Finish the Job: Pass the Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act

SUMMARY: Last week, the House passed H.R.2616, the Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act, a bill which would represent a significant step toward restoring parental authority around the country. For years, Advancing American Freedom, filing fifteen amicus briefs across nine of the thirteen federal circuit courts and the Supreme Court, has urged the courts to restore parental rights and put an end to secret social transition policies in public schools. As the Trump administration has recognized, protecting America’s children from gender indoctrination and restoring parents’ proper role is critical for conserving America’s ordered liberty. The Senate should swiftly pass the Act and send it to the President’s desk for his signature.

Background

• Defending Education’s database suggests that over 1,200 school districts responsible for more than 12,300,000 children adopted policies that permit or require school personnel to socially transition children without parental notice or consent.
• The Supreme Court has been reluctant to address this issue. Although it issued an important preliminary ruling for parents in Mirabelli v. Bonta, it declined the opportunity to hear two of these cases, Foote v. Ludlow School Committee and Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County, on the merits.

The Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act

• The Act was introduced by the House Committee on Education & Workforce on April 3, 2025. On May 20, 2026, the House passed the Act by a floor vote of 217-198.
• If signed into law, the Act would require public schools that receive federal funding “to obtain parental consent before changing a minor’s gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form or sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.”
• The Act would prevent these schools from using federal funding to teach or advance “concepts related to gender-ideology.”

Some Facts From Nine of the Thirteen Circuit Courts

• In the First Circuit, a Massachusetts middle-school facilitated the social transition of an eleven-year-old girl, spurning her mother’s requests that school officials not

discuss gender identity with her daughter. Instead, the school counselor texted and messaged the eleven-year-old via online chat to encourage weekly meetings “to discuss any gender-related concerns.”

• In the Second Circuit, school officials assured a mother that no unusual circumstances were to blame for her daughter’s falling grades and distraction from her schoolwork. Even after the mother learned of the school’s social transition campaign and moved her daughter to at-home instruction, school officials continued to speak with the girl about gender issues.
• In the Third Circuit, a freshman girl diagnosed with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and “high functioning autism” struggled with anxiety stemming from “the childhood trauma of the death of her mother.” Yet, after the girl asked the school counselor to help her socially transition at school, the school took steps to ensure that her father would not be informed, including using the girl’s legal name for announcements over the school intercom lest her siblings should find out about her social transition and inform their father.
• In the Sixth Circuit, a school district “equate[d] harassment with the ‘intentional use of pronouns inconsistent with a student’s gender identity.’”
• In the Seventh Circuit, a school district that requires written parental authorization to administer over-the-counter medication such as aspirin instituted a policy directing staff to facilitate social transitions without notifying parents or seeking their consent.
• In the Eighth Circuit, the Linn-Mar School Board adopted a policy that directed teachers to effectuate children’s gender transitions while keeping parents in the dark.
• In the Ninth Circuit, in Mirabelli v. Bonta, a certified class including parents and teachers challenged a California School District’s policy that prohibited teachers and school staff “from informing parents about a child’s unusual gender expression, unless the child consents.” Though the Poe family’s daughter had been presenting as a boy at school for months, “The Poe parents did not learn of their child’s deteriorated mental health until after she attempted suicide.” The lives of real children are at risk, and parents are being sidelined from helping.
• In the Tenth Circuit, without seeking consent from parents, two sixth graders were invited to after-school meetings that discussed gender identity. One tragically attempted suicide and identified her attendance at the “Gender and Sexualities Alliance” club meeting as the source of her suicidal ideation. In the Eleventh Circuit, a Florida School District resisted plaintiff-parents’ attempts to direct the school’s response to their daughter’s gender dysphoria in line with the school board’s policy that warned that “[o]uting a student to parents can be very dangerous to the student’s health and wellbeing.

Bottom Line

Not only is the Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act an excellent step toward protecting parental rights and keeping children safe from gender indoctrination, but it is in line with the current administration’s agenda. The Senate’s decision should be easy. Pass the Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act so that the President can sign into law a protection for America’s future generations.