Donald Trump signed an executive order restricting people under the age of 19 from accessing medical treatments or procedures intended to help them undergo a gender transition.
The order, issued on January 28 and titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” prohibits federal funds from being used to cover the cost of such treatments for minors.
The order also directs federal agencies to ensure that medical schools and hospitals receiving any research or education grants are not conducting research on — or providing minors with access to — gender-affirming treatments.
The order directs all federal agencies to rescind guidance from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), a nonprofit association that has adopted guidelines for how and when gender-affirming treatments are to be administered to transitioning individuals.
Critics of WPATH have claimed that the organization’s more recent guidelines were based on a political or ideological stance rather than on science.
Trump’s order asserts that “impressionable children” are being lied to and pushed to pursue transition-related treatments that will lead to sterilization and “lifelong medical complications.” It also claims that a large number of minors who do seek out gender-affirming treatments will eventually come to regret their decision to transition.
The order requires TRICARE (the Department of Defense’s insurance plan), Medicaid, and federal employee health insurance plans to refuse to cover the costs of gender-affirming treatments prescribed to minors.
It directs the Department of Justice to “prioritize investigations” of medical providers who “may be misleading the public about long-term side effects of chemical and surgical mutilation.”
Twenty-six states have passed laws restricting individuals under the age of 18 from accessing certain types of gender-affirming care. However, a recent study published in JAMA Pediatrics earlier this month found that less than 0.1% of adolescents with private insurance in the United States are transgender and have been prescribed either puberty blockers or hormone therapy.
And yet, Republican politicians have seized on anti-transgender sentiment as a cultural wedge they can use to rally voters to their side in elections.
Most major medical associations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychological Association, have opposed state-level attempts to restrict access to gender-affirming care.
The Williams Institute, an LGBTQ policy think tank, estimates there are about 300,000 transgender youth aged 13 to 17 in the U.S. About one-third of them are believed to live in states with restrictions on gender-affirming care.
“Only eight days into his second term, President Donald Trump has blood on his hands,” Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen, the executive director of Advocates for Trans Equality, said in a statement.
“This executive order not only prohibits but intends to set forth a path to potentially criminalize the provision of safe, evidence-based, medically necessary gender-affirming care, endangering the lives of tens of thousands of transgender adolescents under the age of 19.”
Heng-Lehtinen continued, “Denying trans youth medical care will not stop them from being trans. Our trans community survived long before the government ever recognized us.… Trans existence is unyielding, and we will endure.”
The Gender Research Advisory Council + Education (GRACE), a transgender advocacy group, accused Trump of bending to the will of conservative activists who authored Project 2025. The blueprint for conservative governance calls for eradicating LGBTQ legal protections and refusing to recognize transgender identity.
GRACE asserted that the executive order strips away the rights of parents, who previously had been allowed to make medical decisions for their children. It has also criticized the hypocrisy of Republicans, who frequently trumpet the idea of “parental rights” when it comes to educational curricula, and who were vehemently opposed to mask and vaccine mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Our nation is witnessing firsthand the attempted eradication of people who are transgender,” GRACE Founder and President Alaina Kupec, said in a statement. “Our dehumanization by religious extremists is starkly similar to what took place in 1930s Germany.
“When our country’s leaders like President Trump and [House] Speaker [Mike] Johnson [R-La.] use the weight of the government to promote a radical agenda denying our existence, all Americans should stand up and take notice. It may start with the transgender community, but as history has proven, it will not stop with us.”
In March 2022, Justine Lindsay made history as the NFL’s first openly transgender cheerleader. Three seasons later, the Carolina Panthers TopCat is stepping away from the squad to pursue pageantry and community outreach.
In a statement to Outsports, Lindsay said she wanted to grow beyond the sidelines, striving to be “recognized not just as an NFL cheerleader, but as someone making a positive impact, especially during these uncertain times.”
The announcement marks a reversal, as some news outlets had previously reported she would return for the 2025–2026 season.
Gun rights groups are blasting the Trump administration after CNN reported that senior Justice Department officials have been discussing the possibility of restricting transgender U.S. citizens from owning firearms, following the recent mass shooting at a Catholic church in Minneapolis. Although officials described the talks as "preliminary," critics warn that even floating such a proposal scapegoats transgender people and threatens their constitutional rights.
The internal talks appeared to draw on a theory promoted by conservative influencers and media outlets: that transgender people are mentally ill, and that transition-related hormones negatively affect mental health, making them more prone to violence.
Two pharmacists are suing Walgreens and the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy, alleging they were punished for refusing to dispense gender-affirming medications. They are seeking a religious exemption that would allow them to decline filling such prescriptions on moral grounds.
Minnesota law classifies it as unprofessional conduct for a pharmacist to refuse to dispense a valid prescription. Exceptions exist, but only for non-religious reasons, such as doubts about a drug's effectiveness.
State law also permits pharmacists to refuse prescriptions for abortion-inducing drugs. The plaintiffs argue the state should likewise clarify whether pharmacists can decline to dispense gender-affirming medications if doing so conflicts with their belief that gender is binary and fixed at birth, reports Minnesota Lawyer.
These are challenging times for news organizations. And yet it’s crucial we stay active and provide vital resources and information to both our local readers and the world. So won’t you please take a moment and consider supporting Metro Weekly with a membership? For as little as $5 a month, you can help ensure Metro Weekly magazine and MetroWeekly.com remain free, viable resources as we provide the best, most diverse, culturally-resonant LGBTQ coverage in both the D.C. region and around the world. Memberships come with exclusive perks and discounts, your own personal digital delivery of each week’s magazine (and an archive), access to our Member's Lounge when it launches this fall, and exclusive members-only items like Metro Weekly Membership Mugs and Tote Bags! Check out all our membership levels here and please join us today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.