Federal Facility Access Mandate Restricts Transgender Individuals

What it does

This bill prohibits individuals from using single-sex facilities (restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms) on federal property unless the facility matches their biological sex, defined by reproductive system characteristics. It carves out emergency medical personnel and law enforcement in active pursuit or investigation. The bill applies to all federal buildings and properties nationwide.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is a federal mandate governing access to single-sex facilities based on a statutory definition of biological sex. It is not a deregulation, subsidy, or carve-out; it is a prescriptive rule applied uniformly across federal property.

What the text implies

• The bill does not specify enforcement mechanism, penalties, or who investigates violations—leaving implementation ambiguous and potentially creating inconsistent enforcement across federal agencies.
• The reproductive-system definition of biological sex may conflict with existing federal civil-rights law (Title VII, Title IX) and agency guidance on sex discrimination, creating legal uncertainty for federal employers.
• The bill applies to federal employees, contractors, and the public using federal facilities, but does not address how agencies should handle individuals with intersex conditions, prior medical transitions, or documented sex-classification changes.
• Emergency and law enforcement exceptions create a carve-out that may be interpreted broadly or narrowly depending on agency policy, potentially undermining the bill's stated purpose.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill restricts access rights for some citizens (those whose gender identity differs from reproductive-system-based sex classification) while potentially affirming facility-use expectations for others. The civic cost is a loss of access/accommodation for a minority population; the stated civic benefit is privacy/safety assurance for facility users matching the reproductive-sex definition. Both are concrete and real; the balance depends on empirical claims about safety and dignity that the bil

Named in the bill

Department of Defense, United States Postal Service, District of Columbia, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Where it stands

9 cosponsors: 9 Republicans.

• Feb 5, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Feb 5, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

1 lobbying clients named this bill on 2 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $439,908 in lobbying spend. A filing names 132 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 0% of bills with at least one filing.

Nancy Mace, the sponsor, reported $8,000 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Human Rights Campaign — $439,908 on 2 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 17, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.