Technical corrections and procedural updates only. v2 updates the heading of Section 2 from "PROHIBITION ON TEACHING GENDER IDEOLOGY" to "PROHIBITING USE OF ESEA FUNDS TO TEACH GENDER IDEOLOGY" and adds additional sponsors. No substantive policy changes were made to the bill's operative text.
Say No to Indoctrination Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Owens, Burgess [R-UT-4]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 13, 2026
Bottom line
This bill restricts the use of federal education funds to prevent the teaching or advancement of gender ideology concepts in schools, as defined by a specific Executive Order.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to prohibit the use of federal funds provided under ESEA for teaching or advancing concepts related to 'gender ideology.' It specifically defines 'gender ideology' by referencing Section 2 of Executive Order 14168, which is described as relating to 'defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the Federal Government.' This restriction applies to all educational activities and programs funded through ESEA.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill ensures federal education funds are used for core academic instruction and prevents schools from promoting controversial social theories. They contend it respects parental rights by preventing the introduction of concepts they may deem inappropriate or harmful to children, aligning with efforts to restore 'biological truth' in federal policy and education.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue this bill constitutes federal overreach into local curriculum decisions and could lead to censorship of important topics related to gender identity and expression. They might contend it discriminates against LGBTQ+ students and staff, creates a hostile environment, and prevents schools from providing inclusive education and support for all students, potentially violating existing anti-discrimination protections.
The bill text is exceptionally short and can be read in under two minutes, making it highly accessible for immediate understanding.
Section 2, amending Section 8526 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7906)
Prohibition on Use of ESEA Funds for Gender Ideology
This provision adds a new restriction to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), specifically prohibiting the use of any funds allocated under ESEA for activities that 'teach or advance concepts related to gender ideology.' The bill explicitly defines 'gender ideology' by referencing Section 2 of Executive Order 14168, which is characterized as focusing on 'defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the Federal Government.' This means schools receiving ESEA funds would be barred from using those funds for any curriculum, training, or program that falls under this definition.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision ensures ESEA funds are not diverted to promote specific ideologies that some parents and communities find objectionable. They contend it refocuses education on core subjects and protects children from what they view as inappropriate or confusing concepts, aligning with a desire to uphold traditional understandings of gender and biology in schools.
Critics contend
Opponents contend this provision represents an ideological attack on inclusive education and could harm LGBTQ+ students by erasing their identities and experiences from the curriculum. They argue it restricts academic freedom, creates a chilling effect on discussions about gender, and could lead to a less supportive and understanding school environment for vulnerable students.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances concerns about parental rights and ideological neutrality in education with the need for inclusive learning environments and the protection of LGBTQ+ students' well-being. It creates a tension between federal control over education funding and local control over curriculum, as well as between differing societal views on gender and identity.
The bill prohibits the use of ESEA funds to teach or advance concepts related to 'gender ideology,' as defined by a specific Executive Order.
Section 2(3), referencing 'section 2 of Executive Order 14168 (90 Fed. Reg. 8615; relating to defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the Federal Government)'
Why it matters:This method is a standard legislative practice for incorporating existing definitions without reprinting lengthy text. However, in this context, it also means the precise scope of the prohibition is not immediately apparent to a reader of the bill alone, potentially obscuring the full implications.
Case for: Proponents would argue that referencing an existing Executive Order provides a clear, consistent, and established definition, avoiding redundancy in legislative text. It ensures that the bill's intent aligns with broader executive branch policy on gender-related issues.
Case against: Opponents might argue that externalizing such a critical definition makes the bill less transparent and harder for the public and educators to understand without additional research. It could be seen as an attempt to obscure the full breadth of the prohibition by relying on a definition that may itself be controversial or subject to interpretation.
Estimated impact: The impact is significant, as the definition from EO 14168 will dictate the precise scope of what can and cannot be taught or advanced using ESEA funds across all recipient schools nationwide.