In the first year of the second Trump Administration, there has been a barrage of harmful Executive Orders, the appointment of dangerous and unqualified political nominees, unprecedented firing of federal employees along with restructuring or near elimination of many federal agencies. Amidst a nonstop, chaotic whirlwind of daily breaking news, court decisions and more, the Administration is abusing its power to turn back the clock on rights and protections for hundreds of millions of people.

Below we highlight some ways this administration has been particularly harmful for women and their families.

Threats to Women in the Workplace

1. Weaponizing the EEOC.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is an independent federal agency with a bipartisan slate of five commissioners; the agency is at the frontlines of civil rights enforcement, investigating and remedying employment discrimination charges. In FY 2023 alone, the Commission received more than 81,000 complaints of alleged discrimination, including discrimination by sex, race, religion, and age. The EEOC plays a vital role in ensuring that all workers – and women workers in particular – are treated fairly; from 2014-2024, the EEOC recovered $5.6 billion for workers who were discriminated against.

The Trump Administration has taken actions to kneecap the EEOC’s true purpose of enforcing civil rights laws and anti-discrimination provisions and worked to weaponize the office to investigate employers that President Trump has a personal vendetta against. The weaponization of the EEOC’s remaining staff and resources includes its questioning of twenty law firms over their hiring practices, many of which the President has made clear he views as hostile to him in a series of high-profile Executive Orders. With new EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas and a confirmed Republican majority, the EEOC’s priorities and limited resources are clearly shifting to align with the President’s false claims of systemic discrimination against white men. In FY 2025, the commission filed only 93 lawsuits, a ten-year low.

2. Attempting to withdraw guidance on workplace harassment

On December 29, 2025, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission took steps to rescind necessary guidance on workplace harassment; the request to withdraw the 2024 guidance completely bypasses the comment period that was used when developing the guidance, during which the EEOC received over 37,000 comments. The EEOC’s attempt to avoid public comment underscores the consequences pulling the comprehensive guidance would have for workers across the nation relying on their employers to have clear, actionable guidance to protect them from harassment in the workplace. It’s one more step taken by President Trump’s EEOC to abandon protections for women and LGBTQ+ employees in favor of a politicized focus on religious discrimination and perceived discrimination against white men.

3. Threatening the implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA)

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a commonsense law that requires employers to offer reasonable accommodations to workers who have needs related to pregnancy, childbirth, and other related medical conditions. It ensures workers have access to basic accommodations, such as bathroom breaks or leave for health care appointments. It is enforced by the EEOC, which has the authority to investigate and settle discrimination complaints, including those that would be covered by the PWFA. While the previous administration defended the law and rules from attacks, pregnant workers are now threatened by the Trump administration’s approach to the rule and the EEOC. Research by the National Partnership finds that efforts to overturn or undercut the enforcement of the PWFA put 2.8 million pregnant workers at risk each year.

4. Undoing long-standing protections for federal contract workers from workplace discrimination by rescinding Executive Order 11246.

For nearly sixty years – during Democratic and Republican presidential administrations alike – EO 11246 was in place to ensure that federal contractors took proactive steps to promote equal opportunity for employment and did not discriminate against their employees on the basis of race, religion, sex, and more. The order was an important tool against rooting out historic gender discrimination, unearthing difficult to find pay disparities, and helping to increase the number of women in upper level, higher paying jobs in leadership when they’d been previously shut out due to their gender. Now that the Trump Administration has rescinded the Executive Order in its entirety, those that contract with the federal government are no longer required to actively advance equal opportunity.

5. Undermining the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).

The OFCCP is tasked with enforcement of anti-discrimination laws for federal contractors, including but not limited to EO 11246, and is meant to enforce key protections for veterans and disabled people. The Office oversees contracts with more than 25,000 firms – which employ 22 percent of the American workforce – and has recovered billions for workers and job seekers who suffered from discrimination. The National Partnership finds that between 2014 and 2024, the OFCCP obtained over $260 million for employees and job seekers who were discriminated against and provided financial relief to almost 260,000 employees and job seekers. Despite its obvious role in protecting at least 36 million workers, the Trump Administration is actively gutting its enforcement power, reassigning its staff to other DOL offices, and seeking to eliminating its already meager funding.

6. Abandoning enforcement of protections for disabled federal contract workers.

Executive Order 11246, the now-rescinded regulation for federal contractors, prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is an important counterpart, prohibiting employment discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of disability. It requires federal contractors to take intentional action to hire and retain qualified employees with disabilities, allow individuals to self-identify as workers with disabilities to help ensure important data tracking, and sets a goal for federal contractors to aspire to create a workforce where at least seven percent of employees are people with disabilities. These regulations are vital for advancing equity for the 3.7 million women workers with a disability. Despite this, President Trump’s Department of Labor paused enforcement of the anti-discrimination law for months, then proposed a rule to eliminate key provisions completely.

7. Revoking the $15 minimum wage for federal contractor workers.

A Biden-era order raised the minimum wage for federal contractors to $15 an hour in 2022. Thanks to inflation adjustments, that rate increased to $17.75 last year. While that order raised wages for hundreds of thousands of workers employed in the private sector at companies with government contracts, on March 14, 2025, the Trump Administration revoked a Biden-era order opening the door for some employees to experience up to a 25 percent cut to their pay. The workers helped by the Biden Executive Order – and thus, those most harmed by the Trump Administration’s decision to undo it – are disproportionately women, Black workers, and Hispanic workers.

8. Working to strip millions of domestic workers of minimum wage and overtime protections.

Domestic workers, such as home care workers, nannies, and housecleaners, have historically been excluded from important legislation that ensures workers’ rights to overtime protections and the federal minimum wage. This workforce is overwhelmingly made up of women and women of color and despite their crucial work, they contend with a lack of workplace safety, collective bargaining rights, and staggeringly low pay. After years of fighting for their rights, domestic workers won important minimum wage and overtime pay protections through Department of Labor rulemaking, which went into effect in 2015. Now, the Trump Administration working to strip millions of domestic workers of those rights through another rulemaking process which, if successful, would further lower wages, increase turnover, and undo a decade of progress.

9. Working to undo affirmative action requirements that help ensure women and workers of color have access to apprenticeship programs that can lead to good-paying jobs.

Apprenticeship programs are proven to help workers secure good-paying jobs in the trades, such as construction, manufacturing, and utilities. It is vital that all workers, including women, people of color, workers with disabilities, and other historically excluded groups, can participate in apprenticeship programs that would increase their lifetime earnings potential and economic security. However, women are grossly underrepresented, making up only 14.4 percent of apprentices. Rather than investing in apprenticeship programs as President Trump promised, his Department of Labor has pushed to make apprenticeships less accessible. The DOL proposed a rule that would remove requirements that certain apprenticeship programs conduct targeted outreach, recruitment, and retention activities; that those programs set goals for enrollment based on race and gender; and that programs support workers with disabilities.

10. Intimidating private sector companies to do-away with efforts to implement equitable hiring practices and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs.

On day one of the Administration, President Trump signed an Executive Order aimed at dismantling “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” programs. President Trump and his conservative allies often use “DEI” as an all-encompassing phrase synonymous with perceived discrimination against white men, but that ignores the long history of racism and sexism that these programs and civil rights laws are designed to remedy. Instead, the Executive Order is a proxy for attacks on civil rights and discrimination protections overall. It targets equity measures in the federal government and threatens advances in the private sector in equitable hiring, equal pay, and anti-discrimination for women. Companies have used the “evolving legal landscape” to cut or change their diversity, equity and inclusion goals, including Accenture, Pepsi, and Citigroup. And President Trump’s Department of Justice is enacting an intense pressure campaign, promising subpoenas and investigations into corporations with diversity programs.

11. Installing political appointees with anti-worker agendas.

President Trump has chosen multiple people as political appointees with anti-worker agendas that would harm millions of women workers. For example, Keith Sonderling, the Trump administration’s pick for Deputy Secretary of Labor, voted against the EEOC’s final rule on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act during his time as a commissioner. Notably, President Trump has tasked Russell Vought with running the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an agency that plays a powerful role in dictating the experience of women and families across the country. OMB leads the creation of executive orders and legislative proposals from the Executive Branch, manages the Presidential Budget, and oversees the regulatory process happening across agencies. Vought was a major architect of Project 2025 and is now a key player in the chaotic, illegal expansion of presidential power that occurred in the first year of the Trump Administration. The administration has also selected nominees to critical civil rights enforcement agencies who pledge allegiance to their priorities rather than protecting the rights of workers, such as Brittany Panuccio to be a member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, who suggested that she would agree to cease investigating discrimination charges filed by women if directed to do so by the President.

12. Threatening to eliminate the Women’s Bureau at the Department of Labor.

The Women’s Bureau was established by Congress in 1920 and is the only federal agency mandated to work on advancing economic opportunity for working women. For more than one hundred years, the office has conducted research, drafted policy and engaged in grantmaking and outreach to improve working conditions and wages for women across the workforce. For example, the Bureau has funded Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations grants, awarding more than $21 million dollars to organizations across the country to expand pathways for women in good-paying jobs, as well as providing research and grants that made passing state-level paid leave programs possible in about a dozen states. Instead of investing in programs and initiatives that address the barriers women face in the economy, the Trump Administration is committed to dismantling the very agency dedicated to that work.

