MassResistance Special Reports: How Texas Banned GSAs Statewide

 

MassResistance Special 10-part Report:

Why LGBT “GSA Clubs” must be banned from all public schools.

Part 9: How Texas banned GSAs statewide

Texas GSA ban is part of a bold, comprehensive parents’ rights law enacted in 2025

Radical pro-LGBT groups got a temporary court injunction in three school districts

But other schools across state have closed down their GSAs

July 31, 2026

 Outside the Texas State Capitol in 2021. For years MassResistance pressured Texas legislators to move forward on parents' rights. They kept stalling. It finally came to fruition last year.

Texas is boldly leading the way and doing the right thing.

In Part 8 we described the legal threats used by the LGBT movement to keep GSA clubs (“Gay Straight Alliance” or “Genders and Sexualities Alliance”) from being blocked in schools. In particular, they invoke the federal Equal Access Act (which we debunked in Part 7).

As a result, state legislatures, local governments, and school districts have been afraid to prohibit GSAs.

But the Texas legislature has now passed a law that outright bans GSAs. And the state is aggressively fighting the LGBT movement’s court challenge in three school districts. (Texas has over 1,200 school districts.)

Texas passes a bold bill

On June 20, 2025, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed bill SB 12 into law. It is a comprehensive bill that enacts a bold list of parents’ rights mandates, as well as new reporting requirements, certifications, and directives for all Texas schools.

When it went into effect on September 1, 2025, it gave the Left nightmares.

The major parts of SB 12 include:

• Ban on all GSAs. The law specifically says: “A school district or open-enrollment charter school may not authorize or sponsor a student club based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”
• Requires written permission to join any student club. A school district must require the written consent of a parent or guardian before a student may participate in a student club at the district or school. (Note: We are not sure why this extra bureauracy is necessary now. Requiring permission for all clubs was a tactic by some schools to avoid the legal threat of banning GSAs, but just makes it harder to join them.)
• No LGBT discussion or indoctrination in classes or elsewhere. Prohibits school districts, charter schools, staff, or third parties from providing instruction, guidance, activities, or programming regarding sexual orientation or gender identity across all grades pre-K through 12th. (This is as important as the GSA ban!)
• No DEI in the schools. Schools are prohibited from having any school-wide diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives or activities. School districts are barred from assigning DEI duties to employees or allowing employees, contractors, or volunteers to engage in DEI duties.
• No “social transitioning” of students. School employees are prohibited from aiding or encouraging a student's "social transitioning" (such as using a name or pronouns that differ from the student's legal name or biological sex) without express written parental consent.
• Parental notification of changes to students’ health or “well-being.” Parents must be notified of any changes to mental, emotional, or physical health of their children, and if they are being monitored regarding that. It also prohibits policies that encourage students to keep health information hidden from parents. (Example: Children in an emotional crisis are easily persuaded by school counselors that they are “gay” or “trans.”)
• Strict opt-in for psychological, medical, and health services. Clarifies that explicit, affirmative written consent (which cannot be bundled with other generic signature forms) is required for psychological/psychiatric exams or treatments, biometric data collection, non-routine healthcare/medications, or human sexuality instruction.
• Written consent for surveys and screening. Requires written parental consent prior to administering any well-being questionnaire, survey, check-in, or health screening form.
• Pro-parent school board meeting changes. Local school boards must hold their meetings outside of normal work hours, move the public comments segment to the beginning of the meeting, and have an online comments portal.
• Parental access to child’s school library records: Expands parental record access rights to include tracking all library materials checked out by their child.
• Mandatory posting of course syllabi: Requires districts to post an instructional plan or syllabus for every class on the district website at the start of each semester, and mandates that teachers provide copies to administrators and parents before the semester begins.

Complying with GSA ban

To avoid state compliance penalties or loss of funding, school districts across Texas quickly got to work to follow the law.

Regarding the GSA prohibition, school boards and administrators across Texas moved to formally disband, derecognize, or deny facilities to GSAs, Pride clubs, and similar student organizations.

In many communities, former GSA student leaders shifted their meetings off-campus to local community centers, libraries, or online platforms to maintain support networks outside of the school’s jurisdiction. But that means the clubs are now less influential or effective than when they were official groups inside the schools.

In addition, districts across Texas created a new administrative infrastructure, requiring all students to submit signed parental consent forms before joining any extracurricular club (chess club, robotics, debate, etc.).

LGBT legal groups file a lawsuit and get an injunction for 3 school districts

A few days before the law took effect, a coalition of radical groups filed a federal lawsuit, GSA Network v. Mormath, in the U.S. District Court. The plaintiffs included: GSA Network, Transgender Law Center, ACLU of Texas, Texas American Federation of Teachers, and some individual students and teachers.

 Pushing the agenda. ACLU Texas staff at LGBTQ Pride event. Note their signs: "Pride is still protest." [Photo by aclutx.org]

The plaintiffs’ legal standing allows the lawsuit to apply to only three school districts: Houston ISD, Katy ISD, and Plano ISD.

