QuorumCivic. Hidden in plain sight Get the app
Bill intelligence

New federal rule flags gender-identity content in kids' TV

H.R. 9067 — To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for a gender identity content descriptor for video programming, and for other purposes. · Filed by Barry Moore (R-AL) · 5 cosponsors · Introduced May 29, 2026 · Referred to committee

75%
Transparency
Typical bill: 82%
25/100
Hidden-provision risk
Typical bill: 15/100
Parental Control Labeling Mandate

Your members of Congress

Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.

Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.

What it does

This bill requires the FCC to establish a content descriptor (label) for children's video programming that depicts, discusses, or promotes gender identity, gender transition, transgender identity, or non-binary identity. Broadcasters and distributors would be required to attach this label to children's programming (rated TV-Y, TV-Y7, or TV-G) within 90 days, unless the TV Parental Guidelines board voluntarily adopts the descriptor first. The label would work with V-chip parental-control technology to allow parents to filter such content.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core function is to mandate a new content descriptor for children's programming addressing gender-identity topics, enforced through FCC regulation and V-chip technology. It is framed as a parental-choice tool but operates as a content-flagging requirement that may have chilling effects on speech.

What the text implies

  • Mandatory labeling of gender-identity content in children's programming may discourage broadcasters from airing such content, effectively reducing LGBTQ+ representation in media accessible to minors without formally banning it.
  • The 90-day deadline and regulatory mandate bypass the voluntary TV Parental Guidelines process, potentially circumventing industry self-regulation and creating a federal precedent for content-based labeling of protected speech.

The full analysis lists 4 implications of this text.

Who stands to gain

parental-control software vendors; television broadcasters (if reduced compliance costs vs. content removal); cable/streaming distributors (if labeling is cheaper than content curation)

Correlative observation from public records — not evidence of coordination or wrongdoing, and not financial advice.
This page is the record as of today. The app tells you when it changes.
Quorum analysis of the full bill text · 119th Congress · public record