13. Introducing dangerous uncertainty to the economy through the chaotic implementation of extreme tariffs, increasing the risk of an economic downturn.

The implementation of President Trump’s signature economic policy proposal of broad and un-strategic tariffs is stoking fears of a global trade war. Specifics of the tariffs have shifted throughout the year, but economists across parties have raised the alarm that President Trump’s rash economic decisions are increasing the possibility of an economic slowdown or recession. If a slowdown or recession becomes reality, there could be serious consequences for women’s wealth and long-term financial well-being. Already, we have seen meager job growth for the year. Monthly job growth in 2025 averaged just 49,000 jobs a month, compared to 168,000 in 2024. This drop was driven by losses in industries affected by tariffs, as well as painful cuts to the federal government. Women’s declines were also pronounced – they averaged 78,000 jobs gained each month in 2024, compared to just 35,000 in 2025.

Threats to Women’s Health

14. Increasing care costs by allowing vital Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax subsidies to expire.

President Trump signed into law the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBBA) in July 2025 that did not extend tax subsidies that make health coverage affordable for over 21 million enrollees in the ACA Marketplace, including 10 million women. The expiration of these subsidies at the end of 2025 will lead to significant premium increases, loss of coverage, and increased uncompensated care for health care providers unless Congress acts. An estimated 4.8 million people could become uninsured in 2026.

15. Passing historic cuts to the Medicaid program, that will disproportionately affect women and children’s access to healthcare.

The OBBBA cuts more than $1 trillion from the Medicaid and the ACA – representing the largest rollback of federal funding in U.S. history. An estimated 7.8 million people will become uninsured due to Medicaid cuts by 2034. These cuts will also put over 130 labor and delivery units in rural areas at risk of closure, making maternal healthcare even more inaccessible in rural communities. Loss of Medicaid funding may also force states to drop optional 12 months postpartum coverage which is essential in mitigating the maternal health crisis.

16. Signing legislation to implement “work requirements” for Medicaid eligibility which will cause 5 million people to lose coverage.

OBBBA includes an unprecedented federal mandate to implement work reporting requirements for the adult Medicaid expansion group, including parents (of children over age 13). Evidence shows that work requirements do not increase employment rates, and instead create unnecessary red tape and barriers that will lead to historic coverage losses, even for people with exemptions like people with disabilities and pregnant people (which can result in gaps in essential prenatal and postpartum care).

17. Ending Medicaid funding for state services that support people’s health and well-being.

In April, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that it will end a federal funding match to states for certain “non-medical” needs, such as health-related social needs and other public health initiatives. These cuts to necessary programs will harm Medicaid recipients and care providers across the country, including cutting grants for high-speed internet for rural health providers, student loan repayment programs, and other initiatives that help many maintain independent living with personal care assistance and meal preparation.

18. Shuttering reproductive health clinics by freezing funding for the Title X Family Planning Program and defunding Planned Parenthood.

The Trump Administration’s efforts to withhold Title X funds and “defund” reproductive health providers have driven reproductive health clinic closures and exacerbated barriers to health care access. The Title X Family Planning Program funds critical reproductive health services in low-income communities, including affordable birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing, and more. On April 1, the Trump Administration withheld millions of dollars from sixteen Title X grantees due to alleged violations of recent executive orders, including prohibitions on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. While funding was later restored, withholding reproductive health funding threatens to delay care and close clinics for those who need them most. Furthermore, the OBBBA defunded Planned Parenthood clinics and Maine Family Planning by prohibiting Medicaid reimbursements. While the prohibition on federal funding is only written into law for one year, it’s already having longstanding effects. Following the loss of Title X funds and Medicaid reimbursements, nearly 50 Planned Parenthood health centers were forced to close last year.

19. Sowing mistrust in abortion pill safety to set the stage for future restrictions on access.

Medication abortion is critical to abortion access nationwide, accounting for more than 60% of all clinician-provided abortion care. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it would formally review mifepristone, one of two pills commonly used for medication abortions, despite its longstanding record of safety and efficacy. Administration officials justified the politically-motivated re-evaluation of abortion pill safety with junk science and disinformation about risks. This manufactured crisis is an attempt to curb access to medication abortion, laying the groundwork for further restrictions on abortion pills in the future.

20. Undermining reproductive health privacy and leaving patients vulnerable to criminalization.

The Trump administration refused to defend the 2024 HIPAA Privacy Rule for Reproductive Health, which had lessened the risk of pregnant patients being reported to law enforcement and better protected those forced to travel to receive care because of state abortion bans. In the first two years after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, prosecutors brought more than 400 cases charging pregnant people with crimes related to pregnancy, pregnancy loss, or birth. Trump’s DOJ abandoned the fight to protect patient privacy and declined to appeal a district court ruling that took away protections against reproductive health criminalization from patients nationwide.

21. Banning abortion care for veterans and their families who rely on VA healthcare.

In 2024, the Department of Veterans Affairs boasted that it had more women veterans enrolled in its health care system than ever before. The Trump Administration quietly implemented a policy that no longer allows the VA health care system to provide abortion care or even abortion counseling, including in instances of rape or incest, affecting the over nine million veterans enrolled in the VA health care program. This is an abortion ban for veterans, with severe impacts. Research from the National Partnership finds that more than half of women veterans of reproductive age live in states that have banned abortion or likely to do so – now, the Administration has eliminated a crucial source of access for those veterans who would otherwise have no options. And crucially, the ban also means that veterans and their families in states with abortion protections still won’t be able to access the abortion care they need due to their VA health coverage. This policy is now the most extreme abortion restriction across any federal health care program.

22. Limiting enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.

The FACE Act makes it a federal crime to use force, threats of force, or physical obstruction to prevent people from receiving or providing reproductive health care such as abortions. This legislation was passed in 1994 in response to violence by anti-abortion protestors against abortion providers, such as through blockades, sit-ins at clinics, and bombings. The National Abortion Federation finds that between 1977 and 2022, there were 11 murders, 42 bombings, 531 assaults, and 492 clinic invasions amongst thousands of other criminal activities directed at abortion providers, patients, and volunteers. Death threats and other threats of harm against providers have only increased in the wake of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, yet President Trump’s Department of Justice announced in its first days that it would no longer enforce the law except under severe and “extraordinary circumstances.” The lack of enforcement makes clinics less safe for patients and providers.

23. Pursuing pronatalist policies that constrain women’s health and autonomy over their family planning.

Pronatalism is a policy of encouraging people to bear children predicated on racist, misogynistic, and ableist ideas about what kinds of families are desirable and worthy of being protected. Pronatalism confines women to a regressive reproductive framework and undercuts their decision-making around if, when, and how to have children, limiting their societal value to their capacity as mothers. Administration officials have pushed numerous pronatalist ideas and policies to incentivize a higher U.S. birth rate, including “baby bonuses,” fertility education classes, and a “National Medal of Motherhood.” The White House also promotes “blame and shame” fertility, which frames infertility as a failure of women. President Trump’s nominee to be the next Surgeon General supports this deeply stigmatizing, anti-reproductive freedom fertility approach. Glaringly lacking from the pronatalist agenda are the supports families need to raise healthy families, including expanded health care access.

24. Compromising access to emergency abortion care by undermining the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA).

Barriers to emergency abortion care result in people being forced to continue dangerous and often life-threatening pregnancies. There are increasing, high-profile stories of women who could not access emergency abortion care and suffered devastating consequences. The Trump Administration has undermined protections under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) that require hospitals to provide stabilizing care, including abortion care, for patients in medical emergencies. The Department of Justice dropped a federal lawsuit a federal lawsuit that could have protected emergency abortion care and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and CMS later rescinded guidance that reminded hospitals of their duty to provide emergency abortion care even in states with abortion bans. These actions will exacerbate chaos and confusion around when and whether providers can perform life- and health-saving abortion care in the context of state abortion bans – putting pregnant people’s life, health and future fertility at risk.

25. Threatening efforts to reduce Black maternal deaths and improve maternal health care.

Black women are three times more likely to die from pregnancy than white women and are also disproportionately affected by unexpected outcomes in labor and delivery with consequences to their health and well-being. As the National Partnership has previously outlined, President Trump’s Executive Order banning diversity, equity and inclusion practices significantly weakens the federal government’s ability to hold hospitals accountable for their treatment of Black birthing people and their role in improving Black maternal health. Threats to diversity, equity, and inclusion programs could also contribute to a sharp drop in the diversity of the maternal health workforce which would have negative consequences on patient experience and health outcomes. When paired with the massive Medicaid cuts highlighted earlier, the consequences for Black maternal health care are dire.

