As the nation begins to come to grips with President-elect Donald Trump’s victory, LGBTQ+ rights advocates and community members find themselves confronting a daunting landscape, particularly with his newly positioned GOP-majority Senate prepared to bolster his controversial policies.
Throughout his campaign, Trump showcased an anti-trans rhetoric across his speeches, ads, and platform policies. One particularly provocative advertisement read that his Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, supports “they/them—not you,” highlighting a stark contrast between their approaches to gender identity.
Republicans spent nearly $215 million on anti-trans ads this election cycle, a staggering amount that reflects the intensifying efforts to undermine the rights and identities of transgender Americans. Trump’s previous tenure saw numerous attempts to dismantle protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, especially concerning trans rights, as evidenced by several policies implemented to roll back existing protections.
Now that he is set to take office again, many LGBTQ+ Americans are left to ponder the implications of his presidency on their civil rights, particularly as he prepares to enact policies that could roll back decades of progress.
On Trump’s official website, he outlines a 20-point platform in his agenda titled Agenda 47, a strategic roadmap aimed at “Making America Great Again.” This agenda highlights plans to significantly curb LGBTQ+ rights, prominently including intentions to “keep men out of women’s sports”—targeting the small number of trans women competing in sports aligned with their gender identity—and threatens to “cut federal funding for any school pushing…radical gender ideology.” This is compounded by his explicit commitment to dismantle various protections put in place during President Joe Biden’s administration and introduce new laws targeting transgender individuals.
Katie Eyer, a professor at Rutgers Law School, emphasizes that Trump’s presidency could lead to significant shifts in conservative court appointments, affecting how federal courts interpret pivotal cases impacting LGBTQ+ rights. Although recent appeals courts have generally ruled in favor of transgender individuals confronting discrimination, the potential changes in judicial appointments could disrupt this trend.
“Constitutional law is the backdrop to discriminatory laws,” Eyer warns. “But of course, if you have a court that is unwilling to enforce equality rights vis-à-vis LGBT people, then that backdrop stops being a meaningful one.”
A ban on transgender persons in the military
During Trump’s first term in office, he formally instructed the Department of Defense to reverse a 2016 order that allowed transgender individuals to serve openly in the military, citing the costs associated with gender-affirming surgical procedures. This directive provoked numerous lawsuits challenging the Administration’s decision.
The Biden Administration overturned this order in 2021, but experts, including Eyer, suggest that early in Trump’s new presidency, a reinstatement of this ban is a strong possibility, likely to trigger renewed litigation against the government.
Health care restrictions
A concerning trend has emerged in recent years, with various states initiating measures to ban gender-affirming care for transgender and gender nonconforming minors. In August, the Human Rights Campaign reported that 26 states have enacted bans or established policies against gender-affirming care for minors, compounding the difficulties faced by transgender youth in accessing necessary medical support.
Trump has indicated that his Administration would mirror these state-level initiatives, pledging to curb gender-affirming medical care for minors nationwide—a move that could involve threatening to withdraw federal funding from hospitals that provide these crucial medical services, thereby severely restricting access to what many healthcare professionals consider life-saving care.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has already initiated several legal challenges against these state laws, asserting that they will “continue to litigate this issue in courts across the country should a second Trump Administration further restrict this care,” indicating a fierce commitment to fight for trans rights in the face of impending legislation.
According to Tara McKay, co-founder and Director of the Vanderbilt LGBTQ+ Policy Lab, Trump’s return to power could amplify existing state bans, as much of healthcare policy is determined at the state level, even when there is federal funding involved. “States have control over health care, so if [Trump] pursues a full federal ban [on gender-affirming care for minors], your progressive states will immediately challenge it, and it will be in court,” McKay posits.
This represents a troubling parallel to the landscape faced regarding reproductive rights, where states are becoming increasingly polarized—some rallying for protections while others adopt hostile policies that threaten the lives and rights of marginalized groups. California Governor Gavin Newsom has already convened a special session partly in response to Trump’s victory, collaborating with legislators to enact measures that protect the LGBTQ+ community against these worrying trends.
