The “designated placement” rule had already been halted by a federal court
In a widely expected move, the Trump administration has begun the process of rescinding a Biden-era rule aimed at requiring states to ensure there are foster care placements that are affirming of LGBTQ youth.
The Biden rule, finalized in May 2024, states would have to demonstrate to the federal government that it had a supply of “designated placements,” defined as:
- Establishing an environment that supports a child’s status or identity.
- Has been trained or hosts a regular training for staff on providing for the specific needs of LGBTQ+ youth. The training must “reflect evidence, studies, and research about the impacts of rejection, discrimination, and stigma.”
- Facilitate a youth’s access to resources, services and activities that support their health and well-being.
“This includes clinically appropriate mental and behavioral health care supportive of their sexual orientation and gender identity and expression, as needed,” the final rule stated. The expectation was that 15% of foster care placements should be designated placements.
Accountability for the designated placement rule was tied to the next round of the Child and Family Services Review, the periodic assessment of state outcomes conducted by the federal government. So it would have been 2030 before we were likely to see whether states were adhering to the rule.
But the rule was put on ice in the summer of 2025 pursuant to a legal challenge from Texas Attorney General and U.S. Senate candidate Ken Paxton. The United States Eastern District Court of Texas barred the rule from taking effect nationwide, ruling that the administration lacked the statutory authority to impose such a requirement on states.
Today the Administration for Children and Families announced it would start the process of formally removing the rule. Adams called it “an affront to common sense” that “sent the wrong message to faith-based foster parents and organizations who simply seek to provide a loving home for foster youth.”
They “sent the wrong message” piece of his comment is doing a lot of work, in Youth Services Insider’s opinion, because this rule put zero onus of any kind on faith-based providers; many of which, by the way, are happy to work with youth and families whose lifestyles and identities do not align with the religious ideology of the organization.
The rule basically exists as an acknowledgement that some states legally protect discrimination by faith-based providers, telling states they needed to guarantee that some portion of their foster care capacity would consist of providers and caregivers that would not only shelter, but affirm and socially support LGBTQ youth. That structure did draw criticism from LGBTQ advocates when it was finalized.
“I mean, all the social science…about what’s good for kids is quite clear. Affirmation of identity, connection to supportive community resources, improves well-being,” said Currey Cook, interim deputy legal director for policy at Lambda Legal, in a 2024 interview with The Imprint Weekly Podcast. “So I think it’s a little odd that we are saying that only certain providers should be doing these things rather than having a basic expectation that all providers are doing this for all youth, including LGBTQ+ youth.”
Texas, where Paxton challenged the federal rule, included its own version of a designated placement rule when it passed a bill to protect faith-based discrimination. In the Texas law, there is a requirement that each child welfare region in the state must have a provider that will support any potential foster parent or youth.
The Trump administration is poised to make further moves to entice more faith-based providers and families into the child welfare space, and do what it can to shield them from local policies that inhibit their ability to follow religious beliefs. That much was made clear in the executive order on foster care issued by the president at a public signing ceremony in November.
In late 2025, Imprint reporter Michael Fitzgerald asked Adams if he thought it was important for states to take any proactive steps to ensure LGBTQ youth have homes where they feel safe and supported.
Adams said he thought “care should be individualized to the needs of the child,” and that placement stability is a function of appropriately matching youth to foster homes and other settings.
But, he said, “the first link in the chain is having a robust licensure network. If you artificially smother a licensure, you will never have placement customization and you will never match the best interest of the child.”