US Federal Senate Bill SB977

US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/12/25
• Refer: 3/12/25

Caption

End Taxpayer Funding of Gender Experimentation Act of 2025

Summary

SB 977, titled the End Taxpayer Funding of Gender Experimentation Act of 2025, would bar the use of federal funds for gender transition procedures and for health benefits coverage that includes those procedures. It creates a new chapter in title 1 of the U.S. Code defining “gender transition,” “gender transition procedure,” and related terms, and it expressly excludes certain intersex/disorders-of-sex-development treatments, treatment of complications from prior procedures, care for imminent life-threatening physical conditions, precocious puberty treatment, and male circumcision. The bill also extends the prohibition into federal health coverage and tax policy. It would prevent federal facilities and federal employees from providing gender transition procedures, and it would deny Affordable Care Act premium tax credits, cost-sharing reductions, and the small employer health insurance credit for plans that cover such procedures. At the same time, it says individuals, employers, states, and localities could still purchase separate coverage for these procedures if paid entirely with non-federal funds and not through federally subsidized matching funds, including Medicaid matching funds.

Impact

If enacted, the bill would add a new federal statutory chapter restricting how federal funds may be used in health care and would amend the Internal Revenue Code and ACA-related provisions to disqualify certain plans from federal subsidies if they cover gender transition procedures. It would affect federal agencies, federal health facilities, federal employees, ACA marketplace plans, employers seeking the small business health care tax credit, and states or localities that use federal matching funds in subsidized programs. The measure would also require multi-state ACA plans to comply with the federal funding prohibition.

Sentiment

There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided material, so no formal legislative debate or roll-call sentiment is available. Based on the bill text and sponsorship, the measure appears to be strongly supported by its Republican sponsors and framed as a restriction on taxpayer funding for gender transition care. The overall tone of the bill is prohibitive and policy-driven, with an emphasis on limiting federal involvement while preserving private, non-federally funded coverage options.

Contention

The central point of contention is the bill’s treatment of gender-affirming care: supporters characterize it as preventing taxpayer funding of procedures they oppose, while opponents would likely view it as restricting access to medically necessary care and targeting transgender people. Another likely dispute is the breadth of the definition of “gender transition procedure,” which includes puberty blockers, hormones, and a wide range of surgeries, while excluding some related treatments and emergency care. The ACA subsidy restrictions and the ban on using Medicaid matching funds for separate coverage may also be controversial because they could affect state program design and insurance affordability.