26. Making controversial changes to vaccine schedules that are especially dangerous for pregnant women and children.

At the start of the term, CDC announced dramatic changes to the childhood immunization schedule. In May, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. unilaterally removed COVID-19 vaccines from the CDC’s immunization recommendations for pregnant people. In June, Kennedy removed all 17 experts on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP), installing all new members, including many known vaccine skeptics. The health consequences of these changes are already becoming clear: measles cases hit record levels in the U.S. since the disease was declared eliminated in 2000; visits for flu-like symptoms reaching a thirty-year high; and COVID-19 still responsible for 100,000 deaths a year.

27. Erasing trusted health information and pushing “junk science” that endangers women’s health.

In early February, thousands of government websites were suddenly changed or offline. This included webpages for agencies such as the Center for Disease Control, USAID, and the Food and Drug Administration; pages that included information vital to the public and medical professionals, such as information on vaccines and reproductive health, were pulled down in order to comply with the onslaught of Executive Orders, including those that called on federal agencies to reverse course on diversity measures and gender. Though a judge ordered the Administration to restore online access, some links remain dark and the Administration’s attempts to hide and change information necessary to the public – particularly information about how to provide care and support to women and families – continues. The Administration has used junk science to promote unproven claims about the risks of Tylenol to pregnant women, as well as to cast doubt on abortion pill safety. In November, the CDC website was changed to promote the debunked link between infant vaccines and autism.

28. Ending data collection necessary to monitor disparities and advance health equity.

Racial, ethnic, and gender inequities can only be eliminated when high quality data is available to identify them, craft solutions, and monitor progress. In addition to firing many of the staff responsible for data collection and analysis, the Administration has also halted or modified data collection within critical national surveys, including the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) and the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). CMS removed both the gender identity and the perceived discrimination items from the national Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. CMS also removed a structural measure from quality reporting that assesses hospital-level leadership in advancing health equity, including data collection and requirements designed to standardize the identification of social drivers of health, including housing, food, transportation, and more.

29. Exacerbating the health workforce crisis.

The Trump administration has taken a series of actions that are likely to exacerbate the health workforce crisis. For example, his Administration rescinded significant Biden-era staffing standards for nursing facilities that addressed chronic understaffing, patient safety, and compensation concerns for direct care workers and staff, 84 percent of whom are women. Additionally, the severe and historic cuts to Medicaid will affect everyone, including hospital employees that are at risk of losing their jobs due to loss of hospital revenue and potential closures. National Partnership analysis finds that more than 80 percent of people working in hospitals in rural areas are women. The Department of Education has also implemented strict federal loan limits that will disproportionately hurt women, who make up the majority of students pursuing graduate programs, such as nursing, physician assistant studies, public health, physical therapy and social work. The Department of Education also directed schools, including medical schools, to end race-based programs or risk losing federal funding, resulting in a chilling effect that has reduced DEI initiatives and has led to recent declines in enrollment of medical students of color.

30. Leading unprecedented attacks on immigrant and public health.

Trump’s mass deportation campaign is forcing immigrants to wait until complications arise and to depend on more costly, emergency care for their source of healthcare. In November, the administration ordered Medicaid data be shared with ICE officials, putting the health privacy of over 80 million Medicaid enrollees at risk and discouraging millions of eligible immigrants from enrolling and utilizing healthcare coverage. Most recently, the administration proposed a rule seeking to undo public charge protections, effectively penalizing immigrants for accessing essential health services.

31. Ending funding for crucial research on women’s health.

President Trump has led a continued attack on vital research funding – important research institutions such as the National Institutes of Health have had their funding and staff cut, resulting in uncertainty of future research funding, canceled study panels, and the serious possibility of researchers and scientists closing their labs. Even small delays put millions of dollars for vital women’s health research on the line. And in a serious loss for women’s health research, the Department of Health and Human Services attempted to cancel funding for its first and largest study focused on the health needs of women. The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) has been conducting studies to understand the effects of medications and more on women for more than thirty years, producing essential results to prevent heart disease, osteoporosis, and certain cancers. In one of its most significant studies, the WHI’s findings are estimated to have prevented 126,000 breast cancer cases and 76,000 cases of cardiovascular disease in women. After backlash, officials promised to restore funding but uncertainty persists – and it’s clear that without serious attention from experts and the public, similarly important research could slip through the cracks as the Administration pursues ill-advised cuts.

32. Enacting widespread staffing cuts to vital Health and Human Services (HHS) offices, including those that improve access to health care for vulnerable populations and track maternal and infant health data.

The United States is facing a maternal health crisis. However, on March 27, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced a rushed and ill-conceived Reduction in Force (RIF) as part of DOGE’s attack on the federal government under the guise of efficiency. Those cuts included an unprecedented mass firing of Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) employees who serve vulnerable populations such as children, seniors, uninsured, and rural communities. The cuts have resulted in the decimation of the Bureau of Primary Health Care and the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, contradicting the administration’s Making America Healthy Again focus on preventative care and reducing the prevalence of chronic disease. They have also impacted staff who lead the National Maternal Mental Health Hotline, which provides pregnant people and new parents with mental health and postpartum depression. And the future of critical annual state-level surveys that track childbearing experiences through the CDC, known as the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), remains uncertain. HHS has also begun shuttering the Administration for Community Living, which is central in helping ensure disabled people can live in their communities with the supports they need.

33. Installing appointees who are harming women’s health.

The Administration has also nominated and confirmed political appointees who are leading/overseeing efforts that harm or undermine women’s health. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy has been even worse for America’s health than feared. He has broken promises to leave vaccination schedules intact, continued to make false statements regarding vaccines and autism, and made controversial changes to U.S. dietary guidelines. Attorney General Pam Bondi is positioned to steer the Department of Justice toward weaponizing the Comstock Act to restrict access to abortion nationwide. And as the head of the powerful HHS Office for Civil Rights, Paula Stannard is empowered to gut enforcement of nondiscrimination and health privacy protections, putting patients at greater risk of criminalization for their health care decisions.

Additional Threats to the Federal Workforce

34. Massive layoffs in the federal government, in part through overreach by Elon Musk and the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) impact local economies and communities, as well as federal women workers.

As the Trump Administration continues its attacks on federal workers – through mass firings, unprecedented “buyouts,” executive orders and intimidation – the impacts of losing the hard work of civil servants are all too clear. Federal workers perform essential jobs in communities across the country to protect consumers, workers and our health, including processing Social Security benefits, supporting survivors of domestic violence, rooting out discrimination, and maintaining our national parks. Federal workers not only support the work that millions of women rely on across the country, but they are also important cornerstones to local economies. Research by the National Partnership finds that women make up 45 percent of federal workers and that Black and Native women and women veteran workers are especially likely to be federal employees. It’s estimated that more than 300,000 federal workers have left or been forced out of their jobs in President Trump’s first year in office.

35. Targeting Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs and offices in the federal government impacts women workers, workers of color, workers with disabilities and more.

The Trump Administration’s combined efforts to scrap Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs and decimate the federal government targets women workers and workers of color. The DOGE team has been focused on plans to purge the federal government of diversity initiatives and government employees who they believe are tied to “DEI”, targeting anyone whose work might include words such as “gender,” “justice,” and “equity.” Already, the orders have attempted to eliminate programs aimed at women in wildland firefighting, domestic violence non-profits, and women in underrepresented fields such as the trades; agencies have also scrubbed their websites of many mentions to diversity and inclusion.

36. Revoking Collective Bargaining and Union Rights from Workers across the Federal Government.

In what has been called “the biggest attack on the labor movement in history,” the Trump Administration issued an Executive Order to eliminate collective bargaining rights for tens of thousands of federal employees working across agencies under the guise of “national security concerns.” In reality, the order attempts to strip unionized employees of protections that both support the workforce and help the federal government be more productive and efficient. The order makes it clear that the Trump Administration’s main intention was to retaliate against unions such as the American Federal of Government Employees (AFGE) and National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) that are taking actions to protect federal employees from the Administration’s constant, legally dubious attacks. The order has been subject to multiple legal challenges, and in December 2025, a bipartisan group of House Representatives voted to restore collective bargaining rights for federal employees, though that legislation has not passed the Senate.

Additional Threats to Civil Rights Protections and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Initiatives

37. Eliminating the Gender Policy Council.

The White House Gender Policy Council was established by the Biden Administration to promote gender equity and coordinate federal efforts to combat systemic discrimination, increase economic security, increase access to comprehensive health care, address caregiving needs, and more. The Trump Administration eliminated the Gender Policy Council in his first week on office.

38. Regulating gender and gender identity and threatening gender affirming care.

One of the Trump Administration’s most egregious policies have been his constant attacks on transgender, intersex, and nonbinary individuals. On his first day in office, he signed an Executive Order claiming to “defend women.” What the order truly does is allow the federal government to control and regulate gender, encouraging discrimination by the government itself against transgender people. The order also threatens the safety of all women and girls, subjecting all individuals to suspicion and surveillance of their gender and inviting violence against those who do not conform with a narrow understanding of gender and gender roles. For example, in the last year, the Trump Administration has introduced new rules to prohibit gender-affirming care for minors, the EEOC has refused to enforce workplace protections for transgender workers, and the Department of Labor has rescinded rules that protect transgender people in federal workforce development programs from discrimination.

