The rule could have heavy impacts towards trans people across society.
Last week, the Trump administration quietly released a sweeping new federal rule that would use funding threats to force institutions across the country to reject transgender people. The 400-page proposed regulation would codify the administration's anti-trans executive orders into binding federal policy, imposing a blanket prohibition on federal funds going toward "gender ideology"
The proposed rule, formally titled "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance," rewrites the government-wide framework governing all federal grants across every agency. Among its most consequential provisions, it requires that before a federal grant recipient can receive money, the award must pass a "pre-issuance review" conducted by a political appointee—not a career expert or peer reviewer—to ensure it is "consistent with applicable law, Federal agency priorities, and the national interest." The regulation explicitly instructs these appointees to screen for "denial by the recipient of the sex binary in humans or the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic." [...] An institution that acknowledges transgender people exist—through its policies, its training, its healthcare, its bathroom access, its HR procedures, its name-change processes—could be deemed to "deny the sex binary" or to “support the notion that sex is mutable” and have its federal funding blocked.
Importantly, the gender ideology prohibition has no age limitation—hospitals could be targeted not just for providing care to minors but for providing gender-affirming care to adults, because prescribing hormone therapy to a transgender patient of any age could be deemed promoting the belief that "sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic."
THIS IS OPEN TO COMMENT UNTIL JULY 13, 2026
I’d like to point out that the proposed regulation is going through the office of management and budget. This means that, if you guys want to see this fail to pass, your comments need to include how this would negatively impact the federal budget (which it will) or cite violations of specific pre-existing regulations and policies. They are not going to take you seriously if you just vaguely point to human rights violations. You need to be specific and address the office’s main interests too.
Some talking points if you don’t know what to say:
How similar past regulations like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” impacted the federal government’s spending and budget
There is no public benefit to another “don’t ask don’t tell” incident
The monetary cost of labor and resources to screen people
The monetary cost of firing experienced employees based on loosely defined gender ideology policies, then hiring and training new employees (always more expensive to fire and hire new people)
Widening the already massive federal debt deficit, which a vast majority of voters care a lot about and has caused many congressman to fret over potentially declaring bankruptcy
Inserting/forcing personal politics onto workers in traditionally apolitical workspaces goes against existing federal policy to remain politically neutral
How this witch hunt would massively stall the productivity and effectiveness of these institutions, which would cost more money and cause even more public unrest
Cutting the federal workforce again won’t be popular. Institutions still haven’t recovered from the last cuts
How civilians who use these institutions have the right to freedom of speech and expression, including political beliefs, without the government’s judgment or interference
I can see several scenarios where this would violate HIPAA considering this includes gender affirming care
Automatically punishing transgender people on a federal level by denying access to institutions if they are thought to be transgender assumes guilt based on demographics and violates right to a fair trial via “innocent until proven guilty.”
Take your pick and expand on it, but don’t copy and paste. It’ll look like spam and they will throw it out.
