Truth in Gender Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1]
- Committees
- Homeland Security Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 13, 2025
Bottom line
The bill seeks to codify a biological definition of sex across federal law and policy, aiming to reverse current federal interpretations that include gender identity, thereby impacting a wide range of federal operations, protections, and services.
What it actually does
This bill, the "Truth in Gender Act of 2025," establishes a federal policy defining "sex" as immutable biological classification (male or female) at conception, explicitly excluding gender identity. It mandates that all federal agencies, in their policies, documents, communications, and enforcement of sex-based rights, adhere to these biological definitions. The bill also requires agencies to remove content promoting "gender ideology," prohibits federal funding for such ideology, and directs specific actions regarding government-issued identification, personnel records, and the designation of single-sex intimate spaces, including prisons and rape shelters.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is essential for defending women's rights and protecting freedom of conscience by ensuring that legal and policy distinctions based on sex are grounded in biological reality. They contend that recognizing biological sex is crucial for maintaining single-sex spaces (like bathrooms, locker rooms, prisons, and shelters) for safety and privacy, particularly for women and girls. Proponents believe the bill clarifies legal ambiguities created by evolving interpretations of "sex" and prevents the erosion of sex-based protections.
Opponents contend
Opponents argue that this bill is discriminatory and harmful to transgender and gender non-conforming individuals, effectively erasing their identities from federal recognition and denying them protections. They contend that defining sex solely by biological characteristics at conception ignores contemporary understandings of gender identity and could lead to significant legal and social challenges, including increased harassment and discrimination. Critics also argue it misinterprets existing legal precedents, such as Bostock v. Clayton County, and could undermine efforts to create inclusive environments.
The bill is concise and relatively easy to read, allowing for a quick understanding of its core provisions and implications.
Section 2
Codification of Biological Sex Definitions and Rejection of Gender Ideology
This section defines "sex" as an individual's immutable biological classification as male or female at conception, explicitly stating it is not gender identity. It further defines "female" and "male" based on reproductive cell production. The section also includes Congressional findings that "gender ideology" replaces biological sex with self-assessed gender identity, permits false claims, includes a spectrum of genders, and is internally inconsistent.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these definitions provide necessary clarity and restore a common-sense understanding of biological reality to federal law, protecting the integrity of sex-based categories.
Critics contend
Opponents contend these definitions are exclusionary and discriminatory, denying the lived experiences and scientific understanding of gender identity, and could lead to legal challenges and harm to transgender individuals.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between codifying a strictly biological definition of sex and recognizing evolving societal and medical understandings of gender identity.
Section 3(b), (c), (e)
Agency-Wide Adoption of Sex-Based Language and Policies
This provision requires all federal agencies and their employees to enforce laws governing sex-based rights, protections, opportunities, and accommodations using the biological definitions of sex from Section 2. Agencies must use "sex" and not "gender" in federal policies and documents and remove all statements, policies, regulations, forms, and communications that promote "gender ideology." Agency forms must require an individual's sex to be listed as male or female and may not request gender identity.
Section 3(d)
Sex-Based Requirements for Federal Identification and Personnel Records
The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security, and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, are directed to implement changes ensuring government-issued identification documents (like passports, visas, and Global Entry cards) and federal employee personnel records accurately reflect the holder's sex as defined by the bill (biological male or female).
Section 3(e)(3) and Section 3(g)
Ban on Federal Funding for Gender Ideology Promotion
This provision explicitly prohibits the use of federal funds to promote "gender ideology." It further requires the head of each federal agency to assess grant conditions and grantee preferences to ensure that grant funds do not promote gender ideology.
Section 4
Sex-Based Designation of Intimate Spaces and Services
This section mandates that the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security ensure males are not detained in women's prisons or detention centers, requiring amendments to regulations and ADA guidance. It also directs the HUD Secretary to rescind a 2016 rule on "Equal Access" based on gender identity in housing programs and to establish a policy protecting women seeking single-sex rape shelters. Furthermore, it prohibits federal funds for medical procedures in prisons aimed at conforming an inmate's appearance to the opposite sex and requires all federal agencies to ensure intimate spaces designated for men or women are based on sex, not identity.
Section 5
Affirmation of Binary Sex Expression and Single-Sex Spaces
The Attorney General is directed to issue guidance affirming the freedom to express the binary nature of sex and the right to single-sex spaces in workplaces and federally funded entities covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Furthermore, the Attorney General, Secretary of Labor, EEOC, and other relevant agencies are mandated to prioritize investigations and litigation to enforce these rights and freedoms.
Section 6
Mandatory Agency Reporting and Legal Supremacy
Within 120 days, each federal agency must report to the President (via OMB) on its implementation of the Act, including changes to documents and requirements imposed on federally funded entities. Crucially, the Act states its requirements supersede conflicting provisions in any other law, and agencies must promptly rescind all guidance documents inconsistent with the Act, including those identified in Executive Order 14168, Section 7(c).
This section states that the Act is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States or its agents.
Section 7(a)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to prevent unintended litigation against the government based on the Act's provisions, but it also means individuals cannot directly sue to enforce the rights or benefits they might perceive the Act creates.
Case for: Proponents would argue this prevents frivolous lawsuits against the government and ensures that enforcement remains within the purview of federal agencies as outlined in the bill.
Case against: Opponents might argue that by explicitly denying a private right of action, the bill limits the ability of individuals, particularly those negatively impacted, to seek redress in court for violations of the Act's stated principles or for harm caused by its implementation.
Estimated impact: Limits legal avenues for individuals to enforce the Act's provisions or challenge its implementation in court, shifting enforcement entirely to federal agencies.