By Shannon Damuth
Abstract
Since the inception of American education law, promoting inclusive education for all students has been a central focus, with federal, state, and local educational actors playing distinct roles in achieving this goal. January 2025 marked the beginning of President Donald Trump’s second inauguration and the start of countless attacks on this fundamental right for LGBTQ+ students. The Department of Justice, Department of Education, Supreme Court, and other affiliated educational entities are manipulating their unchecked legal power to discriminatorily censor LGBTQ+ students through suppressing protections and restricting the dissemination of information.
With changes to the legal landscape and threats of funding cuts on educational programs that protect access to inclusive facilities, the Trump administration creates harmful environments for LGBTQ+ students. The 2025 Mahmoud v. Taylor Supreme Court decision set a dangerous precedent for future disputes on curriculum, allowing parental opt-outs to LGBTQ+ ideas even at the merest exposure. Additionally, the Trump administration is eliminating research studies that involve data on LGBTQ+ issues, perpetuating discrimination and adverse health outcomes. Despite these targeted attacks on LGBTQ+ students, local actors are fighting to codify inclusive educational laws at the state level. Only collective action can restore the educational equity once advanced by prior administrations.
I. Introduction
American education law emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries with the establishment of the first schools in what is now the United States. These schools were funded by private organizations and religious institutions and were open to children of all social and economic backgrounds. The Common School Act of 1837 established a system of free public schools in Massachusetts, which, like the earlier schools, were accessible to every child. This groundbreaking legislation marked the beginning of the development of American education law. Since its inception, the primary mission of most educational institutions and actors has been to ensure nondiscriminatory access for all.
Within the education landscape, federal, state, and local entities play unique roles in the governance that impacts students. While education is primarily overseen by state and local actors, the U.S. Department of Education is the federal education agency that provides funding to assist with these decentralized efforts. It acts as a support system for state and local education when necessary, oversees educational programs, and works to improve national educational outcomes.
Alternatively, state education departments and athletic associations control K-12 educational policies and sporting rules, including managing eligibility for athletes. Some school districts and athletic associations allow students to compete on teams that align with their gender identity, but many states have passed laws banning transgender athletes from doing so. State education departments also develop curriculum, set guidelines for enrollment and graduation, and manage funding.
While state politics control the content of curriculum, there has been an expanding attempt by federal actors to restrict this state power. Censorship is the elimination or control of speech, images, or ideas considered to be harmful or obscene to prevent this information from being disseminated to the general public. When imposed by the government, it is unconstitutional.
Censorship in the education sphere has intensified dramatically in the years since President Trump’s first term. From January 2021 to November 2023, federal, state, and local government officials introduced nearly 800 discriminatory censorship laws — over 500 of which target K-12 schools. Legislatures introduced 56 educational censorship laws in 2024 alone, many of which involved severe assaults on educational speech.
As a result of these policies, students lose critical perspectives and interpretations of history, especially those that benefit marginalized communities. Increasingly, censorship laws concern topics such as race, evolution, sex education, and LGBTQ+ issues. When moral and political beliefs are manipulated to determine what children learn, the quality of education deteriorates.
These policies are especially detrimental considering the influence legislation has on education. Federal laws are legally binding for all fifty states and carry significant financial and legal risks for non-compliance. While executive orders cannot directly change statutory law, their power stems from their ability to influence behavior and policy implementation. The current Supreme Court, though technically independent of the presidential administration, often functions as its proxy in practice. President Trump appointed three of nine justices, creating a 6-3 conservative majority.
Laws regarding inclusive education for LGBTQ+ students are vital for ensuring social and emotional development, diverse perspectives, and improved mental health outcomes. When schools lack a curriculum where all identities are welcomed due to discriminatory censorship policies, LGBTQ+ students face increased risks of harassment, bullying, depression, and anxiety.
Discriminatory censorship refers to the suppression of educational content or policies that reflect marginalized identities, including those from the LGBTQ+ community. These laws harm LGBTQ+ K-12 students by eliminating inclusive environments and limiting the gathering and circulation of information.
Since the beginning of his second term, President Donald Trump has advanced this form of discriminatory censorship through a series of anti-LGBTQ+ legal actions and administrative rollbacks. The Department of Justice, Department of Education, Supreme Court, and other legal entities control policies, laws, and investigations concerning every aspect of a student’s life. These policy reversals have had serious consequences for populations most in need of federal protection. Censorship laws create unsafe school environments when they suppress protections and restrict access to information pertaining to LGBTQ+ students.
II. Suppressed Protections
When policy changes weaken protections against harassment and discrimination, students are left vulnerable and spaces of learning transform into environments marked by fear and exclusion. LGBTQ+ students are no longer protected by federal education laws and institutions as they were under previous administrations, particularly under the Department of Education’s guidance expanding Title IX protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
Threats to funding for programs and schools prioritizing inclusivity foster an environment inadequate for learning. When prior legal protections are violated by powerful actors through discriminatory suppression, LGBTQ+ students must overcome an exclusionary atmosphere to receive equal education.