39. Undercutting civil rights enforcement across federal agencies.

The Trump Administration is undermining civil rights enforcement across every federal agency, including the Department of Labor, Department of Education, and the Social Security Administration. Eliminating the offices tasked with investigating claims of discrimination puts everyone at risk. For example, the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights investigates thousands of claims of racial harassment, sexual harassment and sexual violence, and discrimination against students with disabilities each year. Undercutting agencies’ oversight and enforcement abilities is dangerous for the millions who rely on the government to enforce the laws passed to protect them.

40. Rejecting the “disparate impact” liability used by advocates and federal agencies to prove discriminatory impact.

Disparate impact is a foundational concept of civil rights law – it maintains that that certain practices can violate federal civil rights law because they affect certain groups differently, even when the action appears neutral and doesn’t explicitly state that it intends to discriminate against a protected group. Because of the disparate impact standard, for example, courts have been able to address job requirements that have the impact of discrimination and ensure that workplaces are held to a standard that does not disproportionately exclude women and people of color. The legal theory of disparate impact has been an important tool for civil rights advocates, helping to fight back against discrimination in housing, schools, workplaces, and more. But as part of their continued attacks against civil rights, the Trump Administration issued an Executive Order eliminating the use of the disparate impact standard by federal agencies and certain entities receiving federal funding, attempting to leave many without an important avenue to prove they’ve been discriminated against.

41. Threatening and withholding funds from universities and other institutions of higher education due to their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs.

The Trump Administration’s attacks on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in higher education have been far-reaching and unprecedented; the President has wielded extraordinary influence to pressure colleges and universities to eliminate their diversity programs, withholding funding and terminating grants at schools across the country. Programs under threat include those that support women in pursuing degrees they are currently underrepresented in, such as engineering and mathematics. In October, the White House made its goal even more explicit: in a “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” the Administration attempted to promise federal grants to certain universities if those institutions agree to limit academic freedom, center conservative ideology in coursework, and end diversity programs that have helped further equity and opportunity. Though the Compact was heavily criticized, the Administration continues to pursue its pressure campaign, spreading uncertainty and extracting concessions from elite universities that put academic freedom at risk.

42. Working to limit enforcement of the Fair Housing Act.

As one of the most significant pieces of legislation from the Civil Rights movement, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 prohibits discrimination when selling, renting, and/or financing housing. Strong enforcement is mandatory to fulfill the law’s lofty promise, but President Trump’s Department of Housing and Urban Development is instead refusing to investigate discrimination cases, ending grants to nonprofits that do vital work supporting victims, and gutting vital rules meant to help recipients of HUD funding address long-standing inequities and remove barriers to housing.

43. Eliminating DEI programs in the Department of Defense and U.S. Military

The Trump Administration’s far-ranging attacks on diversity are also a danger to our national security. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has made his disdain for women in the military abundantly clear – and he has translated it into action that targets women, people of color, and other historically underrepresented groups in the military. The Department of Defense has launched a review of the women in ground combat roles; dismissed high-ranking, qualified women from their roles; and eliminated a long-standing advisory committee dedicated to advising the Secretary on policies related to the recruitment and treatment of women in the military.

Overreach and abuse of presidential power targeting women and women of color

44. Targeting New York Attorney General Letitia James.

New York Attorney General Letitia James has long been the target of President Trump’s ire. Under the President’s direction, the Department of Justice has launched an attempt to build a criminal case against her – those attempts have been unsuccessful so far, but the DOJ has signaled that it will continue to target her for legal action as retribution as she continues to sue the Trump Administration on behalf of the state of New York. In October, the National Partnership and the National Women’s Law Center drafted a letter in her support, calling for Congress to check the power of the President as he rules by force and intimidation.

45. Targeting Federal Reserve member Dr. Lisa Cook.

In September 2025, President Trump attempted to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook as a key step towards his ultimate goal of influencing and controlling the country’s central bank. The effort to unjustly remove her was blocked by a federal judge who found that her firing was unlawful and contrary to the public interest; the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for the case in early 2026. The National Partnership for Women & Families drafted a letter in support of Dr. Lisa Cook, detailing her accomplishments and the importance of an independent Federal Reserve for women’s economic security.

46. Firing Dr. Erika McEntarfer, former Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics collects and analyzes important labor data, providing unbiased statistical information about the health of the economy using indicators such as labor force participation and unemployment rates. Economist Dr. Erika McEntarfer led the Bureau until August 2025, when she was unceremoniously fired via social media by President Trump in response to an unfavorable jobs report. The firing was unprecedented and raised immediate concerns that the President would abuse his power to manipulate the economic data to his whims, undermine public trust, and corrupt our ability to understand the economy in real time. The White House’s choice to replace Dr. Entarfer, E.J. Antoni, was widely criticized for overt partisanship and inexperience and ultimately withdrawn from the process; as of January 2026, there has been no official replacement.

47. Firing National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Board Member Gwynne Wilcox and General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo.

The National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency that protects employees from unfair labor practices, supports their ability to organize a union, and enforces the National Labor Relations Act. Research by the National Partnership finds that Black and Asian women and part-time workers had the largest gains in union membership growth in 2024 and women workers who are represented by a union see a multitude of benefits, including higher wages and more access to vital benefits such as paid leave, pensions, and health coverage. Despite the benefits of the NLRB’s work, President Trump illegally fired Board member Gwynne Wilcox just one week after his inauguration. She is both the first Black woman to ever sit on the NLRB Board and the first to be terminated from the position. The decision has triggered a lengthy legal battle with profound consequences. In May, the Supreme Court issued an emergency administrative stay preventing her reinstatement to the NLRB as they considered the case and the D.C. Circuit Court in December upheld that the Administration had the power to remove her without cause. The Supreme Court will decide on a similar case in 2026 that has the potential to overturn or diminish a precedent that protects members of some independent agencies from being removed for political causes. In the meantime, the NLRB finally reached a quorum and is able to decide cases again; with a new Republican majority, they will likely pursue an anti-union agenda.

48. Firing Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Commissioners Jocelyn Samuels and Charlotte Burrows, as well as General Counsel Karla Gilbride.

The EEOC is an independent federal agency that does crucial work enforcing civil rights protections for workers. In a historically unprecedented move, President Trump illegally fired Commissioners Burrows and Samuels on the same day as NLRB Chair Wilcox (discussed above), raising related legal questions tied up in the same upcoming Supreme Court case, discussed in Samuels’s complaint. Samuels has shared that the Trump administration based her firing on her “support for what they termed radical Biden administration guidance for DEI initiatives and… refusal to defend women against extreme gender ideology.” The firings left the Commission without a quorum for many months, but the quorum was restored with the confirmation of Brittany Panuccio in October. The Commission is now moving to change commission voting procedures to disempower members with minority views — removing tools that now-Chair Lucas utilized with regularity during her tenure as a Commissioner throughout the Biden administration.

Additional threats to crucial funding, safety net programs, federal election security, and more.

49. Furthering anti-Immigrant policies, border militarization and a mass deportation agenda.

The Trump Administration has reshaped America’s immigration policy, ruling with disturbing violence and racist rhetoric, and endangering the lives of millions of immigrants to further his own political power at the expense of American democracy. The Administration has created new militarized zones at the Southern border, deported immigrants without due process, and unleashed I.C.E. agents in neighborhoods across the country spreading violence and fear. Some reports show that pregnant women are being gravely mistreated in detention facilities and detained during reports of domestic violence. This shameful agenda harms everyone, including immigrant women and their families.

50. Legislating drastic cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) helps low-income families afford groceries; the program is the nation’s largest anti-hunger program, serving roughly 40 million people each month with demonstrated positive impact on food insecurity, health outcomes, medical costs, and performance in school for children. In their signature “One, Big Beautiful Bill Act,” President Trump and Republican legislators cut $186 billion from the program. The bill implements ineffective work requirements that will kick an estimated 2.4 million recipients out of the program in an average month, shifts costs to states, and changes the way benefits will be calculated. Women are disproportionately likely to experience food insecurity and also made up more than half of non-elderly adult SNAP recipients in 2022. SNAP lifted 3.4 million people above the poverty line in 2023 while providing only $6.20 to recipients on average each day, yet Congress cut the program to pay for President Trump’s tax cuts for his wealthy allies.

51. Cutting the Social Security Administration and threatening access to benefits.

Despite President Trump’s assurances, Social Security has not been immune to the deliberate attack on federal agencies spearheaded by Elon Musk’s team at DOGE. The Social Security Administration – and the 73 million Americans who benefit from agency’s programs– have been besieged with issues as the agency phases out phone services for certain requests, pushes out staff at local offices or closes field offices altogether, spreads misinformation in order to attack Social Security programs, and puts people’s personal data at risk. The agency is facing a record backlog as its dramatically reduced staff wades through millions of pending cases and customer service transactions. Though the dismantling of the Social Security Agency is an issue for everyone, it will be especially detrimental to the economic security of older-age women, who tend to live longer than men and have fewer retirement savings.

