Federal Title IX policy requires institutions of higher education (IHEs) to prevent and respond to sexual misconduct. Based on 23 in-depth interviews, this study explores California Title IX coordinator experiences at a critical policy juncture—the recension of the Obama-era guidance and the implementation of the Trump administration Title IX rules and regulations—to understand how they responded to, implemented, or resisted federal mandates. Most California Title IX officers reported that the recension of Obama guidelines had limited impact on their daily operations because they lived in a state with more progressive social policy. Participants singled out California case law, state statues, the California Education Code and university system mandates as protective legislation to ensure survivors’ rights. By contrast, the new Title IX regulations that became law in August 2020 were perceived as more consequential. The tight implementation time frame, combined with the complicated and unfunded policy directives, imposed heavy burdens on their administrative offices. Title IX officers foresaw implementation consequences to campus safety, survivors’ willingness to report, and to the credibility of the Title IX office. Taken together, their experiences lend support to progressive state legislative action, restorative justice approaches and for a survivor bill of rights as important counterpoints to federal Title IX policy.