The Republican-Controlled U.S. House of Representative Passes Major Bill 216 - 211 - Now Federal Employees File Complaint...
Washington, D.C. - May 26, 2026
HOUSE REPUBLICANS DELIVER LANDMARK VICTORY FOR AMERICA’S CHILDREN: 216-211 BILL CRIMINALIZES GENDER TRANSITIONS FOR MINORS AS TRUMP ADMIN POLICY FACES RADICAL LEFT COMPLAINT
In a decisive stand for child protection and biological reality, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed historic legislation by a 216-211 vote to criminalize gender transition surgeries, puberty blockers, and hormone treatments for minors. Providers could face up to ten years in federal prison under the measure, which fulfills a key campaign pledge from President Donald J. Trump.
This narrow but powerful victory reflects the ultraconservative majority’s commitment to safeguarding young Americans from irreversible harm.
Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia spearheaded the bill, demanding its floor vote in exchange for her support on defense legislation. She declared on the House floor:
“Most Americans agree that kids just need to grow up before they do anything radical, like a mastectomy on a 15-year-old girl.”
The bill passed nearly along party lines, underscoring the clear philosophical divide: Republicans prioritizing parental rights, biological truth, and child welfare versus Democrats embracing radical gender ideology.
Simultaneously, the Trump administration’s Office of Personnel Management policy—set to take effect Thursday—eliminates coverage for “chemical and surgical modification of an individual’s sex traits” in federal employee and U.S. Postal Service health plans. The move has triggered a formal complaint filed Thursday with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by the Human Rights Campaign on behalf of four federal workers from the State Department, Health and Human Services, and Postal Service.
The complaint claims the policy constitutes sex-based discrimination and seeks its immediate revocation. Human Rights Campaign Foundation President Kelley Robinson stated:
“This policy is not about cost or care—it is about driving transgender people and people with transgender spouses, children, and dependents out of the federal workforce.”
One Postal Service employee cited in the filing has a daughter diagnosed with gender dysphoria whose doctors recommend puberty blockers and possible hormone therapy—treatments now excluded.
The Trump administration, backed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has labeled such interventions for minors as “malpractice.” This aligns with December proposals to block Medicare and Medicaid funding for hospitals providing gender-transition care to children, directly contradicting recommendations from certain medical organizations but resonating with growing public concern over rushed medicalization of youth.
The twin developments highlight the Trump administration’s aggressive push to reverse years of ideological overreach in federal policy.
Greene, who recently announced she will leave Congress one year early, nevertheless secured this major legislative win before departing, cementing her legacy on protecting children. House Republicans framed the bill as essential action to formalize Trump’s executive orders banning gender-affirming procedures for minors.
Democrats and activist groups have condemned the moves as extreme, but polling consistently shows most Americans oppose irreversible interventions on children. With the Senate unlikely to advance the bill due to the 60-vote threshold, the House action still delivers a powerful message ahead of the 2026 midterms: the Republican Party is delivering on promises to defend biological reality and parental authority.
President Trump’s America First agenda continues to reshape federal priorities, placing the well-being of American children above activist demands. As the left files complaints and cries discrimination, families across the nation celebrate a government finally choosing common sense over ideology.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