The lawsuit challenges four parts of SB 12:

1. The GSA Ban (Section 27 / Sec. 33.0815(b))
2. The Inclusivity/DEI Ban (Section 3)
3. The Social Transition Ban (Section 7)
4. The “LGBTQ+” Curriculum Ban (Section 24)

(Interestingly, the lawsuit challenges the GSA ban, but it does not challenge the requirement for written parental permission for a student to join any authorized school club. That’s likely something they don’t think they can win.)

What is the basis for their legal challenge? In GSA Network v. Mormath, they use the same basic hackneyed legal arguments that we’ve seen them use everywhere for these kinds of cases.

• The Federal Equal Access Act of 1984: They claim that the law prohibits schools from “discriminating based on content of speech.” But as we’ve outlined, that law does not apply in this situation.
• First Amendment (Free Speech): They claim the state is singling out topics of sexual orientation and gender identity for “targeted suppression.” But in fact, schools and teachers do not have a “free speech” right to present anything imaginable to minor children. (If they want that, they should teach at a college instead.)
• Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process): They argue that restrictions are so vague that it’s impossible for educators to know what conduct or conversations are prohibited. That is all absurd.

In a normal courtroom (i.e., with an unbiased judge) with aggressive and knowledgeable lawyers defending the case, this would be a very difficult lawsuit to win.

The plaintiffs asked for an immediate injunction for the three districts against implementing the challenged sections of SB 12 (including the GSA club ban) while the lawsuit is litigated.

In an upsetting development, the three named school districts declined to defend against the lawsuit. Instead, they filed brief responses taking "no position," which the court treated as a procedural waiver under party-presentation principles. This is not surprising. Those districts likely have leftist school boards and public attorneys who don’t oppose the LGBT agenda in their schools.

Thus, since the injunction request was unopposed, on February 20, 2026, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Eskridge (a Trump appointee) granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The injunction is limited to those three districts; it is not statewide.

Texas Attorney General stepping in to defend the case and appeal the injunction

In April, 2026, the Texas Attorney General filed a formal motion to intervene to represent the State of Texas's sovereign interest in defending Senate Bill 12 in the lawsuit. The motion was approved. The AG’s office is now actively leading the defense of the law on the merits as the case proceeds through discovery toward trial. The litigation could potentially continue for years.

The Texas AG has also filed appeal of the preliminary injunction before the U.S. Court of Appeals. Specifically, The AG petitioned the appeals court for an expedited stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal, arguing that the State of Texas suffers an irreparable constitutional injury whenever a state statute is enjoined by a federal court, regardless of whether local school districts declined to defend it. At this point, the appeals court has not issued a ruling or granted a stay on the preliminary injunction.

All other Texas school districts are required to follow the entire law

Texas is now the only state where GSAs are legally banned from all public schools and charter schools. And to our knowledge, the state intends to be aggressive about enforcing that – with financial and other penalties for districts in violation.

Final thoughts

Texas has proven that bold, sane action is possible. Now the rest of the country should follow. Truly, it’s not too difficult; the LGBT movement’s legal threats are paper tigers.

Until only very recently in our country’s history, the idea of a club for children in public schools that promotes and normalizes homosexuality (or transgenderism, BDSM, etc.) would have been considered unspeakable. The fact that now a state law must be passed to get them out of schools is a terrible reflection of today’s society.

We hope our GSA report series helps laws like Texas’s SB 12 to get passed in more states. It’s time for good people to stand strong!

   

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

Supervisor Hahn Enjoys Easy Photo-Op on Metro -- What About the Rest of Us?

 

Supervisor Janice Hahn recently posed for a clearly staged photo-op while talking up the addition of a Metro rider to the Metro Board ('Metro may add rider to its board,' July 23, 2026).

She has it so easy: she has lots of staff, and no doubt plenty of security was watching out for her during the photo shoot.

What about the rest of us, who are not so lucky or well-off?

Will she take steps to ensure proper policing on the LA County Metro trains?

The lack of public order on public transit is a real problem, and adding a rider to the Metro board is not going to fix that.

Independent journalist Christopher Rufo recently exposed a range of dangers in and around train stations. Women have suffered sexual assault, homeless vagrants terrorize commuters, and there is little done about it.

Instead of photos and breezy press reports, when will Supervisor Hahn and the rest of the Board take steps to ensure proper public safety and enforcement of quality-of-life laws in and around the stations?

MyPillow Guy Smothers Campaign

 

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell has quite a story. He doesn’t just manufacture great pillows. He’s an unabashed patriot, and he has consistently confronted Election 2020 integrity concerns with courage. Unlike Fox News, which decided to settle, Lindell showed commendable resolve, forcing Dominion to drop their lawsuit against him.

