-income; Mark Lieberman, States Get Antsy
as Education Department Layoffs Delay Millions for Schools,
EducationWeek, Mar. 27, 2025, https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/
states-get-antsy-as-education-department-layoffs-delay-millions-for-
schools/2025/03.
\16\Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Educ., supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEMOCRATIC AMENDMENTS OFFERED DURING MARKUP OF H.R. 2617
Committee Democrats did not offer any amendments to H.R.
2617.
CONCLUSION
This Committee should be laser focused on issues that would
help address pandemic learning loss, teacher shortages, and the
harrowing effect of efforts to dismantle the Department of
Education. Instead, H.R. 2617 attempts to circumvent
longstanding prohibitions on federal control over aspects of
education. It does so by forcing local states and districts to
adopt a partisan, divisive viewpoint. If they do not, they may
be prohibited from using funds Congress authorized to support
our most vulnerable students through the ESEA.\17\ For the
reasons stated above, all Committee Democrats present opposed
H.R. 2617 when the Committee on Education and the Workforce
considered it on April 9, 2025. We urge the House of
Representatives to do the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\Mehta, supra note 15; Collin Binkley, K-12 Schools Must Sign
Certification Against DEI to receive federal money, administration
says, AP, Apr. 3, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/dei-trump-school-
discrimination-federal-funding-7d1025753b9bd924711ace4069fca399.
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Ranking Member.
Joe Courtney,
Mark Takano,
Mark DeSaulnier,
Summer Lee,
Yassamin Ansari,
Members of Congress.
[all]