By Nick Minock, reprinted from wjla.com, May 30, 2025
ARLINGTON, Va. (7News) — Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares announced in an exclusive interview with 7News Reporter Nick Minock on Monday that Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) is utilizing an unlawful, discriminatory, and retaliatory Title IX investigation to silence students’ sincerely held religious beliefs and Miyares is referring the matter to the United States Department of Education Office for Civil Rights and the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division for further investigation.
A day after 7News broke the story that LCPS was formally investigating three LCPS boys for Title IX sexual harassment after voicing their concerns about a female student, who identifies as male, using the Stone Bridge High School boys’ locker room for gym class, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin directed Miyares to investigate LCPS and the school board for their handling of the situation.
7News was the first to report that LCPS was investigating three boys after they voiced concerns that a biologically female student was using a boys’ school locker room with them — and that the female student recorded the boys in the locker room.
The Loudoun County School Board permits students to use bathrooms and locker rooms at school based on their gender identity, rather than their biological sex.
Miyares announced the findings of the investigation in an interview with 7News on Monday.
“The governor asked me on May 6 to get to the truth of what exactly was happening here with the Loudoun County Schools,” Miyares told Minock. “What we have found is one, the boys indeed are the victims in this situation. There is no evidence, no corroborating evidence that we have found that they had sexually harassed anyone, that they had done anything even approaching what would be considered sex discrimination. The reality is, is that Loudoun County Schools, what we have found, have bad policy and bad judgment. They instituted policy 8040, which allows biological boys, not just in women’s sports teams, but in locker rooms and bathrooms and on overnight trips and hotel rooms.”
“We’ve also seen, in our opinion, that the three students sincerely held religious beliefs, some of these students in question are Christian, some were Muslim, but they basically were told to be silent, to be quiet and not to express their sincerely held religious beliefs over their objection over this policy, 8040, and so what we have seen is missteps and a troubling pattern of bad judgment and bad policy by the Loudoun County Public School System,” Miyares added.
The OAG’s report says, “the facts and circumstances of the current matter involving [the three male students] suggest that LCPS is utilizing an unlawful, discriminatory, and retaliatory Title IX investigation to silence the students’ sincerely held religious objections to Policy 8040. Furthermore, there are persistent reports that Loudoun County Public Schools and the Loudoun County School Board take adverse and potentially unlawful action against parents, teachers, and public speakers.”
Miyares says the next “natural step” when it comes to Title IX is that federal authorities should look at helping the young men who Miyares says are being victimized by LCPS.
“So we referred this to federal authorities now to begin their own review, taking our facts and our findings,” said Miyares.
Miyares said LCPS is “weaponizing” Title IX.
“To go after students that have both sincerely held beliefs, but also pushing a left-wing ideology that vast majority of Virginians and Americans find absurd,” said Miyares. “It’s what I say, ‘you could be so open-minded your brain falls out.’ If I was to tell you 15 years ago that this would actually be a debate of members of the opposite sex being in hotel rooms and locker rooms and bathrooms and men competing on women’s sports teams, nobody would believe it, but this is what happens when they push a divisive left-wing ideological agenda, and then they’re telling these students to be quiet when they raise, I think, legitimate objections, they’re now slapped with the mind-blowing intimidation of a Title IX, because a Title IX, it gets attached to your permanent student record. It is something that these students will carry with themselves. If Governor Youngkin had not asked me to investigate, and the parents had been quiet, they potentially could have had to carry this for the rest of their academic career simply because they said we don’t want a member of the opposite sex in our locker room. Think about the chilling impact that has on our students, where they’re too afraid to speak out on something that is just basic common sense because the school board has weaponized this Title IX to go after these students.”
Miyares’s investigation is not done yet. He wants to know if LCPS has done this to other students.
Gov. Glenn Youngkin issues this statement in response to AG Miyares’ report:
“Thank you to Attorney General Miyares for the quick and thorough work following my request to investigate Loudoun County Public Schools’ Title IX investigations because the LCPS administration was unlawfully and discriminatorily retaliating against students who express religious objections to LCPS policy. It is unacceptable that students are being targeted for exercising their sincerely held beliefs following the egregious invasion of privacy in their locker room.
The clear conclusion lets us also take the next key step of referring this matter to the U.S. Department of Education and the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. Additionally, I have asked the Superintendent of Public Instruction to pursue all available avenues to hold LCPS accountable.”