His background story is praiseworthy, too. Before becoming a Christian, he was a cracked-out drug addict. His dependence was so bad that even his dealers wouldn’t give him drugs when they noticed that he had been going without sleep for days! He survived, and now he thrives.

Mike Lindell is the embodiment of the American Dream. He suffered through adversity to success. He makes a great product, earns lots of money, and he puts part of his profit to good use for love the country that blessed him these wonderful opportunities. Furthermore, he’s not ashamed to share his Christian faith or his fervent support for President Trump.

With such a great background and record, his decision to campaign for governor on amnesty is beyond disappointing.

Truth be told, I don’t think he’s the best candidate to run for Governor. Minnesota is still a left-of-center bastion. For decades, Minnesota Republicans distanced themselves from the national party, just like their Democratic counterparts from the DNC, due to the progressive foundations. An independent streak is essential. In general, activists don’t make great candidates. They have spent decades sharing their opinions and taking stands on controversial issues without regard to nuance--and they have the broad social media profiles to prove it. Running for office requires less “Tip of the Spear” and more “Meeting of the minds.”

Winning elections requires more than running rallies or saying great things on TV. Candidates have to connect with everyday people, and they need to come off as down-to-earth, interested in the day-to-day issues of voters, not just partisan activists who want to talk MAGA all day. Lindell is a party loyalist to Trump. He will face more hurdles than opportunities with that alone.

Minnesota is still not easy territory for Republicans, even though the Minnesota Republican Speaker Lisa Demuth (also candidate for governor) has worked incredible wonders stopping the worst excesses of progressive knucklehead Tim Walz and the Minnesota Democratic Farm and Labor Party.

Is there a chance that Republicans can capitalize for victory? Of course. In 2016, Trump was just 40,000 votes away from snatching Minnesota from Hillary Clinton. A Trump victory would have been a Republican feat forty-four years in the waiting. However, in 2020 and 2024, Trump lost by seven and four points. If Minnesota Republicans want to take back their state, they need to message MAGA principles while sounding “Minnesota Nice” and cracking down on the rampant immigrant fraud in the state.

However, being nice doesn’t mean that a candidate should turn a blind eye to illegal immigration.

The rampant welfare fraud and the repeated anti-ICE protests across the Twin Cities prove that this midwestern state is Ground Zero for the Trump Administration’s crackdown on illegals. No Republican candidate can win if they start moving to the left on this issue.

And yet, that’s precisely what Lindell did.

Here are key, disturbing points from his interview on CBS Minnesota, where he laid out a really bad immigration program:

1.      He claimed that the immigration system is broken. Red flag right away. If the federal government enforces the law, which Trump is doing, then the system works. If states would comply with federal law, then nothing would be broken. The problem isn’t the systems. It’s the bad actors who don’t comply.

2.      He talked about his trip to California to purchase supima cotton crop for his MyPillow company. The farmers told him about how competing farms were hiring illegals, paying them way below market wages, and that such competition was driving them out of business. The solution is not to enable more illegals, Mike. And California is not Minnesota. Who cares what those farmers think? Have you talked to Minnesota farmers?

3.       Lindell insulted millions who have been victimized by illegal immigration when he stated—with a straight face: “Illegal immigrants are good people. They’ve never committed a crime. And they’re in hiding.” Are you kidding me? I wanted to stifle my screams with a MyPillow when I heard those remarks. Illegal immigrants, by their very status, are already committing a crime! Of course, they shouldn’t be in hiding, because they should be leaving, going back to their country! And since when does it matter whether they are good people are not?! Enforcement of our immigration laws is not a popularity contest.

I would expect to hear something that egregious from someone on the left, from retiring Governor Tim Walz, or US Senator and gubernatorial candidate Amy Klobuchar. But for a MAGA Republican like Mike Lindell to start talking like a Big Government-Big Business Bush Republican, one has to ask: Who is consulting for this guy?!

4.      He spent some time in the interview talking about how illegal immigrants are themselves victims of crime. Americans have had to listen to these brazen attempts to tug on our heartstrings for years. After four years of Open Borders Joe Biden flooding the country with illegals, and allowing migrants to overwhelm major cities, Americans have had enough. Illegal aliens are in the country … illegally. If they don’t want to be victimized, they should return to their home countries.

Speaking of victims, how about focusing on Americans, Mike? Would he like to meet with the Angel Moms and Dads whose children were killed by illegals? Would he care to speak with business owners in major cities who compete with under-the-table contractors and sidewalk vendors, all operating illegally and undercutting their business? How about some respect for the American taxpayer who has been repeatedly fleeced and robbed by illegals scamming our welfare systems and taking advantage of public education and local hospitals, which per federal law cannot turn away patients.

5.      The last insult in his interview, Lindell discussed handing out work VISAs to illegals so that they could work American farms without fear or arrest and deportation. What happened to American workers? What happened to ensuring law-abiding employment? This proposal is more DIGNITY Act nonsense, with no dignity and lots of disgrace.

