PORTLAND, Maine — The deadline has arrived for Maine officials to reach a resolution with the U.S. Education Department over a finding that the state violated antidiscrimination laws by allowing transgender athletes to participate in girls’ sports.

The Education Department said in March that an investigation concluded the Maine Department of Education violated the federal Title IX law by allowing transgender girls to participate on girls’ teams. The investigation followed a public disagreement between Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills and President Donald Trump at a February meeting of governors.

The U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights issued a final warning on March 31 telling the state it needed to comply with the law in 10 business days or face enforcement from the U.S. Justice Department. That deadline arrived Friday.

Maine education officials have declined to comment on the investigation. Trump has said the state risks losing federal funding if it does not come into compliance.

“The Maine Department of Education’s indifference to its past, current, and future female athletes is astonishing. By refusing to comply with Title IX, MDOE allows — indeed, encourages — male competitors to threaten the safety of female athletes, wrongfully obtain girls’ hard-earned accolades, and deny females equal opportunity in educational activities to which they are guaranteed under Title IX,” said Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights.

Federal funding is critical to Maine schools. Maine got $358 million in federal funding for K-12 schools in 2021-22, or 10% of its budget, according to data from the Census. About 13% of that money went to Title I, 14% to special education and 20% to child nutrition programs such as school lunches.

Almost half of federal funds were simply marked as “other,” which likely points to the substantial COVID relief funds schools got that year. Prior to the pandemic, Maine got 6% of its funding from federal sources, almost $185 million in 2018-19.

The issue of school funding and transgender participation in sports in Maine began to bubble up when Mills and Trump sparred over the subject during the February meeting at the White House. During the meeting, Trump threatened to pull federal funding from Maine if the state did not comply with his executive order barring transgender athletes from sports.

Mills responded: “We’ll see you in court.”

Soon after, the Education Department and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services launched investigations into the state.

Health and Human Services officials said in March that the Maine Department of Education, Maine Principals’ Association and a high school are each in violation of Title IX because of the participation of transgender athletes. The Health Department has already referred the issue to the Justice Department for enforcement in court.

The principals’ association and school district both said they would not comply with a proposed agreement to ban the athletes. The Maine education department declined to comment.

Maine Republicans, who are in the minority in both houses of the Legislature, have put pressure on state Democrats to resolve the investigations. House Republican Leader Billy Bob Faulkingham, speaking during a news conference, said Mills has created a “hostage situation” that jeopardizes federal funding.

“The governor, and her administration, is holding Maine schools and Maine education under hostage,” Faulkingham said. “This standoff is not going to end well for the state of Maine and its education funding.”

LGBTQ+ rights groups in Maine have defended the state’s approach. “We’re not giving in, and we’re not giving up on our trans community,” EqualityMaine said in a social media post.

Federal authorities have also said they are investigating Maine due to claims school districts in the state violate federal law by withholding information about students’ gender transitioning from parents.

___

Associated Press writer Sharon Lurye in New Orleans contributed to this report.

NEW YORK — To billionaire Elon Musk and his cost-cutting team at the Department of Government Efficiency, Karen Ortiz may just be one of many faceless bureaucrats. But to some of her colleagues, she is giving a voice to those who feel they can’t speak out.

Ortiz is an administrative judge at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — the federal agency in charge of enforcing U.S. workplace anti-discrimination laws that has undergone tumultuous change since President Donald Trump took office. Like millions of other federal employees, Ortiz opened an ominous email on Jan. 28 titled “Fork in the Road” giving them the option to resign from their positions as part of the government’s cost-cutting measures directed by Trump and carried out by DOGE under Musk, an unelected official.

Her alarm grew when her supervisor directed administrative judges in her New York district office to pause all their current LGBTQ+ cases and send them to Washington for further review in order to comply with Trump’s executive order declaring that the government would recognize only two “immutable” sexes — male and female.

Ortiz decried management’s lack of action in response to the directive, which she said was antithetical to the EEOC’s mission, and called upon some 185 colleagues in an email to “resist” complying with “illegal mandates.” But that email was “mysteriously” deleted, she said.

The next day, after yet another frustrating “Fork in the Road” update, Ortiz decided to go big, emailing the EEOC’s acting chair Andrea Lucas directly and copying more than 1,000 colleagues with the subject line, “A Spoon is Better than a Fork.” In it, Ortiz questioned Lucas’s fitness to serve as acting chair, “much less hold a license to practice law.”

“I know I take a great personal risk in sending out this message. But, at the end of the day, my actions align with what the EEOC was charged with doing under the law,” Ortiz wrote. “I will not compromise my ethics and my duty to uphold the law. I will not cower to bullying and intimidation.”

Ortiz is just one person, but her email represents a larger pushback against the Trump administration’s sweeping changes to federal agencies amid an environment of confusion, anger and chaos. It is also Ortiz’s way of taking a stand against the leadership of a civil rights agency that last month moved to dismiss seven of its own cases representing transgender workers, marking a major departure from its prior interpretation of the law.

Right after sending her mass email, Ortiz said she received a few supportive responses from colleagues — and one calling her unprofessional. Within an hour, though, the message disappeared and she lost her ability to send any further emails.

But it still made it onto the internet. The email was recirculated on Bluesky and it received more than 10,000 “upvotes” on Reddit after someone posted it with the comment, “Wow I wish I had that courage.”

“AN AMERICAN HERO,” one Reddit user deemed Ortiz, a sentiment that was seconded by more than 2,000 upvoters. “Who is this freedom fighter bringing on the fire?” wrote another.

The EEOC did not feel the same way. The agency revoked her email privileges for about a week and issued her a written reprimand for “discourteous conduct.”

Contacted by The AP, a spokesperson for the EEOC said: “We will refrain from commenting on internal communications and personnel matters. However, we would note that the agency has a long-standing policy prohibiting unauthorized all-employee emails, and all employees were reminded of that policy recently.”

A month later, Ortiz has no regrets.

“It was not really planned out, it was just from the heart,” the 53-year-old told The Associated Press in an interview, adding that partisan politics have nothing to do with her objections and that the public deserves the EEOC’s protection, including transgender workers. “This is how I feel and I’m not pulling any punches. And I will stand by what I wrote every day of the week, all day on Sunday.”

Ortiz said she never intended for her email to go beyond the EEOC, describing it as a “love letter” to her colleagues. But, she added, “I hope that it lights a fire under people.”

Ortiz said she has received “a ton” of support privately in the month since sending her email, including a thank-you letter from a California retiree telling her to “keep the faith.” Open support among her EEOC colleagues beyond Reddit and Bluesky, however, has proven more elusive.

“I think people are just really scared,” she said.

William Resh, a University of Southern California Sol Price School of Public Policy professor who studies how administrative structure and political environments affect civil servants, weighed in on why federal workers may choose to say nothing even if they feel their mission is being undermined.

“We can talk pie in the sky, mission orientation and all these other things. But at the end of the day, people have a paycheck to bring home, and food to put on a table and a rent to pay,” Resh said.

The more immediate danger, he said, is the threat to one’s livelihood, or inviting a manager’s ire.

“And so then that’s where you get this kind of muted response on behalf of federal employees, that you don’t see a lot of people speaking out within these positions because they don’t want to lose their job,” Resh said. “Who would?”

Richard LeClear, a U.S. Air Force veteran and EEOC staffer who is retiring early at 64 to avoid serving under the Trump administration, said Ortiz’s email was “spot on,” but added that other colleagues who agreed with her may fear speaking out themselves.

“Retaliation is a very real thing,” LeClear said.

Ortiz, who has been a federal employee for 14 years and at the EEOC for six, said she isn’t naive about the potential fallout. She has hired attorneys, and maintains that her actions are protected whistleblower activity. As of Friday, she still had a job but she is not a lifetime appointee and is aware that her health care, pension and source of income could all be at risk.

Ortiz is nonetheless steadfast: “If they fire me, I’ll find another avenue to do this kind of work, and I’ll be okay. They will have to physically march me out of the office.”

Many of Ortiz’s colleagues have children to support and protect, which puts them in a more difficult position than her to speak out, Ortiz acknowledged. She said her legal education and American citizenship also put her in a position to be able to make change.