52. Proposing to eliminate funding for the Head Start program, along with cutting staff and funding for vital children’s programs across federal agencies.

Head Start is a 60-year-old federally funded program to provide preschool and child care for low-income families; it currently serves around 800,000 children and pregnant women. Head Start has been proven to support children’s school readiness and their health, as well as increase their likelihood of graduating high school and attending college. The Trump Administration has proposed eliminating the entire program, leaving hundreds of thousands of low-income families with no options for affordable, high-quality child care. Those cuts would be in addition to staff and funding reductions already put in place by the Trump Administration that harm children’s wellbeing, including cuts to programs that investigate child sexual abuse, prevent youth violence, and enforce child support payments. During this fall’s government shutdown, some Head Start programs were also forced to shut down due to frozen funding. President Trump has also attempted to extend his anti-DEI agenda Head Start, circulating a list of words that Head Start grantees couldn’t use in their grant applications. Words on the list included “race,” “pregnant people,” and “women;” a federal judge halted the order, but threats to the program remain.

53. Attempting to disenfranchise voters.

In late March, President Trump issued an Executive Order that, if implemented, would allow Trump’s federal government to commandeer the election system to preserve his own political power. The order instructs the Election Assistance Commission, an independent agency, to change the national mail voter registration form to require proof of citizenship to vote. The order also attempts to restrict state’s abilities to accept mail-in ballots received after Election Day, among other dramatic changes to the federal voting systems. This order has the potential to disenfranchise nearly 21 million otherwise eligible voters, who research shows may not have proof of citizenship readily available – those are voters across party lines, but they are disproportionately Black and Hispanic. As many as 69 million American women have a birth certificate that doesn’t match their legal name because they changed or hyphenated their last names upon marriage. The Executive Order has been challenged as an unconstitutional overreach in the courts, including in a lawsuit filed by nineteen state Attorneys General. As of January 2026, three federal judges have blocked major portions of the executive order as an overreach of presidential authority.

from — Haider, A., & Haider, A. (2026, April 13). One year in, 53 ways The second Trump administration is harming women and families. National Partnership for Women & Families. Retrieved May 23, 2026

~ ~ ~ 

Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration

During the second presidency of Donald Trump, the United States government has taken a series of actions to persecute transgender people. These actions have been accompanied by anti-transgender rhetoric and misinformation, often to dehumanize and scapegoat transgender people and portray them as a social threat.

The administration has restricted, defunded, and blocked gender-affirming care—especially in the case of minors—as well as research and education related to transgender issues. It has utilized censorship of inclusive language for the purpose of anti-transgender policy and directed law enforcement and the FBI to investigate the promotion of “radical gender ideology”. The Trump administration has undergone purges of transgender military personnel, prohibited transgender girls and women from participating in women’s sports, discriminated against transgender inmates, and has created restrictions on passports and international travel for transgender people.

The Trump administration’s actions targeting transgender people draw much of their design from the anti-transgender movement in the United Kingdom, and form part of the broader 2020s anti-LGBTQ movement in the United States and the anti-gender movement. The administration’s actions have been referred to by some advocates as the early stages of genocide similar to that of persecution of transgender people in Nazi Germany, arguing they seek to “marginalize them socially and economically”.^[1]

In the years leading up to the 2024 United States presidential election, there were an increasing number of state level laws and bans targeting transgender people.^[2][3][4] Anti-transgender campaigning was a large part of the Trump campaign,^[5][6] with spending on anti-transgender advertising being greater than spending on advertising discussing housing, immigration, or the economy.^[7] At multiple times throughout the campaign, Trump made false claims that schools were performing “gender-affirming surgeries on children without their parents’ consent”, with multiple conservative groups stating that, while not true, the claims were “valid”.^[8][9] Trump promised during his campaign that, if elected, he would sign an executive order instructing every federal agency to cease the promotion of sex or gender transition at any age, and promised to crack down on gender-affirming care for all ages.^[10][11]

Project 2025, which was published in 2023, detailed many of the goals of policies targeting transgender people that have since been implemented during the second Trump presidency.^[12][13][14] The administration’s actions targeting transgender people have also drawn from the actions of the anti-transgender movement in the United Kingdom over the 2010s and 2020s.^[15][16]

Following his second inauguration on January 20, 2025, Trump began issuing a series of executive orders targeting transgender people across the United States.^[17][18]

On January 20, 2025, shortly after being inaugurated, Trump signed an Executive Order,^[19][20] which defined sex to the federal government as a male-female binary, with “female” and “male” defined as “a person belonging, at conception to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell” and a “person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell“, respectively.^[19][21] The order also mandated that:

• Federal agencies use “sex” instead of “gender”, remove materials that “promote gender ideology“, and halt “funding of gender ideology”^{[19]: § 3(a), 3(e) [22][23]}
• Official government documents such as passports and visas prohibit self-selection of gender^{[19]: § 3(d) [24][25]}
• Transgender people be barred from government-funded single-sex facilities congruent with their gender identity^{[19]: § 4}
• The Bureau of Prisons halt federal funding for gender-affirming care.^{[19]: § 4(c) [22]}
• Federal funding no longer go to gender-affirming care^[26][25]
• The attorney general provide guidance to “correct the misapplication of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) to sex-based distinctions” in federal agency activities^{[19]: § 3(f)}
• Prior policies and federal documents inconsistent with itself be rescinded, including policies requiring the use of names and pronouns consistent with a person’s gender identity in federal workplaces.^[27]

Trump defended the order by stating it would protect women from “men masquerading as women”.^[28]

Provisions of the order have faced legal challenges, with temporary restraining orders having been issued to suspend the withholding of federal funding to programs that fund gender-affirming care and promote “gender ideology”,^[29] the forced transfers of transgender inmates to facilities congruent with their sex assigned at birth,^[30] and the mass removal of documents published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration, and the Department of Health and Human Services that mention topics related to “gender ideology”.^[31][32][33]

In July 2025, the federal government shut down specialized services for LGBTQ youth via its Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, stating that such services encouraged children to “to embrace radical gender ideology”.^[25]

In July 2025, The Lancet published an investigation which alleged that around half of all US health datasets were secretly and substantially altered in the two months after the executive order was signed, with the alterations being done to remove messages that “promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology”.^[34][35]

In October 2025, the Trump administration blocked student loan forgiveness for any public worker or group who takes part in providing gender-affirming care to transgender youth.^[36]

In November 2025, after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that gender markers in passports could be restricted,^[37] the State Department introduced a policy to comply with the executive order that required passports issued to transgender people to mark the gender initially recorded on their birth certificates,^[38] superseding the prior policy that had been in place since 1992.^[39]

In January 2025, a list of “forbidden terms” was reportedly distributed within the government’s health-related agencies, instructing employees to avoid certain words, including “gender”, “transgender”, or “LGBT”.^[40][27][41] Such words were also widely removed from websites run by multiple different federal agencies,^[22] including the National Parks Service Stonewall National Monument website.^[42][43] Editors at scientific journals, such as The BMJ and the European Journal of Public Health, objected to the policy.^[44][45][46] Scientific grants were revoked or reviewed on the basis of that LGBT topics had been mentioned in the research.^[47][48][44]

On January 27, 2025, Trump signed an executive order declaring that a soldier being transgender “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life” and that transgender people “cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service”.^[49][50]

On March 18, 2025, Judge Ana C. Reyes blocked the executive order, ruling that banning transgender people from the military likely violated their constitutional rights.^[51]

A May 15 memo later detailed how transgender service members would be discharged, saying that they would be given the discharge code of “JDK”, which is typically used to indicate that a soldier is considered a threat to national security, and which can prevent them from getting future jobs or security clearances.^[52] An August 4 United States Air Force memo announced that long-serving transgender members normally eligible for retirement benefits would be denied them.^[53] A memo sent out at the beginning of October advised that unit commanders could override the decisions of separation boards if the separation boards determined that transgender service personnel could remain in service.^[54][55][56]

On January 28, 2025, Trump signed an executive order to “Protect Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation”.^[58] The order described gender-affirming care for minors as “chemical and surgical mutilation of children” as well as “maiming” and “sterilizing”.^[59][60] It stated “countless children” who received such care would regret a “horrifying tragedy that they will never be able to conceive children of their own or nurture their children through breastfeeding”.^[61] The order also described the World Professional Association for Transgender Health‘s (WPATH) guidance as “junk science”.^[61][59]

The order states that the US Federal Government will not “fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another”.^[61][62] The provisions include:

• Directing the United States Department of Health and Human Services to review the terms of insurance under Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act to end certain gender affirming care;^[61]
• Told federal agencies providing federal grants to medical institutions to make sure those institutions were not carrying out any gender-related procedures;^[61]
• Protects whistleblowers who report on institutions that provide gender affirming care in violation of the executive order.^[63]

NBC News described the language in the executive order as inflammatory and noted that major medical associations support access to transgender health care for minors.^[64]