Republican candidates with a fighting chance to win statewide office in blue states have to pick their fights, but they have to fight for the issues that resonate the most with the base, then make their case to the rest of the state. Affordability issues are ravaging Minnesotans’ wallets and budgets, just like everyone else’s. Most Minnesotans like their guns, even if they’re leery of constitutional carry. Walz’ latest gun control efforts went out with a bang (Thank you again, House Speaker Demuth!).

I thought Republicans had learned to ignore the sob stories of the “poor illegals” and focus on poor, hurting Americans. Does Lindell think such a bleeding-heart pivot will help his chances?

Despite well-deserved backlash, Lindell has been doubling down on his amnesty proposals. At this point, he’s smothering his campaign chances. Minnesotans must elect a serious Republican who can read the room, get the votes (without amnesty-pandering), and save the state come November.

Denying the Holocaust: Deborah Lipstadt, Revisited

 

Over 30 years ago, historian and social critic Deborah Lipstadt wrote a powerful book, Denying the Holocaust, warning the public about the dangers of this pernicious ideology. This year, I was drawn to this book because debates are raging again, this time amplifying across social media, about the truth of World War II, what happened in the death camps, and how we sift out the truth from the lies.

I wasn’t expecting to agree with her on everything. She’s an unabashed liberal, progressive, even. Her ideological bent was crystal clear when President Joe Biden nominated her as US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism in 2022, for which she received unanimous confirmation. During her confirmation hearing, Republican members confronted her over a number incendiary, inflammatory, even libelous statements that she had published about them as well as then former president Donald Trump. One of her targets, Wisconsin US Senator Ron Johnson, confronted her about her nasty remarks directed at him over the January 6th incident. She didn't look very good trying to defend the indefensible, and she ultimately apologized.  She ultimately got the job because Democrats control the US Senate at the time, and no one wanted to appear opposing the fight against anti-Semitism, no matter the appointment.

Despite her current left-wing bent, Lipstadt is a fierce defender of freedom of speech. During an Oxford Union speech in 2016, she declared that Holocaust deniers should have the freedom of speech, including the right lie about history. However, historians must have the right to call them out for their dishonesty, too.

As for her book, her extensive research and discussion on the Holocaust, the Denialist industry, the tactics used by the Deniers come off as very current, even though she wrote the book three decade ago. Indeed, underneath the surface of seeming scholarship and respectability, once finds a morass of bitterness and bigotry against a group of people. Their relentless determination to blame Jews for all the ills of the world comes out in page after page among Holocaust deniers, even if they have Ph.Ds. and claim that there works is exhaustive research.

Before talking about specific deniers—institutions and individuals—Lipstadt announces in her first chapter that she refuses to debate Holocaust deniers. They are repugnant not merely for holding noxious views, but for their deliberate refusal to recognize the copious archives, research, and data affirming the horrific systemic slaughter of six million Jews under Hitler’s Third Reich. In her view, a debate with a denier is to legitimize their views as serious scholarship or opinion.

Throughout her book, I reflected on that notion, and I found that it does have some merit. You don’t debate people who have no serious regard for truth, evidence, integrity, or process. Why give them a platform? Then again, the survivors, the historians, the archivists all have a responsibility to debunk the lies and keep telling the truth.

 

Throughout the book, her political bent was crystal clear, which is the only defect. She spent a great deal of time attacking right-wing interests and organizations for promoting Holocaust denial. She criticized patriot groups, liberty groups, and even the John Birch Society in the same sentence as discredited Holocaust denial organizations. I know many John Birchers, and they are not hostile to Israel nor do they traffic in Holocaust denial.

I wonder what Lipstadt is responding to the growing anti-Semitism on the left. From the Democratic Party’s growing demonization of Israel, to the repeated attack against Jews as “privileged members of the intersectionality hierarchy”, including the recent decision by civil rights attorney Alan Dershowitz to leave the Democratic Party over its overt anti-Semitism, the Left has transformed into the repository of Holocaust minimalism and outright denialism.

Of course, there's one other problem fundamental to her work. She treats Nazis and national socialists as right wing. Reviewing the Nazis’ politics and policies policy, it’s clear that they were a left-wing ideology, complete with the nationalization of industries, universal health care schemes, gun control, massive government spending, and an abusive expansion of the state to undermine individual liberties. In this regard, sadly, Deborah Lipstadt engages in a little revisionism of her own. Yet her bias does not negate that dangers of Holocaust denial and the necessary responses to combat it.

Putting aside the criticisms, Deborah Lipstadt's book was very informative. I learned about the incredible work of Mel Mermelstein, a Holocaust survivor who lived through Auschwitz, immigrated to the United States, settled in Long Beach, California and then took on the challenge from the notorious Holocaust denier pseudo historical journal the Institute for Historical Review. The specific account is fascination: the IHR offered $50,000 to Holocaust survivor who could prove that Jews died in gas chambers. Mermelstein took the challenge, even though many Jewish groups had discouraged him. Not only did he win the contest, but he took IHR to court and forced them to pay a larger award for pain and suffering! Leonard Nemoy started in a TV movie retelling the story.

Lipstadt goes to great length to document it not just the truth of the Holocaust, but the extensive research behind it, and she even goes into length how Holocaust deniers exploit and distort the evidence to push their destructive, false narrative. She calls out specific pamphleteers, and how all too often they merely reference each other to create this cloud of credibility around their work.

She pays considerable attention and elucidates true historical revisionism. When it comes to interpreting the facts of history, revision is not only essential, it’s endemic. Historians are always piecing together the evidence before them, seeking patterns and searching out causes and effects. What revisionism cannot do, Lipstadt affirms, is change the facts, ignore the truth, or lie about the evidence itself. Holocaust deniers routinely engage in those vile practices.

Also to her credit, she spends an entire chapter castigating college newspapers around the country who printed advertisements from Holocaust deniers. Many of the newspapers, their editing boards, and the administrators at the respective campuses engaged in an extensive, rigorous debate about whether freedom of speech should require the newspapers to print the ads. This section of her book was particularly intriguing, because she did a thorough job of exploring the different points of view, even though she was critical of many of them. 

She maintained that no newspaper should have posted the advertisements. Since in her view, such publication would lend credence and legitimacy to Holocaust denial views. Furthermore, some of the advertisers gave the impression that the deniers were offering only a difference of opinion. No—they were categorically lying, like claiming that 2 + 2 = 5 or that George Washington never existed. That is not a matter of opinion or interpretation, Lipstadt affirms. Furthermore, private newspapers have the right and responsibility not to print lies, nor are they bound by the First Amendment to print everything submitted to them.

 After reading Denying the Holocaust, I appreciated Lipstadt calling out the cowardice and collusion of the universities and printing houses. Her takes against the Holocaust denial industry are relevant today. We should appreciate her stand for truth, even if her politics is misguided or just plain wrong.

 

 

 

MassResistance Takes on GSA's Part 8: Outside Groups Professional Organizations Pushing GSAs

 

MassResistance Special 10-part Report:

Why LGBT “GSA Clubs” must be banned from all public schools.

Part 8: How outside legal groups and “legitimate” professional organizations promote and defend GSAs in schools

They also intimidate parents and conservative school committee officials who disagree

July 27, 2026

 School officials and parents get propaganda from all sides on how they "must" allow destructive GSAs in their schools. But in fact they don't have to — and shouldn't.

National LGBT organizations are not the only ones behind GSA clubs (“Gay Straight Alliance” or “Genders and Sexualities Alliance”) found in thousands of schools across America. National professional organizations and legal groups also prop up that corrupt project.

In Part 2 of our GSA report, we described how these clubs get into K-12 schools. We noted that GSAs are not like other school clubs such as a chess club, a science club, etc. Their goals include normalizing homosexuality, transgenderism, and similar perverted behaviors in the school and the surrounding community.

GSAs are not organic; kids would not naturally think of starting one. They are professionally organized by activist adults and brought into the schools through sophisticated organizing and propaganda techniques.

To counter any pushback from school officials or community members, these national LGBT groups have developed forceful (though completely dishonest) talking points to intimidate and silence opponents to GSAs. And should objections to a GSA in a school system continue, the LGBT movement has more ammunition.

“Legitimate” professional organizations

Numerous professional associations (representing teachers and schools administrators, mental health professionals, physicians, counselor associations, etc.) also support the LGBT movement’s effort to push and keep GSAs in schools. The major organizations include:

American Psychological Association (APA)
Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
National Education Association (NEA)
American Academy of Pediatrics
National Association of School Psychologists
American Association of School Administrators
American Counseling Association
American Federation of Teachers
American School Counselor Association
American School Health Association
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Association of Social Workers
School Social Work Association of America

Unfortunately, too many school administrators – even many “conservative” ones – blindly follow the misguided advice these associations put out.

The American Psychological Association (APA) published a resource, Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation & Youth, meant to convince school principals and administrators across the country to support LGBT “diversity” policies in schools.

 A shocking pantheon of formerly trustworthy professional organizations have sold out to the LGBT movement.

In addition to the booklet’s overall strong advocacy of the normalization and support of homosexual, bisexual, and transgender “identities,” it includes statements from several of the organizations from their specific professional perspectives.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has posted this troubling statement endorsing GSAs in schools:

Several practices can improve the health, safety, and school connectedness for LGBTQ+ youth by addressing stigma and bias. Among them are conducting professional development with school staff, allowing LGBTQ+ students equal access to student-led clubs, and creating inclusive school and district policies. … Students in schools nationwide have created and led clubs where students with LGBTQ+ identities and their allies can socialize, provide support, and work together to create safe and supportive school environments. …

The APA also collaborated with the Los Angeles Children’s Hospital to recommend “establishing and sustaining GSAs” in the Los Angeles Schools.  The CDC helped fund that “Safe and Supportive Environments” initiative through its DASH funds (Division of Adolescent and School Health). The premise was “HIV prevention.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics (a noteworthy member of the above-mentioned “Just the Facts” coalition) also published a separate policy statement. Titled “Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents,” it discusses “safe schools,” cites data from GLSEN, and notes the value of GSAs.

