The Say No to Indoctrination Act would amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to prevent the use of funds under that Act to teach or advance concepts related to gender ideology. The change is achieved by inserting a new prohibition into Section 8526 and tying the definition of gender ideology to Executive Order 14168.
The bill also reorders the existing prohibitions in Section 8526 to accommodate the new paragraph. The sponsor frames the measure as a guardrail to ensure federal funds are used for objective, non-ideological instruction.
The text is narrowly scoped to funding constraints under the ESEA and does not overhaul other federal education authorities.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new prohibition (paragraph (7)) into Section 8526 of the ESEA, making it unlawful to teach or advance concepts related to gender ideology using ESEA funds. It also reindexes existing prohibitions by striking the word “or” and redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8).
Who It Affects
Entities that handle ESEA funds—the U.S. Department of Education, state education agencies, and local education agencies—plus any subrecipients incorporating federally funded programs.
Why It Matters
This creates a formal funding constraint around curricula and instructional content, signaling a federal standard for what may be funded under ESEA and tying it to a defined concept of gender ideology.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Say No to Indoctrination Act would add a funding condition to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Specifically, it would prohibit the use of ESEA funds to teach or advance concepts related to gender ideology, as defined in Executive Order 14168.
To fit the new prohibition into the statutory structure, the bill would strike an “or” in an existing paragraph and re-number the affected paragraphs, inserting the new prohibition as paragraph (7) after paragraph (6). The definition of gender ideology would come from EO 14168, which ties the concept to the order’s framing around defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth in the federal government.
The measure is narrow in scope, targeting only funds disbursed under the ESEA and the instructional content funded by those dollars. It does not modify other federal education authorities, but it could require recipients to audit curricula and adjust programs to maintain eligibility for ESEA funding.
The bill’s short title, the Say No to Indoctrination Act, is also established in Section 1.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new prohibition (Section 8526(7)) to stop using ESEA funds for gender-ideology teaching.
It reorganizes the existing prohibitions by striking the word “or” and renumbering paragraph (7) as paragraph (8).
The new prohibition cites Executive Order 14168 for the definition of gender ideology.
The scope is limited to funds disbursed under the ESEA and to instructional content funded by those dollars.
The Act is titled the Say No to Indoctrination Act and has a Short Title section.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Sets the act’s formal citation as the Say No to Indoctrination Act. This establishes the bill’s branding and reference name for subsequent sections and enforcement considerations.
Prohibiting use of ESEA funds to teach gender ideology
Amends Section 8526 of the ESEA by (1) striking the word “or” in paragraph (6); (2) redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and (3) inserting a new paragraph (7) after paragraph (6) prohibiting using ESEA funds to teach or advance concepts related to gender ideology. The new paragraph defines gender ideology by reference to Executive Order 14168, including the order’s language about defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth. This creates a discrete funding condition that eligible ESEA expenditures may not finance such instructional content.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Local education agencies (LEAs) that administer ESEA funds and need clear funding rules for curricula
- State education agencies responsible for implementing and monitoring ESEA programs
- School district administrators and school boards seeking to align funded curricula with policy expectations
- Parents in districts that participate in ESEA-funded programs who want clarity on funded content
- Education compliance professionals who oversee grant usage and reporting
Who Bears the Cost
- LEAs and schools that must audit or modify curricula and instructional materials to ensure funds are not used for prohibited gender-ideology content
- State and local education agencies that may incur administrative costs to monitor and enforce compliance
- Curriculum vendors and content providers that may need to adjust offerings to remain fund-eligible
- Districts that must reallocate resources or training to align with the new funding restriction
- Administrators who bear risk if funds are deemed used for prohibited content (potential risk of funding withdrawal or compliance actions)
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing a funding restriction aimed at limiting what can be taught with the risk that broad, non-specific definitions of gender ideology could chill legitimate educational content or create disputes over curricular eligibility.
The bill relies on a definitional frame drawn from Executive Order 14168 to define “gender ideology.” Because the ESEA is a funding statute, the measure centers on budgetary eligibility rather than creating new curriculum standards. This leads to several analytical tensions: the definitional scope of gender ideology is externally sourced (not codified in statute) and could shift with future EO or policy statements.
The bill does not establish enforcement mechanics, remedies, or penalties within the statute, leaving questions about how violations would be identified, proven, or sanctioned across thousands of local curricula. It also leaves open questions about coverage of non-public school recipients of ESEA funds, private contractors, and subrecipients, creating implementation ambiguity for the federal, state, and local actors handling grants and compliance.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.