Her parents, who came to the United States from Puerto Rico in the 1950s with limited English skills, ingrained in her the value of standing up for others. Their firsthand experience with the Civil Rights Movement, and her own experience growing up in mostly white spaces in Garden City on Long Island, primed Ortiz to defend herself and others.

“It’s in my DNA,” she said. “I will use every shred of privilege that I have to lean into this.”

Ortiz received her undergraduate degree at Columbia University, and her law degree at Fordham University. She knew she wanted to become a judge ever since her high school mock trial as a Supreme Court justice.

Civil rights has been a throughline in her career, and Ortiz said she was “super excited” when she landed her job at the EEOC.

“This is how I wanted to finish up my career,” she said. “We’ll see if that happens.”

________

The Associated Press’ women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

TOPEKA, Kan. — Republicans and Democrats in Kansas agree that concerns about the economy drove voters to support President Donald Trump by a 16% margin.

They also know that ads from Trump and others targeting transgender rights resonated with voters. So while Kansas Republicans say property tax cuts are their top priority, they also are pushing to ban gender-affirming care for young people, including puberty blockers, hormones and, even though they are rare for minors, surgeries. They say that, too, resonates strongly with voters.

“It carries so much more emotional weight,” said Republican state Rep. Ron Bryce, a doctor from southeastern Kansas. “We’re talking about children and our future.”

As lawmakers have gone into session in many states, Republicans are broadly emboldened by GOP electoral successes to continue pushing state-level bills to curtail transgender rights.

As was the case in 2023 and 2024, dozens of bills are pending in mostly red-state legislatures aimed at issues such as which bathroom transgender people can use in public buildings, whether transgender people can use their gender identity on their driver’s licenses and whether transgender girls can play on girls sports teams. In Texas alone, Republicans have filed more than 30 measures.

Democrats are reckoning with voter backlash while not abandoning what they see as a civil rights issue.

Kansas state Rep. John Carmichael, a Wichita Democrat, said it’s hard to conclude that Kansas voters favor transgender rights after Republicans picked up three state House seats and two state Senate seats.

Republicans in the state think they’ll be able to ban gender-affirming care for young people this year after previously failing because the added Republican members will allow them to override a veto from Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly.

“Transgender people are going to be facing discrimination at the national level for four years,” Carmichael said Tuesday. “I’m sure that some of my colleagues in the Kansas Legislature will try to find a way to one-up even what Donald Trump is doing.”

Trump, who made anti-transgender themes central to his campaign, signed executive orders on his first day in office Monday declaring that the federal government would recognize only two sexes: male and female.

Federal prisons and shelters for migrants and rape survivors will be segregated by sex as defined by the order, and federal taxpayer money will not be able to be used to fund “transition services,” which would appear to cover people incarcerated in federal prisons.

In the U.S., about 300,000 youths ages 13 to 17, or 1.4%, are transgender, according to estimates by the Williams Institute, an LGBTQ+ research center at the UCLA School of Law. Among adults, the figure is 0.5%, for 1.3 million transgender Americans who are 18 or older.

At the state level, legislators anticipate a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that bans on gender-affirming care are constitutional. The court heard arguments in December on a Tennessee law that prohibits gender-affirming care for minors. The justices appeared likely to uphold the law, though a ruling isn’t expected until the summer.

About half of voters in the 2024 election said support for transgender rights in government and society has gone too far, while about 2 in 10 said it’s been about right, and a similar share said it hasn’t gone far enough, according to AP VoteCast.

Voters were split on at least one specific proposal. AP VoteCast found that slightly more than half of voters opposed laws that ban gender-affirming medical treatment, such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy, for transgender minors, while a little under half were in favor.

At least 26 states have banned or restricted gender-affirming care for people under 18.

Harleigh Walker, a transgender 17-year-old high school senior in Alabama where the care is banned, said it’s astounding that states are considering legislation that harms constituents like her. She said she’s likely to leave the South for college, and her family is also considering moving.

“We’re not hurting anyone,” Walker said in a telephone interview. “Our existence and our right to healthcare, bathroom use, et cetera, it’s not hurting anyone.”

Every major U.S. medical group, including the American Medical Association, has opposed the bans and said gender-affirming treatments can be medically necessary and are supported by evidence. Doctors, parents and young people have said such care reduces depression and suicidal thoughts in transgender youths.

Conservatives nonetheless often describe the care as potentially harmful. Kansas House Speaker Dan Hawkins said lawmakers are trying to protect young people.

“Children under the age of 18 are not equipped with the knowledge or maturity to make a decision that permanently affects the rest of their lives,” he said in a newsletter earlier this month.

LGBTQ+ rights advocates fear the next step is restrictions on care for adults. Florida is the only state that has done that, through there have been proposals in at least two other states.

Mo Jenkins, a 25-year-old transgender woman who ran unsuccessfully for a Texas House seat in Houston last year, described the possibility as terrifying. Her state banned gender-affirming care for minors in 2023.

“It was never going to stop with children,” she said.

The discussions among Democrats in red or swing states reflect the memory of Trump ads that blasted their presidential nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, as being “for they/them” while “President Trump is for you.”

Democratic Kansas state Sen. Cindy Holscher focused her reelection campaign in affluent Kansas City suburbs on education and taxes, capturing 61% of the vote.

“Democrats have a tendency to want to lean on those social issues, but they aren’t necessarily winning issues,” she said.

Holscher, Carmichael and other Democrats say they will still oppose measures restricting transgender rights.

“Civil rights are in the DNA of Democrats,” said Joan Wagnon, a former Kansas Democratic Party chair, state lawmaker and Topeka mayor.

___

DeMillo reported from Little Rock, Arkansas, and Lathan reported from Austin, Texas. Associated Press writer Kimberly Chandler in Montgomery, Alabama, contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration’s Title IX rules expanding protections for LGBTQ+ students have been struck down nationwide after a federal judge in Kentucky found they overstepped the president’s authority.

In a decision issued Thursday, U.S. District Judge Danny C. Reeves scrapped the entire 1,500-page regulation after deciding it was “fatally” tainted by legal shortcomings. The rule had already been halted in 26 states after a wave of legal challenges by Republican states.

President-elect Donald Trump previously promised to end the rules “on day one” and made anti-transgender themes a centerpiece of his campaign.

The decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia and West Virginia.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti called it a rejection of the Biden administration’s “relentless push to impose a radical gender ideology.”

“Because the Biden rule is vacated altogether, President Trump will be free to take a fresh look at our Title IX regulations when he returns to office,” Skrmetti said in a statement.

The Education Department did not immediately comment on the decision.

The Biden administration ignited controversy when it finalized the new rules last year. The regulation expanded Title IX, a 1972 law forbidding discrimination based on sex in education, to also prevent discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. It also widened the definition of harassment to include a broader range of misconduct.

Civil rights advocates hailed it as a victory, saying it gave LGBTQ+ students new recourse against discrimination. But it drew outrage from conservatives who said it could be used to protect transgender athletes in girls’ sports.

The rule didn’t explicitly address athletics and mostly detailed how schools and colleges were required to respond to cases of discrimination and sexual assault. A separate proposal dealing with transgender athletes in sports was put on the back-burner and later revoked after it became a focal point of Trump’s campaign.

In his decision, Reeves found the Education Department overstepped its authority by expanding the scope of Title IX.

There’s nothing in the 1972 law suggesting that it should cover any more than it has since Congress created it, Reeves wrote. He called it an “attempt to bypass the legislative process and completely transform Title IX.”

The judge also found that it violated free speech rights by requiring teachers to use pronouns aligning with a student’s gender identity.

“The First Amendment does not permit the government to chill speech or compel affirmance of a belief with which the speaker disagrees in this manner,” Reeves wrote.

Rather than carve out certain aspects of the rule, Reeves decided it was best to toss the regulation in its entirety and revert to a previous interpretation of Title IX. He said his decision will “simply ‘cause a return to the status quo’ that existed for more than 50 years prior to its effective date.”

Among the biggest critics of the rule was Betsy DeVos, former education secretary during Trump’s first term. On the social media site X, she wrote that the “radical, unfair, illegal, and absurd Biden Title IX re-write is GONE.”

Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said Biden’s rule “betrayed the original intent of Title IX by removing longstanding protections that ensured fairness for women and girls.”

“With President Trump and a Republican majority in Congress, we will ensure women and girls have every opportunity to succeed on the field and in the classroom,” Cassidy said in a statement.

___

The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

President Joe Biden began his term in the White House with a broad promise to protect transgender Americans against Republican policies that painted them as a threat to children and sought to push them out of public life.

“Your president has your back,” Biden assured trans people in his first State of the Union address in 2021, and he repeated a version of that statement in subsequent speeches.

But with President-elect Donald Trump days away from taking office after piling on transgender people throughout his campaign, some worry Biden did not do enough to shield them from what’s likely to come.

The president-elect has declared that “it will be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders — male and female,” and pledged to sign a series of executive orders targeting trans people early in his presidency.

Biden and Democrats, meanwhile, are grappling with how to handle transgender politics after the GOP used Democrats’ support for the trans community to win back the White House and control of Congress. Vice President Kamala Harris rarely mentioned transgender people during her campaign, but Trump’s campaign cited previous Harris statements to argue relentlessly to swing voters that she was focused on trans issues rather than the economy.

Democrats will not soon forget the punchline of a Trump ad that became ubiquitous by Election Day: “Kamala is for they/them; President Trump is for you.”

In his last full month in office, Biden scrapped pending plans to provide protections for transgender student-athletes and signed a bill that includes language stripping coverage of transgender medical treatments for the children of service members.

His actions follow a common strategy in which the outgoing administration rushes through policies or abandons unfinished regulations to prevent the incoming president from retooling them to more quickly advance his own agenda. But some trans people question why Biden let plans that might have better protected them from Trump’s policies sit on the back-burner.

“In some ways, the Biden administration has lived up to promises to support trans people, but not nearly to the degree that they could have, nor to what is equal to the current anti-trans onslaught,” Imara Jones, a transgender woman who created “The Anti-Trans Hate Machine” podcast, told The Associated Press.

Biden named trans people to influential positions across his administration, she noted. He overturned a Trump-era ban on trans people serving in the military and made it possible for U.S. citizens who do not identify as male or female to select an “X” as the gender marker on their passports.

“Under President Biden’s leadership, we have remedied historical injustices and advanced equality for the community, but there is more work to do, and we hope that work continues after he leaves office,” said White House spokesperson Kelly Scully.

The Justice Department under Biden also challenged state laws in Tennessee and Alabama that banned gender-affirming medical care for trans youth, and it filed statements of interest in other cases.

“But major gaps were both opened and remain,” Jones said. “The administration failed to follow through on Title IX, failed to defend trans health care and failed to adequately address anti-trans violence. The list goes on. Even now, the administration could be putting in place measures to help safeguard the trans community, at least temporarily.”

Some LGBTQ+ advocates have accused Biden of abandoning the transgender community after he signed into law the annual defense bill despite his objections to a provision preventing the military’s health program from covering certain medical treatments for transgender children in military families.

The nation’s largest organization of LGBTQ+ service members and veterans said Biden’s decision to sign the bill is “in direct opposition to claims that his administration is the most pro-LGBTQ+ in American history.”

Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said it’s the first federal law targeting LGBTQ+ people since the 1990s, when Congress adopted the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed it into law, a decision he later said he regretted.

The restriction comes as at least 26 states have adopted laws banning or limiting gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, though most face lawsuits. Federal judges have struck down the bans in Arkansas and Florida as unconstitutional, but a federal appeals court has stayed the Florida ruling. A judge’s order is in place temporarily blocking enforcement of a ban in Montana.

Twenty-five states have laws on the books barring trans women and girls from competing in certain women’s sports competitions. Judges have temporarily blocked the enforcement of bans in Arizona, Idaho and Utah.

When Biden in 2023 introduced his now-abandoned proposal to forbid outright bans on transgender student-athletes, trans rights advocates were dissatisfied, saying it left room for individual schools to prevent some athletes from playing on teams consistent with their gender identity.

The sports proposal, meant as a follow-up to a broader rule that extended civil rights protections to LGBTQ+ students under Title IX, was then delayed several times.

The delays from Biden were widely viewed as a political maneuver during an election year as Republicans generated outcry about trans athletes in girls’ sports. Had the rule been finalized, it would likely have faced conservative legal challenges like those that prevented the broader Title IX policy from taking effect in dozens of states.