The National Education Association (NEA) collaborated with the ACLU, Gender Spectrum, Human Rights Campaign, and National Center for Lesbian Rights to publish “Schools in Transition: A Guide for Supporting Transgender Students in K-12 Schools.” It pushes the “safe spaces” that GSAs impose on schools:

Creating school environments that respect and affirm gender diversity will empower all students rather than limit them. GLSEN’s study on the impact of Gay-Straight Alliances, for example, suggests that such organizations create school environments where all students are less likely to hear homophobic slurs.

The “Schools in Transition” report also suggests how to handle “unsupportive parents.”

 The NEA has teamed up with the worst possible groups on these issues.

Legal groups

There are also well-funded legal groups providing guidance and legal support to the adults and students engaged in GSAs. They employ (largely unsupportable) legal arguments to prevent or quash challenges to the GSAs. These invariably include a heavy reliance on threats to invoke the Equal Access Act. (Unfortunately, local school attorneys are often intimidated by these threats. In Part 7 we exposed the Equal Access Act as basically toothless.)

These radical legal groups include:

Lambda Legal
GLAD Law
ACLU
National Center for LGBTQ Rights (formerly National Center for Lesbian Rights)
Harvard Law School LGBTQI Advocacy Clinic
Transgender Law Center
Southern Poverty Law Center
U.S. Department of Education (Office for Civil Rights)

 Lambda Legal, like the ACLU, focuses its resources on suing conservative schools over GSAs. But their legal grounding is thinner than people realize.

GLAD Law (GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders), based in Massachusetts, brags about the legal help it has given, forcing schools to allow GSAs. GLAD cites the Equal Access Act as the basis:

 This was passed out at "Youth Pride" events.

The ACLU uses the Equal Access Act to bully schools across the country to allow GSAs. It claims victories in protecting GSAs, largely through reference to that 1984 law. It has posted a template letter for use to instill fear of a lawsuit in a school administrator who opposes a GSA. It summarizes their defense for GSAs:

First page of ACLU’s 4-page threat letter to school superintendents:
“Allow the GSA or we’ll see you in court.”

ACLU and GLISTEN (formerly GLSEN) jointly authored this pamphlet (below): “Know Your Rights: A Guide for Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students.” It summarizes their arguments on students’ free speech at school and what counts as “disruption” of educational time. It encourages students to file complaints if their “rights” to form a GSA are violated.

 This ACLU pamphlet cites a laundry list of federal laws and even the US Constitution to threaten schools into normalizing students' sexual perversions. But it's basically all scare tactics.

GLISTEN/GLSEN also supplies these additional resources for arguing for the legality of GSAs.

The U.S. Department of Education still posts this Biden-era 2023 document that advocated for GSA legality, citing court cases of losing efforts to shut down GSAs while ignoring much of the actual wording of the Equal Access Act.

 The US Department of Education still has this on its website - likely because its bureaucrats still believe in it.

Final thoughts

It’s shocking how many major “trustworthy” institutions have cowered before the poisonous LGBT radical agenda and are pushing it on vulnerable schoolchildren.

To an unsophisticated school administrator, school board member, or school attorney who objects to having a GSA at school, it seems the facts and the law are overwhelmingly stacked against him.

But if you drill down and do the research, you will find that the claim that GSAs are legally untouchable is a well-crafted illusion. The “facts” are either distortions or completely phony, and the legal arguments are easily dismantled. It just takes some courage, principles, and perseverance.

   

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

Lyin' Ted Wants a Kill Switch

 I don't trust this guy with anything that has the word "kill" in its name.

