What is it with bullies and people’s lunch money? That’s what every American should be asking after Joe Biden played the quintessential bully trope of threatening to take federal lunch money from any K-12 school or district that doesn’t let boys use girls’ bathrooms.

Unity. Or else.

The announcement came earlier this month from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which declared that, beginning in June, its “Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) … will interpret the prohibition on discrimination based on sex found in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 … to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Translation: The money at stake over Biden’s Rainbow Mafia agenda is for the lunches provided to lower-income kids, which doesn’t seem to match the usual Democrat talking points about “fair share.” It is, however, exactly what a bully would say, and just in time for “Pride Month” to boot.

“Whether you are grocery shopping, standing in line at the school cafeteria, or picking up food from a food bank, you should be able to do so without fear of discrimination,” said Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services Deputy Under Secretary Stacy Dean. “No one should be denied access to nutritious food simply because of who they are or how they identify.” No, apparently they should be denied access to food simply because leftists are more worried about advancing gender dysphoria than feeding kids.

Digging further, however, the USDA combines the two problems in its quest for “equity”:

Historically, the LGBTQI+ community has faced striking economic and social disparities, such as higher rates of poverty, unemployment and nutrition insecurity. For example, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, more than 13% of LGBTQ respondents lived in a household that experienced food insecurity, compared to 7.2% of non-LGBTQ adult respondents. This survey also found food insufficiency — not always having enough food to eat — to be three times as common among transgender individuals (nearly 24% of respondents) as compared to cisgender individuals (8.3% of respondents).

We view those statistics with some measure of skepticism, but just for the sake of argument, let’s take them at face value and ask some questions. Does this necessarily mean that “LGBTQI+” folks face discrimination? Or does this mean that sex is not the only thing that’s dysfunctional in the home? How many intact marriages and families are represented in this statistic about food insufficiency? Could it be that food insecurity is a consequence of broken homes, and that broken homes are more likely to yield other consequences like sexual dysfunction?

What else do broken homes create? Bullies. Bullies who increasingly seem to go work for the government so they can force certain things on the American public. Bullies who need to groom kids to become more like them.

Federal funding is increasingly becoming a Faustian bargain, and this isn’t the first time the subject has been gender. Biden learned a lot of bully tactics from his former boss. During his second term, Barack Obama made federal funding contingent on compliance with his gender-bending agenda.

Our objection to this deviancy isn’t rooted in wanting to discriminate against anyone. Far from it. In fact, it’s tragic and abusive that kids struggling with gender dysphoria are not only being denied the actual treatment and help they need in favor of “affirmation” but that this lunacy puts other kids at great physical risk. Never forget that a male who was granted access to female restrooms in Loudoun County, Virginia, sexually assaulted a young woman, or that the district covered it up because the agenda was paramount. That surely wasn’t the only time, and it won’t be the last time.