Schools across the United States have taken up the task of 'protecting' lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) youth, but their reliance on identity-based antidiscrimination policies may reinscribe power inequities. While previous scholarship critiques and cautions against such protectionist approaches, this paper explores why such policies persist. We argue that research and advocacy efforts persist in upholding protectionist frameworks because of three key investments that are inadequate for addressing power: (1) universalizing the individual, (2) prioritizing individual over structural change, and (3) addressing inequities through punishment and surveillance. We draw on a Foucauldian analysis of power, and biopower specifically, to explore how these policies do little to alter the underlying norms that impact the ways young people experience school. To exemplify our claims, we analyze the Safe School Improvement Act of 2015. As an alternative to these policies that privilege youth who most closely approximate normative standards, we push for intersectional reforms that target underlying racist and heterosexist norms.