Visit My Website Facebook Twitter YouTube Contact Me

Dear neighbor,  Last weekend, four American service members tragically lost their lives in the war with Iran. My sincere condolences go out to their families and loved ones. trump sent our military into harm’s way for an illegal war without a strategy. We still don't have trustworthy answers on how many service members have been wounded or killed, or what the plan is to end the war. My colleagues and I pushed to introduce a War Powers Resolution to end the war, and it passed the House on a bipartisan basis this week. We need Senators to keep trying to pass a War Powers Resolution. While Americans suffer at the gas pump and the grocery store for an illegal war of trump’s making, the American public and Congress alike are denied answers. What is the cost? Who is winning? If Iran’s military is “obliterated” as trump claims, how are they successfully bombing U.S. bases and killing our troops?  This week, I asked trump’s UN Ambassador, Mike Waltz, how many service members have been injured. His gross underestimate was either a blatant lie or a clear indication that the trump administration does not care about our troops. Watch the exchange below.  Yesterday, Congressman Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas) and I introduced the AI Kill Switch Act that would require developers of the most powerful AI systems to maintain the technical capability to throttle, suspend, or shut them down.  I am very aware of the dramatic possibilities – both good and bad – that AI presents. We are moving from AI that answers questions to AI that takes actions, whether that be executing financial transactions or controlling transportation systems or engaging in cyber defense and offense. Unfortunately, powerful AI systems can go rogue, behave in extremely dangerous ways, or even resist human intervention. It is imperative that these AI systems have kill switches so we can keep this technology from causing catastrophic harm, and that the federal government has the clear authority and process to shut down rogue AI models. Read more about my bill here.  CONCERTS IN THE PARK: Looking for something fun to do on a hot summer night? Whether you’re looking for a date night, a solo outing, or something the whole family can enjoy, our community has something for everyone. Find a list of activities here: Torrance, Manhattan Beach, Santa Monica, El Segundo CONGRESSIONAL APP CHALLENGE: Every year we challenge students to create and submit their original apps for a chance to win the Congressional App Challenge. All middle and high school students living in CA-36 are eligible to participate and may compete in teams. View the full 2026 rules and guidelines here. The deadline to submit your app is October 26, 2026, at 9 AM PT.  My Los Angeles office is available to help with federal agency issues at (323) 651-1040, or you can visit our webpage here.  I look forward to updating you again soon.   Warmly,  Ted W. Lieu  Member of Congress

Letter to the Editor: Hatred of Data Centers

El Segundo residents are celebrating the cancellation of a data center in their city.

Their outrage is not isolated, as a widespread backlash against data centers has erupted all over the country.

I have heard many complaints about them, including a possible increase in electricity fees for residents as well as concerns about water usage.

However, I think the resurgence of this Luddite mentality is misplaced.

Technological innovation includes improving production and processes so that companies use fewer resources and create less waste or have a less disparate impact on a community. Data centers want to consume fewer resources in the long run to maximize profit, do they not?

Data centers are part of the AI revolution, and the South Bay should be on the cutting edge of welcoming, improving, and marketing this technology instead of hastening to stop it or get rid of it.

The South Bay has been developing a reputation as the next headquarters for major industrial shifts. We are still a major player in the aerospace industry, after all. We should not shy away from becoming Silicon Beach because of dubious concerns about environmental impact or potential higher costs.

Besides, none of us should want international adversaries like China gaining the upper hand when it comes to AI and future tech innovations.

I hope that residents throughout the region will get more educated about data centers and change their minds about them when (or if) another company offers a proposal to construct one in the area.

 (Response to "El Segundo residents cause developer to withdraw local data center proposal")

The DSA Will Make the DNC DOA

Random Lengths News calls out the corrupt Democratic Party establishment (DNC) and reports their well-deserved doom from Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) challengers. For decades, they placated the radical left wing with lofty rhetoric and empty promises. After screwing over Bernie in 2016, the DNC’s restraint on the DSA has collapsed, and those energized activists are seizing control of the party from within.

The DSA takeover started in 1972 with McGovern’s failed nomination, then continued through Jimmy Carter, who embraced abortion, gay rights, and the Department of Education. Bill Clinton’s “New Democrat” course correction proved useless in the face of the growing socialist uprising. By the 2012 DNC convention, radicals booed God and rejected Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, forcing party leaders into awkward damage control.

The DSA takeover achieved new milestones in June. Socialist NYC mayor Zohran Mamdani’s latest Congressional endorsements have purged so-called moderates. Rep. Jerry Nadler retired, along with Rep. Nydia Velázquez. Rep. Adriano Espaillat and hard-core anti-Trumper Rep. Dan Goldman lost to Mamdani’s challengers, too.

The DSA is brooking no compromise. They want single-payer healthcare, climate-driven central planning, defunding the police, expansive identity-based policies, and fervent opposition to Israel. Will this platform win back working-class voters? Do these positions sound like political winners?!

I doubt it.

I have only one question for the rising DSA wing of the Democratic Party: are you prepared for a long political wilderness in minority-party status? Americans hate socialism, support Israel, and seek government competence. The DSA will make the DNC DOA.

Just Pick a Time Already!

 

In a rare showing of long-overdue bipartisanship to solve an issue which has become a non-issue, the House of Representatives just passed the Sunshine Protection Act to make Daylight Saving Time (DST) permanent. This latest legal battle has been raging for the last few years. It started during the Biden Administration, incidentally enough, but it never made it to his desk. Who knows if he would have signed it, since he wasn’t signing much of anything, right?

With Trump back in office, he has lobbied for an end to the time chances. Trump’s signature on this wonderfully bipartisan piece of legislation would be another win and a great addition to his welcome legacy.