Below are some of the preliminary findings of his office’s investigation into LCPS:
Miyares’s investigation found that a biological female “who outwardly presents as female and identifies as male” started using the Stone Bridge High School (SBHS) boys’ locker room during PE classes starting in or before September 2023 and that around October 2024, a male student told friends that he was “uncomfortable sharing the boys’ locker room with a girl.”
The preliminary investigation found that a few days later, a male student “was taken out of class to meet with SBHS Assistant Principal Lisa Tartaglia and Counselor Catherine Donovan” and that the student didn’t know why he was called to the office.
The investigation found the administrators told the male student that “somebody alerted” them that he said he was uncomfortable sharing the locker room with “a transgender student.”
The OAG’s office said the male student told them that he has personally held beliefs that there are men and women and that men belong in men’s locker rooms and women in women’s and the student’s beliefs are sincerely held and based on his Christian faith. The administrators responded that a female student has the right to be in the locker room, the report from the Virginia Office of the Attorney General (OAG) says.
Assistant Principal Tartaglia called the boy’s mother, informing her that someone filed a Title IX complaint against him, that they spoke to him, but that he was not in trouble as the claim was “unsubstantiated.” Neither the male student nor his mother received any documentation regarding the allegations against him, the OAG’s office states.
In or about October 2024, a different male student informed his PE teacher, Hunter Manspile, that he objected to sharing a locker room with a biological female, the OAG’s report states. The student’s beliefs are sincerely held and based on his Christian faith, and Manspile told the male student that the female student could use the boys’ locker room, the report continues.
Manspile also told the male student not to say anything about the situation, the AG’s report says. The report says the male student “understood Manspile to be warning him that he could be disciplined for speaking his mind.”
Following their October 2024 encounters with LCPS personnel, the two male students believed they could not freely speak about LCPS Policy 8040 without facing discipline,” the AG’s office says.
Miyares’ office states in their report that on January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14168, which, among other actions, directed the U.S. Attorney General to “immediately issue guidance” to end “legally untenable” federal policies that require “gender identity-based access to single-sex spaces.” The Executive Order also provided science-based definitions of biological sex and the differences between males and females.
And on January 29, 2025, President Trump issued EO 141908 on “ending radical indoctrination,” including in school environments where “students are forced to accept [gender ideology] without question or critical examination.” That Executive Order also directed the U.S. Secretary of Education to make “recommendations and a plan” for using federal funding mechanisms and legal protections like Title IX to implement the order.
Following these Executive Orders, Miyares’s office says the male students believed that the law behind LCPS Policy 8040 had changed, and they began to speak again with their friends at school about LCPS policy and the continued presence of a biological female in the boys’ locker room.
The Loudoun County School Board passed Policy 8040 in 2021 to allow students to use school bathrooms and locker rooms based on their gender identity and use preferred pronouns at school, among other things.
Although the two male students had conversations in the locker room at times when the female student was present in the locker room, they didn’t interact with the female student regarding any subject, the AG’s report explains
The third boy LCPS is investigating for sexual harassment attends Stone Bridge High School, and he “knows from [his] faith that there are two sexes,” the AG’s report says. The male student’s beliefs are sincerely held and based on his Muslim faith, and school officials, including his counselor, are aware of his Muslim faith, the AG’s report says.
The Muslim student has not interacted with the female student outside of interactions for schoolwork assigned during a course in the prior academic year, the AG’s report says. The report further states that the male student said that while he may have used female pronouns for her in that past course, he would have used male pronouns if ever requested, out of respect. The female student never spoke to the male Muslim student about what pronouns to use, the report says.
The Virginia Attorney General’s Office reviewed a video that the female student recorded in the boys’ locker room on or around March 19, 2025.
Over 20 boys were in the Stone Bridge High School boys’ locker room at the time, the AG’s report says.
LCPS Policy 8655 prohibits students from recording in locker rooms.
The AG’s report says the female student received an in-school suspension for recording in the locker room in violation of LCPS Policy 8655.
After the female student filed a Title IX complaint against the three boys, the boys were taken out of class to meet separately with Assistant Principals Lisa Tartaglia and Calvin Adams about the recordings. The AG’s report says Tartaglia and Adams asked each student if they said or heard anything problematic in the locker room, to which each denied.
The OAG’s report says the administrators also told one of the male students that this was not going to be a big deal and during their conversation, a boy told the administrators that he was uncomfortable with a girl being in the locker room. He also said Assistant Principal Tartaglia seemed to dismiss the whole incident by laughing during the interview.
The administrators also called the parents of the male student during the meeting, and they also reported hearing Tartaglia laughing in the background during the phone call, according to the report.