Title IX Interpretations
Title IX was enacted by Congress in 1972 to protect students from sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs. Although the original text did not mention athletics, Congress later extended its scope to include sports programs in response to widespread complaints of discrimination.
During President Trump’s first term, the administration released the 2020 Title IX rule, which added sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination but maintained the protected classes as they were defined in 1972.
In April 2024, under the Biden administration, the Department of Education updated Title IX to define sex discrimination as including discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. These protections allowed transgender students to access facilities aligned with their gender identity and allowed LGBTQ+ students to report discriminatory practices.
On January 31, 2025, just eleven days after President Trump’s second inauguration, the Department of Education announced that it would reinstate the 2020 Title IX regulations. The reversal eliminated explicit protections for LGBTQ+ students and increased the risk of discrimination and harassment.
Because the definition of “sex” under Title IX no longer includes gender identity, state protections against discrimination are weakened. Some courts have ruled that bans on transgender athletes violate Title IX, while others have ruled they do not, creating legal confusion across states.
The Title IX rollbacks undermine previous interpretations of educational equity and remove key protections. Without these safeguards, schools are no longer required to provide inclusive facilities and LGBTQ+ students face increased barriers when reporting discrimination.
Office for Civil Rights Investigations
The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces federal civil rights laws in educational institutions. It typically receives thousands of complaints yearly involving discrimination.
The Trump administration restricted OCR by freezing hiring, limiting complaint categories, and dismissing hundreds of ongoing cases involving sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. Staff reductions led to delays and dismissals of legitimate complaints.
The administration has also directed investigations toward school districts with inclusive facilities for LGBTQ+ students. Executive Order 14201, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” instructed federal agencies to withhold funding from schools that allow transgender girls to participate in girls’ sports.
The Department of Education subsequently threatened to withdraw federal funding from districts that refused to remove transgender-inclusive policies. Funding investigations targeted multiple school systems across the country, including New York City, Chicago, Denver, Virginia districts, Kansas districts, and state education departments.
Funding is crucial for schools to implement programs and provide resources to marginalized students. These actions forced districts to either remove inclusive policies or risk severe financial consequences.
III. Information Restrictions
The Trump administration also restricts information by limiting research and curriculum addressing LGBTQ+ topics. Executive Order 14190, “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” rescinded funding for schools that include curriculum promoting gender fluidity.
Research censorship similarly limits data on marginalized populations. Without reliable data, discrimination becomes harder to document and address.
Mahmoud v. Taylor
Restrictions on LGBTQ+ curriculum intensified following the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor.
In 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland added thirteen LGBTQ+ inclusive texts to the K-12 English curriculum. Initially, parents could opt their children out of the curriculum, but the Board later removed the opt-out option due to classroom disruption.
Parents sued, claiming the removal of opt-outs violated religious freedom. The Supreme Court granted a preliminary injunction allowing parents to opt their children out of exposure to LGBTQ+ inclusive storybooks while the case proceeds.
The majority opinion argued that exposure to LGBTQ+ themes could interfere with parents’ religious upbringing of their children.
The dissenting opinion countered that exposure to differing ideas does not violate religious freedom and warned that allowing opt-outs for themes could create widespread educational disruption.
The ruling sets a precedent allowing parental opt-outs even for minimal exposure to LGBTQ+ content, raising concerns about future censorship and academic freedom.
Attacks on Data Collection and Dissemination
The administration has also targeted research involving LGBTQ+ students. In March 2025, more than 68 grants totaling nearly $40 million were canceled, many focusing on LGBTQ+ health and youth suicide.
Later that year, NIH staff publicly protested the politicization of research and the cancellation of studies addressing gender identity and sexual health.
The Supreme Court also allowed the administration to suspend funding for more than 1,700 research grants, many related to LGBTQ+ issues.
In addition to research cuts, the administration withheld nearly $7 billion in education funding for programs such as after-school care and teacher training while investigating whether the funds had supported LGBTQ+ content.
Sex education programs were also threatened with funding loss if they included references to transgender people.
These funding cuts restrict access to information and resources that are particularly important for LGBTQ+ youth, who face higher risks of mental health challenges and health disparities.
V. Conclusion
The Trump administration and affiliated parties are discriminatorily targeting LGBTQ+ students through censorship laws and policy changes. By suppressing protections and restricting information through canceled research studies and funding cuts, these policies create unsafe and exclusionary school environments.
Despite these challenges, some states have expanded inclusive education laws in response. Massachusetts officials issued guidance affirming that schools should continue to implement inclusive curricula covering gender identity and sexual orientation.
California civil rights organizations similarly issued guidance to ensure schools maintain inclusive education policies.
The Connecticut Senate’s “Freedom to Read” bill protects libraries’ ability to carry books addressing gender identity and sexual orientation and prevents books from being removed solely because they are considered offensive.
State governments are increasingly acting to protect LGBTQ+ students and counter federal policies. Scholars and policymakers emphasize that safeguarding inclusive education requires coordinated action to defend the promise of public education.
The Trump administration and its allies will likely continue efforts to marginalize LGBTQ+ students. Only sustained collective action from policymakers, educators, and communities can restore and preserve educational equity.