03-11-2025

Women's History Month, 2025

ProclamationView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: A Presidential Proclamation for Women's History Month that also outlines several executive actions taken by the administration. These actions establish a strict biological definition of sex for federal purposes, eliminate non-binary gender markers on federal documents, and mandate that federally-funded sports programs be separated based on biological sex at birth.

Money: The financial impact is not specified in the proclamation. Implementing changes to federal forms and IDs would have administrative costs. Actions related to Title IX enforcement could risk the loss of federal funding for non-compliant educational institutions. A 2024 Department of Education estimate for a related rule change predicted initial implementation costs of $98.5 million in the first year, with potential savings in subsequent years. Conversely, some economic analyses of similar state-level legislation have projected significant GDP losses due to business boycotts and loss of events.

Your Impact: The most likely direct effect on an average American will depend on their personal circumstances. Transgender and non-binary individuals will face significant new restrictions in updating federal documents and participating in school sports. Female athletes may see changes in the competitive landscape of their sports. Other citizens may not experience a direct, immediate impact but will see a shift in federal policy regarding sex and gender identity.

Status: The proclamation describes these actions as already implemented through Executive Orders signed by the President.

What's Actually in the Bill

This Presidential Proclamation for Women's History Month also serves as an announcement and justification for a series of executive actions that define sex as strictly biological and binary (male and female) across the federal government.

Core Provisions:

  • Defines Sex as Biological: Establishes an official federal definition that women are biologically female and men are biologically male.
  • Bans 'X' Gender Markers: Prohibits the use of "X" as a gender marker on U.S. passports and other federal government forms. Passports will only be issued with "M" (male) or "F" (female) markers that must match the individual's biological sex at birth.
  • Enforces Sex-Separated Sports: Directs the Department of Education and other agencies to enforce Title IX by requiring that participation in women's sports in federally-funded schools and colleges be limited to biological females. The proclamation notes that the National College Athletic Association (NCAA) and state athletic associations have altered their policies in response.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The proclamation states these actions are designed to achieve the following:

  1. To honor women's history and contributions by protecting opportunities designed for women.
  2. To counter "radical ideologies" that the administration claims "replace women with men" and are harmful to families.
  3. To fulfill a promise to "protect women and girls from gender extremism" and restore "common sense."
  4. To empower women by restoring the original intent of Title IX protections and ensuring fair competition in female sports.

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: Government Administration, Education, Healthcare, Sports.
Timeline: The proclamation states the Executive Orders were signed "on day one" of the administration and that athletic organizations have already begun to change their policies. The document is scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on March 11, 2025.
Scope: The policies apply nationwide to all federal departments, agencies, and any educational institution receiving federal funding.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

The Evolving Interpretation of "Sex" (1972-2020):

  • 1972: Congress passes Title IX of the Education Amendments, prohibiting discrimination "on the basis of sex" in any federally funded education program. This dramatically increased opportunities for female athletes.
  • 2009: The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act is passed, expanding federal hate crime law to include crimes based on gender identity.
  • 2014: President Obama signs an executive order explicitly prohibiting gender identity discrimination by federal contractors. Federal agencies, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development, begin to issue regulations and guidance protecting transgender people from discrimination.
  • 2015: The Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges legalizes same-sex marriage nationwide, building on a decade of expanding LGBTQ+ rights.
  • January 2021: President Biden issues an executive order directing all federal agencies to implement the Bostock ruling, prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation in housing, healthcare, education, and other areas.
  • June 15, 2020: The Supreme Court rules in Bostock v. Clayton County that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. The majority opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, argues that discriminating against someone for being gay or transgender inherently involves treating them differently based on their sex.

The Political Calculus: Why Now?

The executive actions described in the proclamation represent a direct and forceful reversal of the previous administration's policies and the legal trajectory established by the Bostock ruling. This move aligns with a broader political and cultural movement.

  • Project 2025: The policies outlined in the proclamation align closely with the "Project 2025" playbook, a detailed transition plan created by conservative think tanks. Project 2025 explicitly calls for dismantling federal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, defining sex as strictly biological, and promoting a "biblically based" definition of family.
  • State-Level Precedents: Over the past several years, numerous Republican-led states have enacted laws restricting transgender rights, particularly concerning sports participation and access to gender-affirming care for minors. These state actions created a political foundation for similar moves at the federal level.
  • Cultural Flashpoint: The debate over transgender rights, especially in sports and education, has become a prominent issue in American cultural and political discourse, mobilizing voters on both sides. The actions in the proclamation address a core concern of a significant portion of the president's political base.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: These actions directly affect transgender and non-binary Americans, as well as female athletes, and indirectly impact educational institutions and federal agencies.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • Female Athletes: Some female athletes and their advocates may see this as ensuring fairer competition by preventing biological males from competing in women's sports, potentially protecting athletic opportunities and scholarships.
  • Supporters of Traditional Gender Roles: Individuals who believe that sex is a fixed, biological binary may see these policies as a welcome return to traditional values and a rejection of what they term "gender ideology."

