logo
Play by our gender rules or pay the price: Trump's Title IX ultimatum to California education department

Play by our gender rules or pay the price: Trump's Title IX ultimatum to California education department

Time of India26-06-2025
FILE - AB Hernandez, a transgender student at Jurupa Valley High School, stands on the podium during a medal ceremony for the triple jump at the California high school track-and-field championships in Clovis, Calif., May 31, 2025. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, file)
In the sun-soaked fields of California's public schools, a new legal and ideological storm is brewing, one that reaches far beyond track meets and podium finishes. At the heart of this unfolding clash lies a single, charged question: Can a student's gender identity coexist with federal protections for sex-based equality in education?
In what is shaping up to be one of the most consequential education-rights disputes of recent times, the Trump administration has accused California's education department and high school athletics federation of violating Title IX, a landmark civil rights law that bars sex discrimination in federally funded schools.
The reason? California's decision to allow transgender girls to compete in girls' sports.
What began as the story of a teenage athlete named AB Hernandez, has now evolved into a constitutional confrontation with national implications. With federal funding on the line and ideological lines hardening, the fight over how schools define fairness, inclusion, and legality is no longer theoretical; it is immediate, raw, and threatening to redraw the legal foundations of public education.
Track star turned target: The teen behind California's Title IX clash
Seventeen-year-old Hernandez didn't set out to become the face of a national controversy. But her athletic triumphs at California's high school state championship, first-place finishes in the girls' high jump and triple jump, and second in the long jump, did more than just earning her medals. They triggered a political firestorm.
To navigate the controversy, the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) implemented an unusual compromise: Awarding duplicate medals to the cisgender athletes who would have won, had Hernandez not competed.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya
IC Markets
Mendaftar
Undo
It was a symbolic gesture, but one that satisfied no one and drew national attention.
Within weeks, the US Department of Education launched investigations into both the CIF and the state's education department, calling California's inclusive policy a violation of Title IX.
Trump's Title IX ultimatum: Ban trans girls from girls' sports or lose school funding
Under the Trump administration's interpretation, Title IX must be grounded in binary, biological sex.
The administration insists that the law was designed to protect opportunities for girls and women in education and sports, protections that, they argue, are being eroded when transgender girls are allowed to compete.
'California has failed to uphold its obligation to protect girls under Title IX,' said Education Secretary Linda McMahon in a statement.
The department's proposed resolution is sweeping: California must prohibit transgender girls from participating in girls' sports, require schools to adopt sex-specific definitions of 'male' and 'female,' revoke awards given to trans athletes, and issue apology letters to the cisgender athletes affected.
Failure to comply within 10 days could result in the loss of federal education funding, a move that would shake California's public school system to its core.
California's rebuttal: Inclusion is not noncompliance
The California Department of Education, however, is refusing to back down.
'All students should have the opportunity to learn and participate fully in school life,' said Liz Sanders, spokesperson for the department in a statement.
That stance is backed by California law, which allows students to participate in school activities in accordance with their gender identity.
But now, that state-level policy is in direct defiance of federal demands, setting up a constitutional standoff that could reach the courts.
California schools on the edge of a funding cliff
At risk in this ideological war are California's public schools. Billions in federal funds, used for everything from special education and lunch programs to Title I support for low-income students, could be withdrawn if the state refuses to comply. The Justice Department is already pursuing a similar lawsuit against Maine after it rejected a nearly identical policy demand.
Educators now find themselves in a state of legal confusion. They are trying to support all the students, but are scrambling to find which law to follow. The guidelines change with each administration, and they are at the precipice of executing them.
The national context: A legal doctrine in transition
This clash is not happening in isolation. It's part of a broader campaign by the Trump administration to redefine civil rights in education by limiting protections for transgender students.
Under Biden, Title IX was expanded to include gender identity, a policy that was struck down by a federal court before Trump returned to office.
Now, the pendulum has swung dramatically in the opposite direction. By aggressively enforcing a biology-based interpretation of sex, the Trump administration is reshaping Title IX into a tool for cultural conservatism, wielding federal funding as leverage to pressure states into compliance.
The strategy is effective, but also polarizing. Legal scholars warn that the clash could soon head to the Supreme Court, where the nation's highest bench may ultimately decide whether Title IX protects transgender students or excludes them.
More than a policy fight, a test of educational values
At its core, this is not just a fight over medals, podiums, or policies. It's a confrontation over the purpose of public education. Is the role of schools to reflect the evolving understanding of identity and inclusion? Or to preserve fixed notions of fairness rooted in biology?
For millions of students across the country, the answer will determine more than just who can run, jump, or compete. It will shape whether their schools are places of belonging or battlegrounds for civil rights.
California has made its choice. The Trump administration has drawn its line. And the nation's schools are now the proving ground for a legal, moral, and cultural conflict that will define the future of education in America.
Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's peace offer to Putin on Ukraine war leaked while threatening deadly consequences if there's no peace
Trump's peace offer to Putin on Ukraine war leaked while threatening deadly consequences if there's no peace