In response, some hospitals paused providing gender-affirming care for minors, while others continued.^[65][66] Some hospitals cancelled care for even those older than 19.^[67][68] Attorney generals from 15 states said their states are committed to continuing to provide gender-affirming care to minors. Multiple groups filed lawsuits challenging the legality of the executive order. In response to one of the lawsuits, several federal judges issued injunctions blocking the government from withholding federal funds from hospitals that provide gender affirming care to minors.^[69][33] Following the injunction, some hospitals that initially paused gender-affirming care for minors resumed the care.^[70][71]

In the summer of 2025, the Department of Justice began sending subpoenas to “over 20” hospitals demanding the full records of patients who received medical care under 19 – including their names, social security numbers, doctors’ notes, and treatments prescribed.^[72][73]

On October 30, 2025, NPR reported on proposed rules from the Department of Health and Human Services that would prohibit federal Medicaid reimbursement for medical care provided to transgender patients under 18, and block Medicaid and Medicare funding for any services at hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to children. NPR also highlighted that at the time of writing gender-affirming care for children was already banned in 27 states.^[74]

The executive order is similar to a portion of Project 2025 that called for withdrawing “guidance issued under the Biden Administration concerning sexual orientation and gender identity under Section 1557” of the Affordable Care Act.^[75][76]

On January 29, 2025, Trump signed an executive order “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling”.^[77] Under the order, law enforcement are directed to conduct investigations of educational or education-related institutions suspected of involvement in the “instruction, advancement, or promotion of gender ideology” declaring such ideas to be anti-American and subversive.^[78]

The order further directs law enforcement to criminally prosecute any teacher who “unlawfully facilitates” the social transition of a transgender minor. Listed examples of unlawful facilitation include psychiatric counseling by a school counselor, referring to the student using their preferred name and/or pronouns, referring to a student as “non-binary“, and allowing the student to use segregated facilities or participate on segregated sports teams differing from those of their assigned sex. The order directs that educators in violation of this law be prosecuted as having committed sexual exploitation of a minor, and/or practicing medicine without a license.^[79][80][81] Additionally, schools found in violation would have their federal funding revoked.^[82]

In August 2025 the Trump administration threatened to pull federal funding from sex education programs that mention transgender people, whom it referred to as “gender ideology.”^[83] By November 2025, 11 states and 2 territories had complied with the threat.^[84]

On February 5, 2025, Trump signed an executive order titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports“, which directs federal agencies and state attorneys general to immediately enforce a prohibition of transgender girls and women from participating in women’s sports.^[85][86][62] The order does not ban transgender men athletes from playing on male sports teams.^[87] As part of this order’s implementation, the Department of Education urged high school and college athletics organizations NCAA and NFHS to revoke transgender female athletes’ records and restore cisgender athletes’ ones.^[87][88] The State Department also announced a ban on transgender athletes from entering the United States if they attempt to compete in women’s sports, and that visa applicants suspected of such would have their file marked with the letters ‘SWS25’ for the purposes of tracking. Visa applicants for any purpose who list a gender other than their assigned sex on their visa application will be permanently banned from entering the United States on grounds of “fraud”.^[89] Later Trump threatened to impose fines on California due to a transgender athlete competing in the 2025 California high school track and field championship,^[28] coinciding with a lawsuit filed by the federal government against California for allowing transgender athletes to compete in their gender categories.^[25]

On January 20, 2025, Trump rescinded Executive Order 13988.^[90] The executive order had sought to protect LGBTQ rights in federal prisons and prevent discrimination.^[91][92]

In December 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi instructed the FBI to begin offering cash bounties for information leading to the identification and arrest of transgender activists promoting what she referred to as “radical gender ideology”, and described such activists as “domestic terrorist groups”.^[93][94]

In May 2026, The White House published its “United States Counterterrorism Strategy” which within it said that “In addition to cartels and Islamist terror groups, our national CT activities will also prioritize the rapid identification and neutralization of violent secular political groups whose ideology is anti-American, radically pro-transgender, and anarchist.”^[95]

From 2025 Bureau of Prisons stopped reporting on the number of transgender prisoners held.^[24] Beginning in 2026, the Federal Bureau of Prisons adopted new policies based on policies in Florida that mandated conversion therapy for transgender inmates. Under the federal policy, transgender inmates would have their hair cut short, be taken off hormone medication, and instead be put into psychiatric therapy and given psychiatric drugs.^[96][97] With reports from imprisoned transgender individuals claiming that they were being denied access to care.^[98][99]

Transgender men in ICE custody under the Trump administration have reportedly been specifically subjected to forced labor programs, with justifications given by guards including “If you wanna be a man, I’ll treat you like a man” and “Aren’t you strong enough? Aren’t you a man?”. Those who refused faced punishments including beatings and solitary confinement, with many also reporting severe sexual abuse.^[100] Transgender inmates are also routinely denied access to medical care, both gender related and non-gender related, leading regular illnesses in transgender detainees to go untreated due to doctors’ refusal.^[101] Data is hard to come by, however, as starting in 2025, ICE stopped complying with a federal law which required them to report data on transgender people in their custody.^[102]

Under Trump, the Department of Justice has issued instruction to inspectors to stop evaluating prisons and jails using standards designed to protect transgender and intersex people from sexual assault.^{[103][104][105]} According to data from the 2015 US transgender survey, transgender, intersex and gender-nonconforming people are uniquely vulnerable to such violence.^[106]

The rule change did not follow the usual process, but was done through a memo which instructs PREA inspectors to mark trans-related standards as ‘not applicable’. Executive director of Just Detention International, Linda McFarlane, stated that this “will immediately put people in danger.”^[107][104] Deputy director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Tammie Gregg said that the policy was to align practices in prisons with Executive Order 14168.^[104]

On September 4, 2025, multiple news organizations reported that the Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi was looking into ways to limit transgender individuals’ right to keep and bear arms.^[108][109] The discussions came in the aftermath of the Annunciation Catholic Church shooting, which, according to the Associated Press (AP), was perpetrated by a transgender person.^[110] The potential limitations drew condemnation from both LGBTQ rights groups as well as gun rights advocacy groups, such as the Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association (NRA), with the latter groups opposing blanket gun bans.^[110] The NRA said, “the NRA supports the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans to purchase, possess and use firearms. NRA does not, and will not, support any policy proposals that implement sweeping gun bans that arbitrarily strip law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights without due process“.^[111][112] Per the AP, “LGBTQ advocates called it misguided and dangerous as the vast majority of mass shootings in the U.S. are carried out by men and do not involve transgender people”.^[110]

In the annual National Crime Victimization Survey run by the Department of Justice removed any questions relating to gender identity and hate crimes based on transgender status.^[22][113]

On January 28, 2025, Trump ordered a freeze on all federal funding grants, loans, and aid while those receiving them were assessed to make sure they were not promoting “Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies”.^[114][115] Multiple organizations subsequently challenged their grant and funding freezes, with nine groups having funding partially restored by July 2025.^[25] In April 2025, after the Maine Department of Corrections refused to move a transgender inmate to an opposite gender prison, Pam Bondi claimed on Fox & Friends that $1.5 million in federal funding was being withheld from the Maine Department of Corrections in response.^[116][117]

Legal writers for Slate and the Washington University Law Review have argued that the second Trump administration’s policies restrain transgender people’s right to vote, or constitute voter disenfranchisement, citing the combination of the US Department of State’s 2025 restrictions for transgender people’s passports, and the proposed requirement that certain identity documents (which require a gender marker and could include a passport) be presented in order to vote.^[118][119] Other legal writers have previously highlighted the impact that such state level laws have had on transgender voter disenfranchisement.^[120][121]

On December 17, 2025, the House of Representatives voted to pass H.R. 3492, the Protect Children’s Innocence Act, a bill sponsored by Marjorie Taylor Greene that would criminalize parents, children, and doctors providing gender-affirming care to transgender youth.^[123] The House passage of the bill was condemned by the American Civil Liberties Union.^[124]

The next day, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. issued a declaration, effective immediately, that prohibited Medicare and Medicaid funding from being issued for any purpose to hospitals that offer gender-affirming care to minors.^[125] The declaration referred to gender-affirming care as “sex-rejecting procedures” that were “neither safe nor effective as a treatment modality for gender dysphoria, gender incongruence, or other related disorders in minors”.^[126][127] At the news conference, Health and Human Services Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill affirmed the department’s stance on two sexes and that people can not transition, stating that “at the root of the evils we face, is a hatred for nature as God designed it and for life as it was meant to be lived.”^[122] The declaration was criticized by politicians, health officials, and LGBTQ rights activists.^[126][127]

A lawsuit was filed by Oregon and 21 other states seeking to vacate the declaration, arguing that it circumvented standard rulemaking procedures.^[128] In April 2026, Oregon district judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai vacated the declaration, ruling that the Department of Health and Human Services exceeded its authority by attempting to unilaterally establish standards of care, violated the Administrative Procedure Act by circumventing the required notice and comment process, and violated Medicare statutes prohibiting federal officials from exercising “supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided.”^[129][130]

