Education Briefs
On January 30, the Trump Administration announced the end of all direct and indirect funding “of abortion, DEI, and gender ideology” in a “historic expansion of the Mexico City policy.” Vice President J.D. Vance gave advance notice of these changes in a speech during the annual March for Life in 
Washington, DC on January 23. According to a report by the Center for Family & Human Rights (C-Fam), the new rules “close funding loopholes in previous versions of the policy” and place “new, extensive funding restrictions related to gender ideology and DEI.” Vance emphasized that, unlike during the Biden Administration, the federal government will no longer “promote radical gender ideology; it’s our job to promote families and human flourishing.” C-Fam explains that the new policies “are comprehensive in nature, cite federal and state law, Supreme Court opinions, and executive orders as the basis of their legality, and are expected to withstand legal and Congressional challenges.” The new rules ban gender transitioning procedures and prohibit “all promotion of gender ideology, including through lobbying, education, public campaigns, drag queen shows, or any other means.” U.S. organizations that administer hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid and were previously exempt from presidential pro-life restrictions, “are now required to pledge that abortion, DEI, and gender ideology will be purged from any overseas program or activity, including for non-U.S. funds.”
In a move partially attributed to the November 2025 HHS report labeling the evidence for transgender surgeries on minors as weak at best, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) now recommends against such surgeries until minors reach the age of 19. The Washington Stand 
reported that the ASPS, with more than 11,000 physician members, in early February became “the first major medical organization to oppose gender transition for minors....” The organization attributes its decision to “recent publications reporting very low/low certainty of evidence regarding mental health outcomes,” “emerging concerns about potential long-term harms and the irreversible nature of surgical interventions,” and “insufficient evidence demonstrating a favorable risk-benefit ratio.” Although once a supporter of such surgeries, the ASPS began modifying its position in 2024, citing the U.K.’s Cass Review as one reason. (See Education Reporter, June 2025.) The ASPS explained that this review, as well as the HHS report, “have contributed to a clearer understanding of potential harms, while also highlighting limitations of the available evidence, including gaps in documenting long-term physical, psychological, and psychosocial outcomes.” Many physicians, parents, and observers believe it’s about time top mainstream medical associations begin recognizing biological realities supported by “available evidence,” which the ASPS cites in its new position statement. The Washington Stand noted that the new position taken by the ASPS “is significant because its members are the physicians called upon to carry out gender transition surgeries, which are the most invasive, permanent, and harmful type of gender transition procedures.”
The New York Post reports that the Woodbridge High School in Virginia suspended 303 teens who skipped class to attend an anti-ICE protest earlier this month. The school suspended the teens for three days after they reportedly “stormed off campus” to participate in the protest. The Post reported that Principal Heather Abney, Ph.D., announced the suspensions to parents in a letter explaining that while students are 
allowed to “voice their opinions on issues ‘important to them,’ they violated district rules by leaving campus without permission during school hours.” After the protest, most of the students reportedly went home rather than return to class, but others allegedly went to a nearby shopping center and a few returned to campus where they caused a disturbance. The protest was not sanctioned by the Prince William County Public Schools, and “eventually spilled off school grounds and onto the streets, forcing local police to manage traffic and oversee the hundreds of rebel students involved.” While many observers, commenting on the Post story and similar reports, said students likely took advantage of the protest to get out of class, a few asked the pertinent question: “Who mobilized [these] kids? Any adults involved should be prosecuted!” Indeed, while the materials announcing follow-up protests all appear to be student-initiated, thoughtful observers should question who the “organizers” are and who is financing them. As one commenter asked: “How about the rest of the story?”
Want to be notified of new
Education Reporter content?
Your information will NOT be sold or shared and will ONLY be used to notify you of new content.
Click Here
Return to Home Page