hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
Prohibits federal education funds for programs with sexually oriented material for under 18s.
Sponsored by Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL) and 18 co-sponsors.
In committee, no House vote yet.
This bill, H.R. 7661, seeks to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. It would prevent schools from using federal funds for any programs or materials deemed 'sexually oriented' for children under 18, specifically including gender dysphoria and transgenderism. The bill was introduced by Representative Mary Miller, a Republican from Illinois, along with 18 other representatives. As it was just introduced, it must first be reviewed and potentially voted on by the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced Feb 24, 2026
This bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on February 24, 2026, and referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce. It is currently in the 'Introduced' stage, meaning it has been formally presented but has not yet undergone any significant review or debate. For it to become law, it must pass through committee, be voted on by the full House, then pass the Senate, and finally be signed by the President.
If this bill becomes law, schools that receive federal funds through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act would be prohibited from using those funds for any programs or materials for children under 18 that include 'sexually oriented material.' This definition would explicitly include content related to gender dysphoria or transgenderism, meaning schools might avoid discussing these topics if they rely on federal funding for related programs. However, the bill specifies that standard science classes (like biology and human anatomy), major world religions, and classic works of art and literature (as defined by specific external lists) would still be permissible.
Supporters Say
Advocates argue this bill protects children from inappropriate sexual content and materials in educational settings.
Critics Say
Opponents might argue it limits comprehensive education and censors discussions on gender identity for minors.
Supporters of this bill would likely emphasize that it shields young children from topics they deem too mature or sexually explicit, aligning with parental rights and values. They might argue that schools should focus on core academics and avoid controversial subjects like gender identity for minors. Critics, however, could contend that the bill's broad definition of 'sexually oriented material' could lead to censorship, restrict age-appropriate education on health and identity, and negatively impact LGBTQ+ students by excluding discussions of their experiences and identities from the curriculum.