In May 2026, federal judge James Boasberg issued a preliminary injunction blocking a probe by the Federal Trade Commission into the Endocrine Society and WPATH, ruling that they were unconstitutional and based on politically-motivated animus.^[131]

Several Republican-run states have followed the lead of the Trump administration on transgender issues, enacting legislation to limit access to healthcare, government services and public life for transgender people.^[132]

As of 2025, more than half of U.S. states—mostly Republican-led states—had enacted state level bans on gender-affirming care for minors; in June 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Skrmetti that Tennessee’s ban did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, as it was a restriction of medical procedures based on age (which is not a protected class) and not inherently discriminating against individuals on the basis of sex.^{[133][134][135]} On March 10, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that West Virginia may continue to prohibit gender-affirming procedures for adults from being covered by Medicaid, arguing that the law applied to procedures and not individuals, and that it was “not irrational for a legislature to encourage citizens to appreciate their sex”.^[136][137]

In February 2025, Alabama and several other states introduced legislation to define gender to be congruent with sex assigned at birth, following on from Trump’s executive order declaring the same.^[138]

In August 2025, the Texas State Legislature introduced Senate Bill 8 (SB8), a bathroom bill that would restrict transgender people’s access to public bathrooms of their gender. Under the bill facilities could be fined up to $125,000 per offense, as well as authorizing private citizens reports.^[139]

Also in August 2025, Alaskan republican Matt Heilala introduced a draft to the Alaska State Medical Board that would discipline any medical providers in the states that are providing gender-affirming care for youth. The board unanimously approved the proposal on August 22, 2025 without public input on the proposal. Heilala announced his immediate resignation following the conclusion of the meeting, and announced his plan to run for Governor of Alaska at the next election. In response, Tom Pittman, executive director of Anchorage-based advocacy and health care organization Identity Inc, said that “nearly 700 Alaska medical professionals have signed an open letter opposing the changes being considered by the board.”^[140]

In September 2025, Republican representative Josh Schriver introduced House Bill 4938 in Michigan.^[141] The “Anticorruption of Public Morals Act” seeks to ban pornography, virtual private networks, and depictions of transgender people online.^[142][143]

In early 2026 bills were also introduced or progressed that targeted transgender people in the state legislatures of Idaho, Oklahoma, and Utah.^[21]

In February 2026, Kansas passed a bill that contained both a bathroom ban with a private right of action for publicly-funded facilities and a ban on gender self-identification on state-issued identity documents such as driver’s licenses.^[144][145] Many people who were flagged as potentially transgender in the government system were informed on February 25 that their ID and driver’s licenses would become invalid the next day, without any grace period, so even driving to the Division of Vehicles office to apply for a new license could result in a $1,000 fine and 6 months in jail.^[146]

Trump has repeatedly characterized transgender people as a societal menace, a corrupt elite, and a threat to children.^[147] Scholars and extremism experts have warned that the Trump administration’s sustained targeting of transgender people—a group comprising less than 1% of the U.S. population—resembles authoritarian strategies that single out a vulnerable minority in order to consolidate power. Analysts have pointed to historical parallels, such as the Nazi destruction of the Institute for Sexual Research in 1933, where attacks on a visible queer institution were used to galvanize support for broader repression.^[148]

Civil rights groups also argue that the Trump administration’s language opens the door to wider censorship and repression, noting that book bans and curriculum restrictions have increasingly targeted works on gender, sexuality, and racial justice under the banner of fighting “gender ideology.”^[148] Idit Klein of Keshet, in response to Trump sharing an image of a pink triangle crossed out, said that such actions are “frighteningly reminiscent for both LGBTQ+ people and Jews of our long histories of persecution, which have included tactics we’re seeing today, such as scapegoating, book bans, destruction of information access, and control/confiscation of identity documents like passports”.^[149]

In 2024, Trump claimed that children were being given gender-affirming surgery at school, repeating it multiple times throughout his campaign, despite there being no evidence that any school in the United States had ever provided gender-affirming surgery to a student.^{[150][151][9]} Trump repeated such claims in his 2026 State of the Union Address.^[152][153]

The New York Times has noted that Trump’s directives and speeches regularly use terms such as “maiming” or “junk science” to describe gender-affirming care and the research that supports it.^[154] The New York Times themselves have often run misinformation pieces on transgender healthcare which,^{[155][156][157]} according to a former journalist there, was part of a project to win favor with the Trump administration,^[158][159] with pieces by The Times being cited in Republican legislative and judicial filings to justify restrictions and rollbacks of transgender rights.^[160] Trump has called being transgender “lunacy” and “insanity,” insisted in speeches that “there are only two genders, male and female,” and ridiculed transgender athletes at campaign rallies to cheers from his supporters.^[161] Fact-checks of his 2025 State of the Union address noted that Trump falsely claimed taxpayer dollars were spent on “making mice transgender,” mischaracterizing NIH-funded medical research into hormone therapy and HIV treatment.^[162]

NPR and other outlets have documented a broader pattern in which Trump and allied Republicans seize on mass shootings and other tragedies to falsely identify perpetrators as transgender, part of a political strategy to scapegoat a small minority group. Experts on extremism and disinformation have warned that such rhetoric deliberately fosters fear and division, echoing earlier authoritarian tactics to rally support by vilifying minorities.^[148] Claims that the shooter was transgender happen “almost every time there is a school shooting in America”, according to USA Today.^[164] Michael Jensen, research director at the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, was quoted as saying, “I’m aware of no evidence to support the claim that transgender people are disproportionately responsible for mass violence events in the U.S., including shootings in schools. In fact, the data suggests quite the opposite.”^[164]

Throughout the 2020s, false accusations have been spread by individuals associated with the MAGA movement that transgender people commit acts of violence at a higher rate than cisgender people.^[165] In 2025, conservative commentator Matt Wallace falsely blamed the 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision on an uninvolved transgender pilot, claiming it might be “…another trans terror attack.”^[166] Other conservative figures including Donald Trump Jr. and Ronny Jackson have claimed that transgender people commit disproportionately more violence than other groups, and disinformation around the rate at which transgender people commit violence has spread in conservative media.^{[167][163][168]}

In the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, transgender people were almost immediately subject to accusations of responsibility, especially after The Wall Street Journal falsely reported that an internal ATF memo stated that messages were engraved on the cases of the shooter’s ammo which expressed “transgender and anti-fascist ideology.”^[169] Conservative commentator Joey Mannarino, who had previously expressed his desire for transgender people to be “rounded up, detained and studied”, posted on the social media platform X, “If the person who killed Charlie Kirk was a transgender, there can be no mercy for that species any longer. We’ve already tolerated far too much [from] those creatures”.^[170] A trans woman from Seattle was accused by numerous conservatives on social media of being the shooter. As a result, she received hundreds of abusive messages, including death threats.^[171] The Heritage Foundation has requested that the FBI label “transgender extremists” as a domestic terror threat.^{[165][172][173]} In May 2026, the White House issued a counterterrorism strategy seeking to prioritize the “neutralization” of “violent secular political groups whose ideology is anti-American, radically pro-transgender, and anarchist.”^{[95][174][175]}

Numbers vary across study and methodology, depending on factors such as how such crimes are defined, but they do not show a disproportionate rate of violence among transgender people. According to an analysis by the Poynter Institute, transgender people represent 0.1–1.5% of shooters in the US, and make up 0.5–1.6% of the population.^[168] Experts on gun violence agree that transgender people do not represent a disproportionate threat, with human security professor Laura Dugan calling the threat of transgender shooters “just not a concern”.^[168]

In response to Executive Order 14168, the National Endowment for the Arts began forcing all grant applicants to agree not to promote “gender ideology”.^[176]

Following this, the Trump Administration removed from publicly-run museums works which depicted transgender topics or which were made by transgender artists, with The New Yorker describing this by saying that the administration was “just as likely to censor a painting of a trans person by a cis woman as a painting of a cis woman by a trans person”.^[177] One example such was the National Portrait Gallery removing Amy Sherald‘s painting “Trans Forming America”, which depicted The Statue of Liberty as a black trans woman.^{[177][178][179]}

Likewise, privately-run institutions began censoring and removing the works of transgender artists as well, in what was speculated by some to be a move to appease donors.^[177]

Transgender writers, especially trans women, faced extreme difficulty in getting their work published, with many forced to turn to self-publishing in order to bring their work to audiences. However, this too became difficult as payment processors began to demand that platforms censor works related to LGBTQ topics.^[180]

In April 2026, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) launched a public review of the TV Parental Guidelines ratings system on the inclusion of “gender identity issues” in children’s television programming.^[181][182]

The National Science Foundation compiled an internal list of words which, if present in a research paper, grant application, or other relevant documentation, would flag a project and put its funding under review. Words that would initiate a review included “gender”, “LGBT”, and “women”, among others.^[183][184] Some transgender scholars reported having their fellowships cut, and being told by the federal government that it was for “promoting gender ideology”.^[177]

NASA took down webpages relating to LGBTQ+ employee resource groups and diversity at the organization, and according to employees, verbally informed its employees that any display of LGBTQ+ symbols, such as a pride flag in one’s workspace, would result in the employee being placed on administrative leave.^[185]