Trump’s plans are also closely linked to the outcome of a pivotal case currently before the Supreme Court, United States v. Skrmetti, which will determine the legality of Tennessee’s ban on gender transition care for minors. This case could set an important precedent regarding the rights of transgender individuals, influencing not only medical care access but also broader civil rights issues.
McKay further highlights the mental health ramifications stemming from Trump’s anticipated policies, noting that exposure to negative media narratives surrounding LGBTQ+ individuals significantly correlates with increased suicidal ideation among LGBTQ+ youth. The Trevor Project reported a staggering 700% increase in calls to its crisis hotline right after the election was called, underscoring the urgent mental health crisis within the community.
Dismantle Title IX protections, education standards, and identification options
Trump has drawn particular attention to the purported threats posed by transgender women participating in sports. At a recent rally in Virginia on Nov. 2, Trump declared his intention to “of course keep men out of women’s sports,” emphasizing his commitment to traditional gender binaries.
Through his Agenda 47, he details plans to ask Congress to classify Title IX as prohibiting the participation of trans women in women’s sports. During his first term, he made significant strides to dismantle Title IX protections for LGBTQ+ students, showcasing a clear intent to escalate these efforts moving forward.
Biden aimed to bolster Title IX protections for LGBTQ+ youth, attempting to course-correct changes from Trump’s earlier administration, yet these efforts did not address the contentious issue regarding transgender athletes directly. Trump has asserted that he would take immediate action to reverse these protections, a move he could initiate without the need for Congressional approval.
According to Simone Chriss, a civil rights attorney and the Director of the Transgender Rights Initiative at Southern Legal Counsel, these discussions extend beyond athletics and reflect a broader strategy to redefine gender in a manner that systematically excludes transgender people. This redefinition of sex may further restrict LGBTQ+ individuals’ rights and access to necessary services.
Moreover, the implications of potential funding cuts for schools are significant, as Trump aims to shift allocations based on how institutions teach gender identity and sexual orientation. In a statement made in January 2023, Trump pledged to “cut federal funding” to educational systems that engage in discussions about “gender ideology,” aligning with broader efforts to marginalize LGBTQ+ topics in education.
A particular fear voiced by Chriss is the potential for the federal government to follow Florida’s lead in redefining gender, disproportionately affecting transgender individuals’ access to critical identification services necessary for obtaining documentation that accurately reflects their gender identity.
Earlier this year, a memo issued by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles revealed that changes to driver’s licenses or state IDs, specifically concerning listed gender, were no longer permitted. The implementation of similar federal policies could pose dire consequences for the transgender community, hindering their ability to access identification that aligns with their true identities.
“Lack of access to identification documents that reflect who you are is something that impacts every interaction a person has,” Chriss warns. “Every transgender client I have, if they don’t have a passport, or if their passport still says the wrong gender marker or name, I’m like, ‘Update it as fast as you can, because we have till January.’”
Tracking-0.5px”>ce and support. Chriss emphasizes that the implications of such moves are extensive, suggesting that they undermine the very principles of equality and non-discrimination that Title IX was designed to uphold. By redefining the conversation around gender and sports, Trump not only targets trans women but also challenges the broader acceptance and recognition of transgender identities across various spheres of public life.
As the national discourse around transgender rights continues to evolve, Trump’s potential return to office raises significant concerns about the future of LGBTQ+ rights, especially for transgender individuals. Advocates fear that his administration could systematically dismantle existing protections, leading to a precarious environment for an already vulnerable population.
However, the resilience of advocacy groups like the ACLU and the Human Rights Campaign remains a critical factor in the ongoing struggle for transgender rights. Legal battles and public awareness campaigns will likely amplify as these issues come to the forefront of political discussions, illustrating the vital need for continued vigilance and advocacy in defense of civil rights in the face of potential governmental overreach.
