Education Department Scraps Biden Era Title IX Rules
Left 40%
Center 0%
Right 60%
2 left · 0 center · 3 right
What happened
The U.S. Department of Education announced Monday that it has formally rescinded the Biden administration’s 2024 Title IX regulations, which had expanded federal sex-discrimination protections in schools to cover sexual orientation and gender identity. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the department is restoring the 2020 regulatory text from the first Trump administration, under which those protections are tied to biological sex. Federal courts had already invalidated the 2024 Biden rule, and in January 2025 the department said it would enforce the Trump-era regulations. McMahon said schools should return to the 2020 rules and did not identify a new compliance deadline.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 5 articles
3 of 5 articles cite a named source for the story. It started with unnamed sources; a named source appeared 3 hours later.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 3 of 5
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Education Secretary Linda McMahon, U.S. Department of Education, Education Department and Linda McMahon
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 5
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
- Credits another outlet 0 of 5
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 5
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 28, 17:48 UTC by Washington Post, with no named source. First named source 3 hours later, from Washington Examiner.
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Left-leaning coverage treats Monday as the withdrawal of Biden-era Title IX rules and skips that those rules were already out of force. Right-leaning coverage reports the filing as putting the prior Trump regulatory text back on the books after that collapse. The omitted sequence is the one that changes the event: not a fresh policy choice, but a formal stamp. Left-leaning coverage at The Hill describes a rescission of sex-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity and never mentions an earlier court loss. Right-leaning coverage at Fox News reports the department had already switched enforcement, with McMahon calling the step "clarification."
Left-leaning coverage names the action a loss of "protections for LGBTQ students." Right-leaning coverage names it "a win for girls and women."
What must a school actually change on bathrooms, housing, harassment, or assault hearings now that the 2020 text is back in the federal code?
Bottom line
You would not know from The Hill that the Education Department had already been enforcing Trump-era Title IX when it rescinded the Biden rule, which is how Fox News records Monday's action.
The receipts — 4 facts one side's coverage lacks
- The change has angered advocates for sexual assault survivors
- Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the action reinforces that girls' and women's sports should be reserved for females
- The restored framework ties federal sex-discrimination protections strictly to biological sex
- The Biden administration's separate proposal on athletic-team eligibility was withdrawn in December 2024
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets present the decision as stripping federal civil-rights coverage from LGBTQ students. The Hill said the department “formally rescinded Title IX protections for LGBTQ students” and that schools “must go back to the Title IX code as held under the previous Trump administration in 2020.” The New York Times reported that the change “follows a court ruling barring Title IX from protecting L.G.B.T.Q. people and has angered advocates for sexual assault survivors.” The Washington Post described the new regulations as a return to first-Trump-administration rules.
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets present the move as a return to Title IX’s original purpose and as a victory for female athletes. McMahon told OutKick it reinforces that girls’ and women’s sports “should be reserved for females,” adding, “We’re just acknowledging that boys and men are in boys and men’s sports and girls are in theirs.” She said Title IX “was set up to give everyone, including women, equal opportunity to sports,” that “under the Biden regulations, many of those rights had been taken away,” and that the restoration returns the statute “as it was originally intended” while giving “clarification to students, teachers, schools, parents.” One America News called the reinstated biological-sex framework “a win for girls and women.” McMahon also described consequences for noncompliant states, including reimbursement-only funding for high-risk recipients and a Justice Department referral of Maine over its policy allowing trans-identifying males to compete in girls’ sports.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that the rollback withdraws federal Title IX coverage from LGBTQ students—the Hill’s formulation of rescinding “protections for LGBTQ students”—a change the New York Times said has angered advocates for sexual assault survivors after a court already barred reading the statute to protect L.G.B.T.Q. people. The right’s strongest argument is that the 2020 biological-sex reading restores the law’s original guarantee of equal opportunity for women and girls, which McMahon said Biden-era rules had taken away, and that putting that text back in the Code of Federal Regulations tells schools what they must follow. The central unresolved tension is whether “sex” in Title IX includes gender identity—so that excluding transgender students from opposite-sex sports, facilities, or coverage is unlawful discrimination—or whether “sex” means biological sex, so that gender-identity coverage itself undercuts the statute’s protections for female students.
6 sources
- Education Department formally rescinds Title IX protections for LGBTQ students
- Education Department officially scraps Biden-era Title IX rules
- Trump Officials Revise How Title IX Sex Discrimination Rules Are Enforced
- Education Department rescinds Biden Title IX rule, restores Trump-era regulations
- Education Department rescinds Biden-era gender identity language
- Education Dept. rescinds Biden-era Title IX rules, reinstating biological sex framework: ‘A win for girls and women’
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.