PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large] · R–WY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1866 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1866 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1866 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1866 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-03-05 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposal would deny states funding under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act if they penalize parents or other legal caregivers for opposing specified gender-related medical or social changes for minors in their care. The protection would apply when the caregiver considers the minor’s gender identity inconsistent with the minor’s biological sex determined at or before birth. Affected caregivers could sue to seek a stop to improperly awarded funding and repayment to the Treasury.
The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 3 the following:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no State may receive funding under this Act if such State takes any adverse action or otherwise discriminates against parents, guardians, or legal representatives who oppose medical, surgical, pharmacological, psychological treatment, or other medical intervention, or clothing, name or pronoun use, or other social changes or practices related to transitioning to or affirming the claims or expressions of gender identity of any minor under the charge, care, or supervision of the parent, guardian, or legal representative, if such gender identity is inconsistent, in such parent's, guardian's, or legal representative's estimation, with such minor’s biological sex, as determined definitively at or before birth, regardless of any medical diagnosis or indication of gender dysphoria, body dysphoria, dissociative identity disorder, or social anxiety disorder.
seeking to enjoin the Secretary from continuing such award to such State and to require the State awarded amounts in violation of subsection (a) to return such funds to the Treasury.
Section 1 would name the proposal the Guaranteeing Unalienable and Anatomical Rights for Dependents Act, or GUARD Act.
This Act may be cited as the Guaranteeing Unalienable and Anatomical Rights for Dependents Act or the GUARD Act.
Section 2 would add a state funding condition to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. It would bar a state from receiving funding under that Act if the state takes an adverse action or otherwise discriminates against caregivers for the opposition described in the proposal. The condition would apply despite conflicting provisions of other laws.
The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 3 the following: 4. State grant requirements
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no State may receive funding under this Act if such State takes any adverse action or otherwise discriminates against parents, guardians, or legal representatives who oppose
The protected opposition would cover medical care, surgery, medication, psychological treatment, and other medical interventions, as well as clothing, names, pronouns, and other social practices related to a minor’s gender transition or affirmation. It would concern minors under the parent’s, guardian’s, or legal representative’s care or supervision.
parents, guardians, or legal representatives who oppose medical, surgical, pharmacological, psychological treatment, or other medical intervention, or clothing, name or pronoun use, or other social changes or practices related to transitioning to or affirming the claims or expressions of gender identity of any minor under the charge, care, or supervision of the parent, guardian, or legal representative
Protection would depend on the caregiver’s assessment that the minor’s gender identity is inconsistent with the minor’s biological sex, which the proposal describes as definitively determined at or before birth. It would apply regardless of a diagnosis or indication of any of four listed conditions: gender dysphoria, body dysphoria, dissociative identity disorder, or social anxiety disorder.
if such gender identity is inconsistent, in such parent's, guardian's, or legal representative's estimation, with such minor’s biological sex, as determined definitively at or before birth, regardless of any medical diagnosis or indication of gender dysphoria, body dysphoria, dissociative identity disorder, or social anxiety disorder.
A parent, guardian, or legal representative who experienced the specified adverse action or discrimination by a funded state could sue the Department of Health and Human Services when an award violates the funding condition. The lawsuit could be brought in an appropriate federal district court or state court.
In the case of an award made by the Secretary under this Act in violation of subsection (a), any parent, guardian, or legal representative who experienced an adverse action or other discrimination described in subsection (a) by a State receiving funding under this Act may bring an action, in an appropriate Federal district court of the United States or State court, against the Department of Health and Human Services
The lawsuit could seek a court order stopping the Secretary from continuing the improper award and requiring the state to return funds awarded in violation of the condition to the Treasury. These are remedies a claimant could request; the text does not make a court order automatic.
may bring an action, in an appropriate Federal district court of the United States or State court, against the Department of Health and Human Services, seeking to enjoin the Secretary from continuing such award to such State and to require the State awarded amounts in violation of subsection (a) to return such funds to the Treasury.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated December 5, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Education and Workforce on March 5, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-12-05T22:05:05Z. 2025-03-05: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. 2025-03-05: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-05. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out or preferential benefit beyond the proposal’s central coverage and enforcement protections was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Dec 5, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI