Any agency that gets federal funds for food must now investigate allegations of discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation, and Tennessee’s Republican Attorney General is leading the fight against the move.
In May, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) added gender identity and sexual orientation to its interpretation of Title IX. The 1972 law outlawed discrimination based on sex for any program or activity receiving federal assistance.
The USDA said the move to include gender identity and sexual orientation is to keep its programs open to everyone, help ensure “all Americans have access to nutritious foods that promote health and well-being regardless of race, ethnicity, identity or background.” The move is also in line with President Joe Biden’s executive order in January on “preventing and combating discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.”
“USDA is committed to administering all its programs with equity and fairness, and serving those in need with the highest dignity,” said Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. “A key step in advancing these principles is rooting out discrimination in any form, including discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
“At the same time, we must recognize the vulnerability of the LGBTQI+ communities and provide them with an avenue to grieve any discrimination they face. We hope that by standing firm against these inequities we will help bring about much-needed change.”
But this is wrong, according to Tennessee’s Attorney General Herbert Slatery, because agencies that don’t comply with the order will lose federal funding. So, Slatery is leading a coalition of 26 state attorneys general to stop it.
A letter addressed to Biden about the issue was written and sent by Slatery’s office and has been signed by attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
In the letter, the attorneys argue that the new guidance is unlawful because it was issued without the input of state officials and other stakeholders that they say is required by the Administrative Procedures Act. They claim the Biden Administration misread and wrongly applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which protects employees against discrimination because they are gay or transgender, as a basis for the new rules.
The USDA’s move “imposes” new and “unlawful” regulatory measures on state agencies and other agency operators that get federal help from the USDA. Slatery’s letter claims the new rules will cause “regulatory chaos that threatens essential nutritional services to some of the most vulnerable citizens.” The National School Lunch Program, the letter gives as an example, serves nearly 30 million students each day and could be in danger under the new rules.
“This is yet another attempt by the executive branch and unelected regulators to do what only Congress is constitutionally authorized to do: change the law,” Slatery said in a statement issued Tuesday. “They intentionally misread the [Bostock v. Clayton County] to fit their social policy preferences and exclude the people and their elected representatives from the entire process. As attorneys general we cannot just sit on the sidelines, and we will not.”
The USDA said the LGBTQ community has faced “striking economic and social disparities, such as higher rates of poverty, unemployment, and nutrition insecurity. It said a U.S. Census Bureau survey found that more than 13 percent of LGBTQ respondents faced food insecurity compared to 7.2 percent of non-LGBTQ respondents.
“Whether you are grocery shopping, standing in line at the school cafeteria, or picking up food from a food bank, you should be able to do so without fear of discrimination,” said Stacy Dean, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services Deputy Undersecretary. “No one should be denied access to nutritious food simply because of who they are or how they identify.”