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (Immediate to 1 year):

  • Transgender and Non-Binary Individuals: Transgender and non-binary people will be unable to obtain federal identification, like passports, that accurately reflects their gender identity if it differs from their sex assigned at birth. This can lead to increased harassment and difficulty in travel, employment, and housing.
  • Educational Institutions: Schools and universities will need to immediately review and enforce policies to ensure compliance with the new Title IX interpretation to avoid losing federal funds, which could lead to confusion and legal challenges.

Long-term:

  • Legal and Social Precedent: These actions establish a federal precedent for defining sex in strictly biological terms, which could be used to justify further restrictions in healthcare, housing, and employment.
  • Increased Discrimination: Critics argue these policies will lead to increased discrimination, harassment, and violence against transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals by invalidating their identities in the eyes of the federal government.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: Transgender and non-binary individuals, female student-athletes.
Secondary Groups: Educational institutions (K-12 and university), federal employees, international travelers, families with transgender members.
Regional Impact: The policies are federal and apply to all states. However, individuals in states with pre-existing state-level protections for LGBTQ+ people may face a confusing conflict between state and federal regulations.

Bottom Line: The proclamation's policies will make it significantly harder for transgender people to live according to their gender identity in areas governed by federal law, while potentially creating what supporters see as a more level playing field for female athletes.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "Protecting Women and Common Sense"

Core Stance: The federal government should define sex as a biological reality and protect spaces and opportunities specifically for biological women.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Fairness in Sports: Argue that inherent biological differences give transgender women an unfair advantage, and that protecting women's sports is necessary to uphold the spirit of Title IX.
  • ✓ Biological Truth: Maintain that there are only two sexes, male and female, and that government policy should reflect this scientific and "common sense" reality.
  • ✗ Gender Ideology: Oppose what they describe as a "radical gender ideology" that they claim is harmful to children and families and undermines women's rights.

Legislative Strategy: Use executive orders to bypass Congress and implement these policies quickly. Support state-level legislation that mirrors these goals and introduce federal legislation like the "End Taxpayer Funding of Gender Experimentation Act."

Democratic Position: "Equality and Non-Discrimination"

Core Stance: Federal law should protect all Americans from discrimination, including on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Civil Rights: Argue that discriminating against a person for being transgender is a form of sex discrimination, in line with the Supreme Court's Bostock decision.
  • ✓ Inclusion: Support inclusive policies that allow transgender people to participate fully in society according to their gender identity.
  • ✗ Harmful Discrimination: Argue that policies defining sex as purely biological are discriminatory, harmful to the mental and physical health of transgender individuals, and based on prejudice rather than science.

Legislative Strategy: Pass the Equality Act, which would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, and other areas. Use executive orders, as President Biden did, to extend protections based on the Bostock ruling.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ⚠️ Questionable

Basis of Authority:

The executive actions are based on the President's authority to direct federal agencies. The administration's stance on Title IX relies on the Spending Power, where Congress (and by extension, the Executive Branch) can place conditions on federal funds granted to states and other recipients.

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."

Constitutional Implications:

[Legal Principle]: The core constitutional conflict is with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and its application to discrimination based on sex.
[Precedent]: These executive actions are in direct tension with the Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. In that case, the Court held that discrimination against an individual for being transgender is inherently a form of discrimination "because of... sex." While Bostock dealt specifically with employment (Title VII), its reasoning has been seen by many legal scholars as applicable to other areas of federal law prohibiting sex discrimination, like Title IX.
[Federalism]: The conditions placed on federal education funding directly impact the policies of state and local school districts, a traditional area of state control. However, the Supreme Court has generally upheld Congress's ability to use the Spending Power to influence state policy.

Potential Legal Challenges:

Legal challenges are nearly certain. Advocacy groups like the ACLU and the Transgender Law Center have already signaled their intent to fight such policies. Lawsuits would likely argue:

  1. The executive orders exceed the President's authority and misinterpret federal law (Title IX).
  2. The policies violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
  3. The new rules are "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act, as they contradict the Supreme Court's reasoning in Bostock.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I support the President's executive actions to protect women's sports and define sex as biological in federal law. I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to support these policies."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Contact members of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions to express your support.
  • Join an Organization: Groups like For Women Scotland (in the UK, but reflecting a similar viewpoint) and others advocate for sex-based rights.

TO OPPOSE THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to oppose the President's discriminatory executive actions against transgender Americans and to support the Equality Act."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper explaining why you believe these policies are harmful and discriminatory.
  • Join an Organization: Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Transgender Law Center, Lambda Legal, and GLSEN advocate against these policies and in favor of LGBTQ+ rights.