US Bishops Back Limits on Gender Ideology and Abortion Funding, Challenge Proposed Immigration and Religious Freedom Rules

The formal comments, submitted on July 8 in response to proposed rule OMB-2026-0034, address revisions to federal financial assistance regulations under Title II of the Code of Federal Regulations. The changes would directly affect Catholic organizations participating in federally funded programs, including diocesan charities, schools, healthcare providers, and social service agencies.

Support for Restrictions on Gender Ideology

Among the provisions receiving the strongest endorsement from the bishops is a proposed restriction that would prohibit federal funds from being used for activities that deny the biological sex binary or present sex as a characteristic that can be chosen or altered.

The USCCB described the measure as a carefully crafted funding limitation rather than a restriction on speech or conduct. According to the bishops, the proposal appropriately defines the scope of activities eligible for federal assistance without extending beyond federally funded programs.

The bishops also voiced support for a separate prohibition on using federal funds to support what the rule describes as “sex-rejecting procedures” for minors under the age of 19. However, they urged the OMB to broaden the provision.

In their comments, the bishops argued that the prohibition should apply to adults as well as minors. They contended that their concerns are not limited to questions of informed consent or medical risk for young people, but rather to the nature of the procedures themselves.

Additionally, the USCCB called for the rule to explicitly include what it describes as “social transition” within the restriction. The bishops also proposed language targeting educational institutions that facilitate social transitions for students without parental notification, arguing that such activities should not be supported through federal funding.

Abortion Funding Language Draws Concerns

The USCCB likewise welcomed a proposed provision prohibiting federal aid from being used for costs associated with abortion. Nevertheless, the bishops argued that the language currently contained in the proposal is insufficiently aligned with longstanding federal policy.

Their primary concern centers on the use of the term “elective abortion.” According to the bishops, that phrase does not appear in the Hyde Amendment or related federal statutes and may be interpreted more narrowly than existing law. They warned that such wording could inadvertently create opportunities for federal funding of abortions that would otherwise be prohibited.

The bishops are urging the OMB to replace the contested language with terminology drawn directly from the Hyde Amendment. They specifically recommended adopting the amendment’s framework, which permits exceptions only in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is endangered.

The USCCB also requested clarification regarding the scope of expenses “associated with” abortion. The bishops asked whether the phrase would include activities such as referrals, abortion counseling, or transportation services connected to abortion procedures. Without explicit guidance, they argued, organizations involved in promoting or facilitating abortion could potentially remain eligible for federal assistance.

Strong Opposition to Immigration-Related Restrictions

The most significant point of disagreement between the bishops and the proposed regulations involves provisions addressing immigration.

The proposal would prohibit the use of federal funds to “encourage or facilitate illegal immigration” or support initiatives deemed to compromise public safety or promote “un-American values.” The USCCB argued that the language is overly broad and could place essential charitable and religious activities at risk.

According to the bishops, serving immigrants regardless of legal status is a fundamental aspect of the Catholic Church’s mission. They warned that under certain interpretations, activities traditionally carried out by Catholic ministries could be construed as encouraging unauthorized presence in the United States.

The bishops cited examples ranging from assisting immigrants with basic humanitarian needs to ensuring their participation in the sacramental life of the Church. They also expressed concern that Catholic schools serving the children of undocumented immigrants could potentially fall within the scope of the restriction.

The phrase “un-American values” drew particular criticism. The USCCB argued that the term lacks a clear legal definition and could be subject to inconsistent or politically motivated interpretation. The bishops contended that tolerance for differing viewpoints has long been regarded as a core American value.

In raising these concerns, the conference referenced historical episodes of anti-Catholic sentiment in the United States, including the legacy of the Blaine Amendments and more recent accusations by some lawmakers that Catholic organizations have facilitated illegal immigration.

E-Verify Mandate Raises Additional Objections

The bishops also challenged a proposed requirement that all recipients of federal assistance use the E-Verify employment verification system.

While acknowledging the government’s interest in preventing unauthorized employment in federally funded programs, the USCCB argued that the proposal could impose substantial burdens on nonprofit and religious organizations. The bishops warned that, without adequate safeguards, the rule could disrupt legitimate hiring practices and encourage excessive verification procedures.

Particular concern was directed toward a requirement that organizations report definitive negative E-Verify findings to federal authorities. The bishops maintained that such a mandate would effectively transform grant recipients into participants in immigration enforcement efforts.

According to the USCCB, the requirement could create incentives for employers to avoid hiring applicants perceived as more likely to face verification complications because of their ethnicity, language, surname, or national origin. Such outcomes, the bishops argued, could conflict with federal civil rights protections.

Concerns Over Grant Termination Authority

Another major issue identified by the bishops involves a provision granting federal agencies authority to terminate grants if they determine that continued funding no longer serves the “national interest.”

The USCCB warned that the standard is so broad that future administrations could use it to revoke funding from religious organizations despite existing legal protections. The bishops argued that such expansive discretion creates uncertainty for faith-based organizations that rely on federal partnerships to deliver social services.

Calls for Stronger Religious Freedom Protections

Although the bishops praised the proposal’s inclusion of a non-discrimination provision for religious organizations applying for federal grants, they said the safeguard does not go far enough.

The conference called for explicit incorporation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into the final regulation. Under RFRA, the federal government must demonstrate a compelling interest before substantially burdening religious exercise and must employ the least restrictive means available.

The bishops also urged the OMB to extend religious freedom protections beyond the grant application process and throughout the entire lifecycle of federally funded programs. In addition, they requested a general provision affirming that the new rule does not override any existing federal laws protecting religious liberty.

Taken as a whole, the USCCB’s submission reflects a mixed response to the proposed regulations. The bishops strongly support efforts to prevent federal funds from being used to advance gender ideology and abortion, while simultaneously warning that several immigration, employment verification, and grant administration provisions could threaten the Church’s ministries and weaken religious freedom protections for faith-based organizations participating in federal programs.

• Raju Hasmukh with files from Infocatholica