Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
This bill conditions receipt of federal funds on an entity not permitting individuals to access single-sex facilities that do not correspond to their "biological sex," as defined in the bill. Covered entities include private organizations and all levels of government; covered facilities are restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms.
Progressives emphasize discrimination and service loss; conservatives emphasize privacy and safety.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear substantive prohibition and supplies defined terms and narrow exceptions, but it lacks essential implementation, enforcement, fiscal, and integration detail that would ordinarily accompany a statute conditioning Federal funding.
This bill conditions receipt of federal funds on an entity not permitting individuals to access single-sex facilities that do not correspond to their "biological sex," as defined in the bill.
Covered entities include private organizations and all levels of government; covered facilities are restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms.
Exceptions apply for emergency medical personnel and law enforcement in active emergencies or pursuits.
Content is politically polarizing, expands federal leverage, lacks compromise features, and raises substantial legal risks, lowering chances of enactment.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear substantive prohibition and supplies defined terms and narrow exceptions, but it lacks essential implementation, enforcement, fiscal, and integration detail that would ordinarily accompany a statute conditioning Federal funding.
Progressives emphasize discrimination and service loss; conservatives emphasize privacy and safety.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize discrimination and service loss; conservatives emphasize privacy and safety.
Sees the bill as a punitive, sex-based funding restriction that targets transgender people.
Views the statutory definition of "biological sex" and funding ban as likely to cause discrimination and reduce access to services.
Expects legal challenges on civil-rights and equal-protection grounds.
Approaches the bill with mixed concerns: supports protecting privacy in single-sex spaces but worries about broad federal coercion.
Notes the bill's wide entity definition could pull many institutions into compliance or funding loss.
Wants clearer, narrower language and implementation safeguards to avoid unintended service disruptions and legal exposure.
Likely to view the bill favorably as protecting women-only spaces and privacy.
Sees the use of federal funding conditions as an appropriate enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance across institutions.
Appreciates the bill's explicit biological-sex definitions and narrow facility list.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is politically polarizing, expands federal leverage, lacks compromise features, and raises substantial legal risks, lowering chances of enactment.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize discrimination and service loss; conservatives emphasize privacy and safety.
Content is politically polarizing, expands federal leverage, lacks compromise features, and raises substantial legal risks, lowering chance…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear substantive prohibition and supplies defined terms and narrow exceptions, but it lacks essential implementation, enforcement, fiscal, and integrat…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.