Time of India

time23 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Trump's peace offer to Putin on Ukraine war leaked while threatening deadly consequences if there's no peace

U.S. President Donald Trump plans to host Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on August 15, 2025, negotiations aiming at securing peace in the Ukraine war. But according to leaked reports, the peace proposal could involve crucial territorial concessions — and Trump has privately cautioned of 'serious consequences' if the talks fail. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Alaska as Host: A Symbolic and Strategic Choice Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads A Peace Deal or a Concession? Global Reactions: Unease in Europe, Silence in Asia Will It Lead to Peace or Provoke More Conflict? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads FAQs: U.S. President Donald Trump is all set to host Russian President Vladimir Putin at a controversial summit in Alaska on August 15, 2025, focusing on negotiating an ending to the ongoing war in Ukraine. Leaked Reports show that Trump has privately cautioned Putin to accept the peace terms or face 'serious and immediate consequences.' Although no information has been revealed, the statement is regarded as a high-stakes strategy to force Moscow into accepting the to insiders, the proposal suggests that Russia would retain control over four occupied Ukrainian regions: Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson. In return, Moscow would commit to halting all offensive operations and demilitarizing certain contested zones. While the arrangement has been framed as a practical step toward ending the bloodshed, critics warn it could embolden future territorial upcoming summit will take place remotely in a military base near Anchorage, far from Washington, D.C. According to insiders, Alaska was chosen due to its geographical proximity to Russia and a degree of neutrality in international affairs. It also allows the U.S. to avoid potential complications tied to international legal mechanisms such as the International Criminal Court, which has issued an arrest warrant for measures have been significantly tightened, and the event is being said as one of the most sensitive diplomatic meetings in recent years. While the Biden administration has remained in public silence, it has reportedly raised internal concerns about the legitimacy and legality of the summit, especially if it includes territorial concessions without Ukraine's indicate that Trump is considering the idea of a territorial trade to bring an end to the conflict . Under this rumored deal, Russia would maintain control over several occupied territories in eastern Ukraine, including Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson in return for a full ceasefire and possible demilitarization of specific a recent Fox News appearance, Trump described the arrangement as a 'win-win' stating 'Everyone gets something. Most importantly, the dying stops,' he Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has sharply criticized, calling any agreement that excludes Ukraine 'illegitimate.' He stressed that no foreign power can decide Ukraine's future and cautioned that appeasing aggression would set a dangerous global Europe leaders have expressed strong reservations. NATO officials have cautioned that any agreement rewarding territorial aggression could undermine the entire continent. Germany, France, and the U.K. have jointly highlighted that Ukraine must be directly involved in any peace contrast, China and India have remained mostly silent, signaling their characteristically guarded approach when it comes to high-profile geopolitical disputes involving Western powers and the high-stakes summit approaches,uncertainty hangs in the air. The central question remains: will Trump and Putin reach an agreement that halts the bloodshed or will the event further rift the international community?It is evident that the summit is not just about Ukraine. At its core, It's about the role of American leadership in global conflict resolution and whether diplomacy can still thrive in an era defined by nationalism, military strategies, and competing eyes will be on Alaska—not just for peace, but for precedent that this meeting could set for future geopolitics..A1. It's a planned meeting to discuss a possible peace deal to end the war in Ukraine.A2. The summit is scheduled for August 15, 2025

Trump's big boost to nuclear power, US launches pilot project to deploy 11 microreactors
Trump's big boost to nuclear power, US launches pilot project to deploy 11 microreactors

First Post

time23 minutes ago

  • First Post

Trump's big boost to nuclear power, US launches pilot project to deploy 11 microreactors

In line with the agenda to expand nuclear power, the Trump administration has finalised 11 companies to build microreactors as part of a pilot programme. In line with US President Donald Trump's agenda of expanding nuclear power, the Department of Energy on Tuesday announced the finalisation of 11 projects for a pilot programme that would develop microreactors and small modular reactors. Trump signed four executive orders in May to accelerate the construction of these types of advanced nuclear reactors, primarily to address the increased power requirement of industries like data centres driving the artificial intelligence (AI) boom. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'Advanced reactors —including microreactors, small modular reactors, and Generation IV and Generation III+ reactors— have revolutionary potential. They will open a range of new applications to support data centers, microchip manufacturing, petrochemical production, healthcare, desalination, hydrogen production, and other industries,' the executive order read. The DoE on Tuesday said that at least three of the eleven nuclear reactors part of the pilot programme will need to go critical July 2026 — a nuclear reactor going critical, in a layman's terms, means achieving demonstrable operationability. 'President Trump's Reactor Pilot Program is a call to action. These companies aim to all safely achieve criticality by Independence Day, and DOE will do everything we can to support their efforts,' said Deputy Energy Secretary James Danly. The 11 companies selected by the DoE are Aalo Atomics, Antares Nuclear, Atomic Alchemy, Deep Fission Inc, Last Energy, Oklo, Natura Resources LLC, Radiant Energy, Terrestrial Energy, and Valar Atomics. The DoE said that they will be responsible for all costs involved in the designing, manufacturing, constructing, and decommissioning their test reactors. Unlike regular nuclear power plants that take up a huge space and produce huge power, small modular reactors (SMRs) are advanced nuclear fission reactors that generally produce a third of a regular reactor's power. They are made in factories like a regular product and can be installed at the site where power is needed, such as in an industrial facility or a defence installation, making that facility or installation self-sufficient in energy. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Currently, such reactors are in use in limited numbers in China and Russia. The United States now wants to install such reactors as well.

Tariffs on India could go up if ‘things don't go well' during Trump-Putin talks, warns US Treasury Secretary
Tariffs on India could go up if ‘things don't go well' during Trump-Putin talks, warns US Treasury Secretary

Indian Express

time23 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

Tariffs on India could go up if ‘things don't go well' during Trump-Putin talks, warns US Treasury Secretary

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has warned that the secondary tariffs on India could go up if 'things don't go well' during talks between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. Last week, Trump imposed tariffs totalling 50 per cent on India, including 25 per cent for Delhi's purchases of Russian oil that will come into effect from August 27. 'I think everyone has been frustrated with President Putin. We expected that he would come to the table in a more fulsome way. It looks like he may be ready to negotiate. And we put secondary tariffs on the Indians for buying Russian oil. I could see, if things don't go well, then sanctions or secondary tariffs could go up,' Bessent said in an interview with Bloomberg on Wednesday. When asked about China, the main buyer of Russian crude, Bessent said he is 'not going to get ahead of the President, but the President is the best at creating leverage for himself, and he will make it clear to President Putin that all options are on the table.' On whether sanctions can go up or loosened, Bessent said, 'Sanctions can go up, they can be loosened. They can have a definitive life. They can go on indefinitely. You know, there's this Russian shadow fleet of ships around the world that I think we could crack down on.' He added that even as Trump is meeting with Putin, the Europeans 'need to join us' and need to be willing to 'put on these secondary sanctions.' Bessent recalled that at the G7 meeting in Canada this year, when he asked the leaders at the table whether they were willing to put a 200 per cent secondary tariff on China. 'And you know what, everybody wanted to see what kind of shoes they were wearing.' He added that Trump is committed to ending the bloodshed in the Ukraine war. 'It's put up or shut up time. The President is creating his own leverage. We need the Europeans to come in and help create more leverage,' Bessent said. Responding to the tariffs, the Ministry of External Affairs has said that the targeting of India is unjustified and unreasonable. 'Like any major economy, India will take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security,' it said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store