The Trump administration has given California 60 days to remove all references to transgender or nonbinary gender concepts from its federally funded sex education curriculum—or risk losing millions of dollars in federal funding.

In a letter sent on June 20, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said California’s Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) materials include “gender ideology” content not permitted under federal law.

Citing multiple lesson plans and teacher guides, the agency said the state’s curriculum teaches that gender identity is distinct from biological sex—something that the ACF says is outside the program’s statutory scope.

“The Trump Administration will not tolerate the use of federal funds for programs that indoctrinate our children,” ACF acting Assistant Secretary Andrew Gradison said in a statement. “The disturbing gender ideology content in California’s PREP materials is both unacceptable and well outside the program’s core purpose.”

Within the flagged material are lessons describing transgender, nonbinary, and gender-fluid identities, as well as references to social and medical gender transitions, including hormone therapy and “gender-affirming” surgeries.

The ACF stated that these subjects fall outside the statutory framework of the PREP program, which is designed to educate youth on abstinence, contraception, and select adulthood preparation topics such as healthy relationships, financial literacy, and job readiness. Teaching about gender identity does not qualify, according to the agency.

“Therefore, ACF instructs California to remove all content concerning gender ideology from its curricula, program materials, and any other aspects of its program delivery within 60 days” and provide a copy of the modified educational materials to the ACF for approval, the letter states.

Failure to comply could trigger enforcement actions, including suspension or termination of federal funds, the agency warned. The ACF also signaled that California will not be alone in facing such scrutiny. Other states’ PREP curricula will undergo similar reviews, and similar enforcement actions may follow.

“Similar notices to other grantees will follow if ACF identifies any gender ideology content,” the agency said in a June 20 statement, in which it said the action against California is part of President Donald Trump’s commitment to ensuring that federally funded programs are based on “evidence-based science—not ideological agendas.”

The Epoch Times has reached out to California PREP officials for comment and to confirm whether the state intends to revise its curriculum in response to the federal directive.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, then-candidate Trump vowed to reverse Biden administration-era policies that promoted the tenets of gender ideology, such as transgenderism. On his first day back in the White House, Trump signed an executive order, called “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” that bars federal agencies from supporting programs that recognize gender identities that do not match the two biological sexes: male and female.

That order is currently being challenged in court by a coalition of LGBT advocacy groups. In a June ruling, a federal judge in California granted a partial injunction, temporarily blocking enforcement of provisions that would strip funding from organizations accused of promoting gender ideology.

The court found that these funding bans likely violate the First and Fifth Amendments and the constitutional separation of powers, stating that the government “cannot weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds to single out protected communities for disfavored treatment or suppress ideas that it does not like or has deemed dangerous.”

In a legal brief opposing the LGBT groups’ challenge to Trump’s order, government attorneys argued that the president is allowed to have policy priorities and is “further permitted to align government funding and enforcement strategies with those policy priorities.”

They also argued that the plaintiffs’ case is “riddled with jurisdictional defects and hinges on far-fetched applications of the law.” They said that the executive order does not bar individuals from expressing their identities or viewpoints, but merely ensures that federal programs comply with statutory limits and reflect biological reality.