The report says Assistant Principal Adams called the parents of another boy, and Adams stated that SBHS “uncovered” a video of the fourth student and other boys in the locker room during an investigation.
The OAG’s report says Adams informed the students’ parents that SBHS officials may speak to their son as a witness and that they should not worry because their son was not in trouble.
The OAG’s report says the fourth boy’s parents asked to see the video, but Adams responded, “Don’t worry, it’s already deleted.”
Miyares said his office presented written questions to the LCPS Division Counsel regarding the potential deletion of evidence during a pending investigation, and “we did not receive a response.”
“That is highly unusual and unorthodox,” said Miyares. “I’ve never heard of a situation in a Title IX investigation of hearing of a video that suddenly just disappeared. Why did they make that determination to then suspend or delete this video? Then the question has to go, what were the repercussions?”
The OAG’s report says that in March, Assistant Principal Phuong Lue met privately and separately with two of the male students in the SBHS’s athletic offices to ask each if they would like private changing facilities, and that each responded no, individually stating they would prefer to stay with their friends.
Three days later, the OAG’s report says, “LCPS Title IX Coordinator Christopher Moy called the parents of Students B, C, and D to inform them that he received a formal complaint on March 27, 2025. The report says Moy told each parent that LCPS would be investigating allegations of sexual harassment prohibited by Title IX and that a written copy of the allegations would be sent.”
The OAG’s report further states:
Later that evening, Student C’s parents received an email with a letter of charges attached. The letter was addressed to “Student C, c/o Parent” and named his parents. The letter charged a violation of “Title IX Sex-Based Discrimination; Sexual Harassment” based on a “formal complaint on Thursday, March 27, 2025” from Student A.
Students B, C, and D received the same letter from LCPS containing identical factual allegations, and addressed to him and his parents. The Complainant is Student A and the Respondents are Students B, C, and D.10 The letter charged “Respondents” based on allegations by Student A of disparaging comments and physical threats. The LCPS Title IX charges warned the students that “Individuals who are found to have violated LCPS policy are subject to one or more of the following disciplinary actions/sanctions: Parent conference; Removal of school privileges; . . . Suspension out of school; Long-term suspension; or Expulsion.”
On May 7, 2025, SBHS presented Student D’s family with new allegations that he would purportedly “consistently misgender” Student A in the prior year’s science class.
“A new complaint was filed the day after, and within 48 hours of your reporting, and the day after Governor Youngkin asked our office to investigate and get to the truth,” Miyares told Minock. “And I think reasonable people can look at that timing and have a lot of suspicion and raise a lot of eyebrows whether that was indeed retaliatory in nature. Because the idea that you’re going to take over a year old allegation of misgendering, basically using someone’s quote wrong pronouns, when the student was never asked to use different pronouns and had very, very minimal interaction with this student in question, I think raises a lot of questions, a lot of red flags on what was the motivation behind bringing a previous academic year allegation against the student? Why would you wait now? Why would you wait till after there was public reporting? Why would you wait after the governor had asked for an open investigation to get to the truth, and what was the type of message you were then sending to the student that had now been the victim of a second type of Title IX complaint?”
“Is misgendering someone sexual harassment under Title IX?” Minock asked Miyares.
“No,” replied Miyares.
The OAG’s preliminary report also says:
As a result of the charges, LCPS brought each boy to the school to be interviewed.
LCPS Deputy Title IX Coordinator Danyelle Reese interviewed Student B on April 30, 2025, Student C on May 9, 2025, and Student D on May 13, 2025.11. Each interview was recorded in the presence of at least one parent and their shared Title IX advocate. Reese asked each student if they said the statements contained within Student A’s allegations. Reese also asked if Student C said “bro, that’s a her, and I’m going to need my own locker room.” Each denied Student A’s allegations, except that Students B and C admitted questioning why a girl was in the locker room. Student D admitted he asked why he was being recorded and that he may have used female pronouns the year before for Student A.
As described above, the single available video recording captures only a statement about needing a separate locker room due to the presence of a biological female. Most notably, the video does not record any disparaging remarks, profanity, or any threat against Student A. My Office is unaware of any corroborating witnesses who would substantiate Student A’s claims.
The OAG’s preliminary investigation report says:
Students B and C have felt the need to “walk on eggshells” around Student A all year. Student C believes he is being punished for speaking up for himself. He was and remains confused about why LCPS and SBHS have not changed the policy since the Executive Orders. Student B states he feels similarly, and has since requested that SBHS provide a private changing space.