Many major universities during this time, either faced with potential loss of federal funding, changes in state law, or simply of their own accord, began to implement restrictions both on the rights of transgender students and on the teaching of material related to gender identity. This included barring transgender students from gender-segregated housing and facilities,^[186] banning transgender athletes and stripping away any previously won accolades,^[187] firing professors who gave instruction that contravened the Trump Administration’s position on transgender people,^[188] ceasing the provision of gender affirming hormone therapy to transgender students,^[189] and destroying books that covered transgender topics.^[190]

In May 2026, the administration announced that it was investigating Smith College, a women’s college in Northampton, Massachusetts, for allowing transgender students, alleging that the policy was a violation of Title IX.^[191]

The Trump administration’s anti-transgender agenda has not been confined to U.S. borders but has also been aggressively promoted in international forums, particularly at the United Nations. American delegates have repeatedly objected to the inclusion of the word “gender” in resolutions across a wide range of issues, from global health and women’s rights to environmental treaties on chemical pollution. By insisting that only “biological sex” be recognized in official documents, U.S. representatives have disrupted negotiations, slowed consensus-building, and aligned American positions with those of more repressive regimes.^[192]

Human rights experts warn that these interventions send a global signal that the rights of transgender, non-binary, and intersex people are negotiable, undermining decades of international progress toward gender equality.^{[193][194][195]} The Trump administration has also tied its stance to broader nationalist goals, suggesting that foreign aid may be contingent on countries adopting similar language, thereby leveraging U.S. power to export its anti-trans policies abroad.^[192]

The 2024 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices that was released under the second Trump administration was noted for the complete removal of any mention of discrimination and violence against LGBTQ people compared to previous reports.^[196][197]

During the 90 day pause on aid funding, a waiver was issued to continue providing HIV treatment during the pause,^[198][199] but this waiver excluded the provision of such treatment for gay men, bisexual men, and transgender women.^[25]

At the United Nations, the United States under Trump routinely uses their influence action against transgender rights globally, even when unrelated to the topic of discussion. For example, in a June 2025 meeting on chemical pollution, the American delegate made a point of repeatedly disputing any gender-related language that did not explicitly “recognize women are biologically female and men are biologically male”;^[200] in another case, the United States disapproved of a declaration supporting the rights of women and girls because it included no language to exclude trans women from its purview. Both advocates and the Trump Administration have suggested that the United States might use compliance at the UN as a metric for determining which countries receive foreign aid.^[200]

In January 2026, the Trump administration expanded the Mexico City Rule, which blocked funding or aid to any organization providing or promoting abortion, to likewise block funding and aid to any organization that takes part in or promotes “gender ideology”.^[201]

In March 2026, the Trump administration successfully pressured the International Olympic Committee into banning trans women and intersex athletes from competing in female events at the 2028 Summer Olympics and future Olympic games.^[202] All potential Olympic athletes must undergo a one-time SRY screening before being permitted to compete in the female category. IOC president Kirsty Coventry stated that the new policy was “based on science” and was made because “it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category”.^[203] In a joint statement published several days before the official IOC announcement, over 100 human rights and other groups criticized the proposed rule change as “a blunt and discriminatory response that is not supported by science and violates international human rights law”.^[204][205]

The Trump administration’s actions targeting transgender people have led some transgender Americans to seek refuge abroad.^[206] Advocacy organizations and media outlets reported an increase in transgender people leaving the United States or making plans to do so in response to the rollback of rights, workplace exclusions, and the Trump administration’s rhetoric portraying transgender identities as a social threat.^{[207][208][209]}

In March 2025, Yes! documented cases of transgender asylum seekers in Mexico who cited fear of persecution under Trump’s executive orders and anti-trans policies. These asylum seekers said that relocating was a matter of personal safety.^[210]

Canadian media reported U.S. transgender families preparing “go bags” and considering asylum after Trump’s re-election, citing fears over bathroom bills, the loss of gender-affirming care, and restrictions on passports.^{[211][212][213]} Immigration attorneys in Canada reported a surge of inquiries from transgender and non-binary Americans seeking to relocate or claim asylum after Trump’s January 2025 executive orders. Lawyers cited widespread fears over loss of gender-affirming care, restrictions on passports, and safety concerns, and noted that several test cases could establish precedent for U.S. transgender nationals claiming refugee protection in Canada.^{[209][214][215]} In July 2025, Justice Julie Blackhawk of the Canadian Federal Court blocked the deportation of a non-binary person who overstayed their visitor visa in Canada, pending further judicial rulings. Blackhawk ruled that the pre-removal risk assessment conducted by an immigration officer had “failed to consider recent evidence of the conditions that may have supported a reasonable fear of persecution” under present conditions for LGBTQ+ people in the United States.^[216]

In April 2025, the Green Party in Norway proposed granting asylum to transgender Americans on the grounds that they were being persecuted, with Green Party politician Karina Ødegård comparing their situation to marginalized groups in 1930s Germany. The proposal drew attention in European media and was framed as part of a broader debate about democratic backsliding and human rights in the United States.^[217][218] In August 2025, a 28-year-old transgender woman from California, Veronica Clifford-Carlos, challenged the Dutch government’s rejection of her asylum claim. Her case, supported by the Dutch NGO LGBT Asylum Support, was described as the first of its kind in the Netherlands, which reported a rise in U.S. citizens applying for asylum since Trump’s return to office.^[219]

A number of advocacy and genocide-prevention groups have warned that the cumulative effect of federal and state measures targeting transgender people exhibits genocidal dynamics or “red flags,” particularly when coupled with eliminationist rhetoric in public life.^[220] These analyses point to policies and statements seeking to remove legal recognition of transgender identity, restrict access to healthcare, and exclude transgender people from public institutions, and argue that such measures can inflict serious bodily or mental harm on an identifiable group.^[220][221] Commentary has also highlighted public calls to “eradicate transgenderism from public life,” which critics characterize as eliminationist or genocidal rhetoric, even where speakers distinguish between “transgenderism” and transgender people.^{[222][223][224]}

Many legal scholars argue that transgender people do not meet the Genocide Convention‘s definition of a protected group, and as such the requirement of intent to physically or biologically destroy a protected group are not satisfied by policies that target transgender people as such, even if the measures cause serious harm.^[225] Legal scholarship from 2024 assessing state-level anti-trans legislation in the United States concluded that these actions likely did not meet the legal definition of genocide, while emphasizing the severity of harms imposed.^[226]

In January 2026, journalist Walker Bragman interviewed three genocide scholars who were concerned that the US was at the “early stages of committing genocide” against transgender people. Former presidents of the International Association of Genocide Scholars Henry Theriault and Gregory Stanton explained that the Trump administration wanted “to destroy a gender group,” accuse them of corrupting traditional and family values, marginalize them socially and economically partly in order to urge them to kill themselves, and give tacit permission to law enforcers to use force specifically against them. Experts on genocide Stanton and Haley Brown deemed these tactics to be “directly borrowed from the Nazis.”^[1][227]

Commentators and scholars have drawn parallels between the Trump administration’s targeting of transgender people and the persecution of LGBTQ people in Nazi Germany. The erasure of research, censorship of language, and targeting of transgender people as a social threat have been repeatedly cited as bearing strong resemblance to the early stages of queer persecution under the Nazi regime.^{[228][18][229]}

In 1933, Nazi students destroyed the Institute for Sexual Research in Berlin, founded by Jewish sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld, which had pioneered studies of gender identity and medical transition. Its library of research on transgender and queer lives was burned, an act widely seen as the beginning of the Nazi regime’s systematic erasure of queer culture and knowledge.^[148][230] LGBTQ people were later targeted under the Nazi regime through imprisonment, medical experimentation, and, in the case of homosexual men, internment marked by the pink triangle symbol. Several observers have compared this destruction of knowledge with the Trump administration’s removal of federal webpages and health datasets referencing transgender populations in early 2025, following executive orders banning “gender ideology.” Entire sections of research on HIV, contraceptive use, health equity, and workplace discrimination disappeared from government sites. Critics have described these actions as a form of internet-age book burning.^[228][43]

Parallels have also been drawn between Nazi use of broad ideological categories such as “un-German” and the Trump administration’s emphasis on opposing “DEI” or “gender ideology.” According to scholars, both function as umbrella terms that designate targeted groups as enemies of the nation and justify their exclusion from public life.^[228]

On January 28, 2025, over 170 women’s rights organizations, led by the National Women’s Law Center, issued an open letter condemning Executive Order 14168. The letter described the order, which defined legal recognition of women strictly by reproductive biology and sought to restrict transgender rights, as “cruel and lawless.”^[231] The organizations argued that its true intent was to stigmatize and discriminate against transgender, non-binary, and intersex people while enforcing gender stereotypes.^{[231][232][233]}

On November 18, 2025, 213 Democratic representatives signed a letter to House speaker Mike Johnson condemning the use of “demonizing and dehumanizing” language about transgender people.^[234][235]