I am all for getting a uniform time system in place. No matter what the reasons were in the past, the country should finally settle on a uniform time system, one that won’t require the changes twice a year—and all the health problems that come with it. To summarize, DST causes disruptions to Americans’ circadian rhythm, which can unleash all sorts of negative consequences. Every time the time changes, there’s a sudden burst of heart attacks, strokes, and other problems. Let’s end this.

Besides, the change is government-imposed will from previous demands, most of which were temporary when they started. Congress needs to get this micromanaging out of our lives for good and focus on other substantive issues, ensuring a brighter future for our country, no matter how much sunlight is shining in the sky.

Of course, all of this clock-switching and wrangling over daylight saving brings up the question:

Why does the United States have this strange chronological two-step every year in the first place?

It’s all about war, and it didn’t start with us, incidentally enough!

To be accurate, sections of Canada began experimenting with the daylight time changes for farming and other purposes long before any war broke out. Those efforts remained very local, though. During World War I, Germany was the first country to implement DST. Starting in 1916, the Central Power wanted to prolong daylight to save fuel for the war effort by reducing the need for artificial lighting. The U.S. followed suit in 1918 with Congress’s Standard Time Act for the same reason… but the time change was repealed after World War I. No one died when Standard Time was restored. It wasn’t the end of America. Everyone went about their business, including big business, agricultural interests, and everyone else.

Daylight Saving Time resurfaced when World War II broke out, and our country needed as much light as possible for the same resource reasons as in World War I. We won that war, and the federal DST regime was repealed; the United States reverted the power to states (and even local regions) to do what they wanted, going with Standard Time or DST as they pleased.

Time waits for no man, however, and uniform standards are essential for understanding and planning when different sections of the country are in different time zones. Planes (they came soon enough), trains, and automobiles faced all kinds of problems navigating the different states with their unique times and time zone preferences. Radio broadcasts found the lack of uniformity disconcerting, as well.

To solve this problem, Congress passed the Uniform Time Act in 1966 (one of the few good things accomplished by Lyndon Baines Johnson), which standardized DST for the whole country, and also legislated when daylight saving time would begin and end throughout the year.  Finally, Congress solved the standardization problem. However, the health issues and the general disruption of changing clocks twice a year would continue for everyone (Except Arizona and Hawaii, but that’s another story).

Americans have endured fifty years of this springing forward and falling back. I’m sick of it. It’s like some old relic, all coming from wartime, an anachronism proving yet again that government intervention knows no bounds. Times have changed, agricultural methods have improved, and everyone has technology to light their way, whether driving to work or getting to school. The United States has never been more energy dominant and independent, so concerns about fuel costs and availability don’t matter anymore.

To go with Standard Time or Daylight Saving Time is now a matter of preference. Lots of interest groups are going to be happy or unhappy either way, so let’s put aside their discomforts.

The frustration for me ultimately comes down to the simplicity. For centuries, Americans—colonists then citizens--didn’t complain about the rhythm and availability of sunlight from season to season. Americans managed; they made it work; they lived their lives in line with nature. For what it’s worth, I don’t recall General George Washington losing any battle with the British or President Abraham Lincoln trying to harness the sun’s power for war, playing with Father Time or Mother Nature to ensure military victories.

If they could manage, so can we.

Now that different sections of the country have gotten used to a certain rhythm, though, they simply don’t want any disruption. I must admit that the opponents of making Daylight Saving Time permanent have a point: do we want children to go to school in the morning when it’s still dark outside? Then again, those same kids went to school when it was dark, and there was no daylight saving time for them for decades before. Are we saying that the kids can’t handle the change today? We have better technology, more sophisticated methods for keeping kids safe. The United States is not facing an energy crisis, even while contending with our worst global enemy, Iran. Trump made sure of that.

The important point now is to stop the clock changes altogether. It’s to get uniformity without the arbitrary time changes. Widespread support for the current bill should shut down further discussion. US Senator Tom Cotton, however, wants to block the bill, sharing concerns about the darker mornings in winter.

We should note that this year’s legislative attempt would not be the first time that the country scrapped the time changes in our recent past. Because of yet another energy crisis (the OPEC oil embargo), President Richard Nixon signed a law, making DST permanent for the country. However, there was widespread outrage (as expected) over the change. From dark commutes for the adults, to long dark waits for kids going to school, to farmers' complaints about shifting their agricultural operations, Nixon and Congress realized they had a problem on their hands—plus they didn’t save that much energy to begin with!

The DST changes went back into effect, and then Congress added a few more weeks in 2007 with the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

The American people have adapted to change before, and we really should end this time-switching. It’s time to move into the 21^st Century. Cotton is wrong, and he should shut up about the whole thing. Congress should pass the Sunshine Protection Act. Hey, I wouldn’t mind if the powers that be changed the bill to Permanent Standard Time, but the point is to make the change. Sure, there will be some grumbling, but probably not as much, and everyone will get used to it.

Just pick a time already!