Student D feels that LCPS’ investigation has been unfairly hanging over his head since March: “I am really stressed. I just want to focus on school. I wasn’t even involved in this.” Student D’s mother says she does not need anything bothering him: “I want him to focus on school.”
Student D also reports that the issue sometimes “pops into my head and I can’t focus.” Student D previously did not care that Student A was in the locker room, but now is uncomfortable even changing his shirt in Student A’s presence.
As of June 2, 2025, the LCPS investigation of Students B, C, and D remains ongoing.
The AG’s investigation says:
LCPS Policy 8040 allows students to use any sex separated “facility that corresponds to their consistently asserted gender identity.” But on January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14168 that directed the U.S. Attorney General to “immediately issue guidance” to end “legally untenable” federal policies that require “gender identity-based access to single-sex spaces.” My Office found no evidence that LCPS has changed its Policy 8040 or made any effort to reexamine it in light of EO 14168. To the contrary, LCPS appears to have doubled down on its commitment to its legally untenable Policy 8040.
In apparent furtherance of Policy 8040, LCPS elected to open a Title IX investigation into Students B, C, and D. My Office found multiple irregularities in LCPS’ decision.
First, the main disciplinary offense that occurred in this case was committed against Students B, C, and D. Student A violated LCPS Policy 8655 by illicitly recording others in a high school locker room. And Student A appears to have been found in violation of Policy 8655 and suspended from school as a result. Students B, C, and D are properly viewed as the victims in this entire scenario.
Second, the complainant previously filed a false or unfounded Title IX complaint against Students B and C. Student A’s previous unfounded allegations against the same students, coupled with Student A’s clear LCPS policy violation in the current matter, call into question LCPS’ decision to open an investigation based solely on Student A’s allegations.
Third, almost two months after the initial Title IX investigation was initiated into Students B, C, and D, LCPS appears to have permitted the complainant to belatedly add a new “misgendering” allegation unrelated to the March 2025 incident. This alleged “misgendering” occurred in the prior school year, yet it somehow did not merit reporting until Student A leveled the March 2025 allegations. Given Student A’s history as outlined above, LCPS Title IX investigators’ ability to discern the credibility of witnesses and appropriately screen out facially defective complaints is at issue.
Fourth, the available evidence directly contradicts Student A’s Title IX claims. Students B, C, and D deny Student A’s claims regarding inappropriate language, “misgendering,” and threats. Neither does Student A’s illicitly recorded locker room video contain any evidence that any alleged threats were uttered. Student A’s claims lack any outside corroboration. As such, the sole evidence of Student A’s claims is Student A’s word, which is subject to the above-stated concerns.
Fifth, Students B, C, and D have articulated sincerely held religious beliefs, based on their respective Muslim and Christian faiths, that prevent them from acknowledging the flawed premises behind LCPS Policy 8040. LCPS’ decision to hold open an investigation into these students creates a valid perception that students of faith are forbidden to object to LCPS policies based on their sincerely held religious beliefs, and students of faith are forced to adopt as their own or acquiesce against their will to the ideological beliefs espoused by the government (LCPS) in Policy 8040.
Sixth, after Student A lodged the unfounded Title IX complaint against Student C in October 2024, SBHS PE teacher Hunter Manspile instructed Student C not to say anything about his sincerely held religious belief that conflicted with being forced to share a locker room with a biological female. LCPS’ decision to continue investigating Student C creates the legitimate perception that LCPS is retaliating against Student C for expressing his religious objection to Policy 8040 after being instructed by LCPS personnel not to do so.
Seventh, LCPS personnel appear to have deleted evidence related to an ongoing Title IX investigation. SBHS Assistant Principal Calvin Adams informed Student E’s parents that Student A apparently recorded a second video, but that the video had been deleted. As a result, evidence that may have diminished the credibility of LCPS’ investigation has disappeared, and Students B, C, and D have lost their ability to call for exculpatory evidence that may have helped them prepare a defense to LCPS’ Title IX charges. LCPS’ decision to delete evidence in this ongoing investigation has irretrievably prejudiced Students B, C, and D.
Eighth, and finally, LCPS’ decision to investigate Students B, C, and D for an alleged violation of the legally untenable Policy 8040 is contrary to the clearly stated federal policy articulated in Executive Order 14168. LCPS is actively placing its status as a recipient of federal education funding in jeopardy by pursuing disciplinary actions under Policy 8040.
The preliminary investigation found that “the Loudoun County School Board and Loudoun County Public Schools have a disturbing and recent history of taking adverse and potentially unlawful action against parents, teachers, and public speakers who exercise their constitutional right to petition the government and speak on matters of public concern.”