Former President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday aimed at cutting federal support for gender-affirming care for minors under the age of 19. The order is part of his broader initiative to reverse policies that support the rights of transgender individuals. The executive order explicitly states that the U.S. government will not fund, promote, or support the “transition” of children from one sex to another. It also seeks to prohibit federal support for treatments such as puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy, and surgical procedures for minors. This move is seen by many as an effort to dismantle legal protections for transgender people, specifically targeting gender-affirming care which has been widely recognized as beneficial for transgender individuals, especially minors struggling with gender dysphoria.
The executive order directs that federally-run insurance programs, such as TRICARE for military families and Medicaid, exclude coverage for gender-affirming care. Additionally, it calls on the Department of Justice to rigorously pursue legal actions and legislation that would oppose the practice of providing such care to minors. Medicaid programs in several states currently cover gender-affirming treatments, but this order aims to cut off funding for these services. The order also targets hospitals and universities that receive federal funding and provide gender-affirming care. This development is controversial, as many experts and medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, continue to advocate for the availability of gender-affirming care, citing evidence that such care can improve the well-being and mental health of transgender individuals.
Trump’s rhetoric surrounding the executive order is equally contentious. On his Truth Social platform, Trump referred to gender-affirming care as “barbaric medical procedures,” language that stands in stark contrast to the medical consensus on the issue. Gender-affirming care typically includes a thorough evaluation by a team of healthcare professionals before any medical intervention, and surgery is extremely rare for minors. The rhetoric used in the executive order, which includes words like “maiming,” “sterilizing,” and “mutilation,” has been strongly criticized by those in the medical community and by transgender rights organizations, as these terms misrepresent the intent and outcome of gender-affirming care.
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson condemned the order, arguing that it plays politics with the lives of transgender young people. Robinson stated, “It is deeply unfair to play politics with people’s lives and strip transgender young people, their families, and their providers of the freedom to make necessary health care decisions.” This sentiment is echoed by many advocates for transgender rights, who argue that medical decisions should be left in the hands of families, children, and healthcare providers, not political entities.
The impact of this executive order on transgender minors is expected to be significant, especially for those who have already accessed gender-affirming care. For transgender individuals, treatments such as hormone replacement therapy and puberty blockers have proven to alleviate the psychological distress caused by gender dysphoria. In some cases, they have been life-saving. For instance, Howl Hall, an 18-year-old student, shared how taking testosterone helped improve his mental health and relieved symptoms of depression. Hall expressed concern that being forced off testosterone would negatively affect his emotional well-being and academic performance. He said, “I wouldn’t be living my life in a productive way at all. I can guarantee that I would be failing all of my classes if I was even showing up to them.” This highlights the very real consequences that such policies can have on the lives of transgender individuals, particularly those who rely on these treatments to manage their mental health.
In response to the executive order, organizations such as Lambda Legal have promised to take swift legal action. Michel Lee Garrett, a trans woman and mother of a teenager who is exploring their gender identity, also expressed her determination to fight these policies. Despite her child not having yet elected to pursue a full medical transition, Garrett is committed to preserving the right to access gender-affirming care for all transgender individuals. She said, “I’ll always support my child’s needs, regardless of what policies may be in place or what may come… even if it meant trouble for me.” This statement reflects the broader sentiment among transgender individuals and their families, who view these policies as an attack on their basic rights and autonomy.
The order also encourages Congress to pass a law allowing individuals who regret receiving gender-affirming care, or their parents, to sue healthcare providers. This provision is particularly concerning to many in the medical community, who worry that it could lead to a wave of litigation that undermines trust between transgender individuals and healthcare providers. Furthermore, the executive order directs the Department of Justice to prioritize investigating states that protect access to gender-affirming care and “facilitate stripping custody from parents” who oppose these treatments for their children. Some states, particularly those with Democratic leadership, have enacted laws designed to protect healthcare providers who offer gender-affirming care, even if the patients come from states where such care is banned. These protections are now under threat, and the order signals that federal authorities may take action against states that allow such care to be provided.
The controversy surrounding the executive order is part of a larger national debate over transgender rights, especially in the context of healthcare and education. At least 26 states have passed or proposed laws restricting or banning gender-affirming medical care for minors. Many of these states are facing legal challenges, with cases such as Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care currently making their way through the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Republican-controlled states have also introduced or passed laws restricting transgender individuals from participating in women’s and girls’ sports and regulating which bathrooms transgender people can use, particularly in schools. These laws have sparked widespread debates about the rights of transgender individuals and the role of government in regulating personal healthcare and identity.
Public opinion on these issues is deeply divided. A survey by AP VoteCast found that 52% of voters opposed laws that ban gender-affirming care for minors, while 47% supported such laws. However, Trump’s voter base is much more likely to support these bans, with about 60% of his voters backing laws that would restrict transgender care for minors. This highlights the growing polarization on transgender issues and suggests that these policies could play a significant role in future elections, both at the federal and state levels.
As legal battles unfold and public discourse on transgender rights continues to evolve, the future of gender-affirming care for minors remains uncertain. Advocates for transgender rights argue that policies such as this executive order only serve to harm transgender individuals and their families, creating confusion, fear, and stigma. Shelby Chestnut, executive director of the Transgender Law Center, emphasized that these policies are not beneficial for anyone, stating, “They’re only creating confusion and fear for all people.” As these legal challenges continue to make their way through the courts, the debate over transgender rights will likely remain a key issue in the national political landscape for years to come.
The executive order represents just one aspect of the ongoing struggle for transgender rights in the United States. With legal, political, and public opinion battles on the horizon, the impact of these policies on transgender youth and their families will continue to shape the broader conversation about civil rights and healthcare access for transgender individuals.
