Connect with us

Politics

California bill aims to end school gender notification policies — and protect teachers

Published

on

California bill aims to end school gender notification policies  — and protect teachers

As lawsuits play out in courts across the state over student privacy when it comes to gender identity, a bill introduced in the California Legislature on Wednesday aims to unilaterally end parental notification policies — and protect teachers caught in the fray.

Assemblymember Christopher M. Ward (D-San Diego) is carrying legislation that would shield teachers from “any retaliation” for supporting transgender student rights and would prohibit school policies that require “forced disclosure” of youth gender decisions to their families.

The bill is the latest attempt by Democrats to rein in Republican-backed school board policies, including those that seek to notify parents if their child changes their name or pronouns, or requests to use facilities or participate in programs that don’t match their gender on official records.

Such moves are being touted by conservatives nationwide in the name of parental rights. LGBTQ+ advocates have called the policies an attack on transgender children who don’t feel safe expressing themselves at home.

Advertisement

Ward called the measures “forced outing” policies, and said the new legislation is meant to reaffirm and clarify California’s stance on the issue, and would provide guidance to families of LGBTQ+ students to help them navigate the sensitive topic.

“Nothing ever was infringing on the parent-child relationship. Nothing is today, and nothing would be with this bill enacted,” Ward said ahead of a news conference in Sacramento on Wednesday. “But that’s not the job of teachers — to be the gender police.”

Since school boards in conservative pockets of California started engaging in culture wars over LGBTQ+ student rights last summer, a series of lawsuits have followed, and conflicting rulings have further complicated the debate over the constitutionality of minors’ right to privacy.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit last year against the Chino school district, alleging its parental notification policy was discriminatory and violated civil rights and privacy laws.

A San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge ruled in a preliminary hearing that the policy was discriminatory because it specifically targeted transgender students. That led the Chino Valley Board of Education to revise the policy to expand it to all students seeking any changes to their records.

Advertisement

Bonta filed a new motion against the district last month seeking a final judgment to ensure that school board members do not attempt to reenact the policy, as they have continued to voice support for it.

A Temecula teachers union also sued school officials there over a similar policy. In that case, A Riverside County Superior Court judge allowed the policy for now. And in Chico, a parent lost a legal battle over allegations that the school district did not inform her about her child’s gender-identity issues.

“We do need statutory guidance,” Ward said. “The lack of it is contributing to confusion.”

Meanwhile, anti-transgender activists are backing a ballot measure that would not only require schools statewide to notify parents about student gender changes, but also ban some transgender healthcare for minors and enact new rules about school bathrooms and sports teams. The long-shot ballot measure has yet to acquire enough signatures to make it on the ballot in November.

If that measure passes, it could void the law that Ward is trying to pass.

Advertisement

Republicans were quick Wednesday to call the legislation an overreach by California Democrats into family matters.

The bill would “cut parents out of their kids’ education,” Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) said on social media.

“If something is going on with a child’s health or wellbeing, parents have a right to know,” he said.

It remains unclear what the law requires of teachers amid ongoing legal debates over parental notification and student privacy.

A Riverside County school district agreed to pay $360,000 last week to settle a lawsuit from a former teacher who said she was fired for refusing to comply with a requirement to use students’ preferred pronouns and in some cases withhold that information from parents. She said the policy violated her free speech and religious rights.

Advertisement

The focus of Wednesday’s Democratic-packed news conference in Sacramento, though, was the alternative possibility of teachers being forced to violate student privacy to alert their families about their gender expression.

“To have a blunt policy like a forced outing policy that requires a teacher to undermine that trust puts up a wall to be able to provide that education,” said Jeff Freitas, president of the California Federation of Teachers. “You tell me your pronoun, I’ll use it, we move forward, and I’ll teach.”

State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, who has announced plans to run for governor in 2026, stood alongside Ward and members of the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus in support of the bill, and pointed to laws already on the books that protect transgender students, including gender-neutral bathroom requirements in schools.

“California students know who they are and who they are becoming. No one else should attempt to define for any of our students who they are,” Thurmond said. “This is a personal matter. This is a matter of safety. This is a matter of privacy.”

Times staff writer Howard Blume contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Politics

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

Published

on

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.

The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House. 

The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

Published

on

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.

Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.

“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”

The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.

While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.

Advertisement

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.

And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.

That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.

It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.

That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.

Advertisement

That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is true in the streets of America today.

Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

Published

on

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.

The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.

Advertisement

USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION 

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.

The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022.  (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Advertisement

In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs. 

HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.

‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL

The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud.  (AP Digital Embed)

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”

Advertisement

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending