On Thursday, a federal judge issued a nationwide injunction blocking provisions from two of the Trump administration’s recent executive orders on the use of federal funds to promote “affirming care” for persons under 19, and gender ideology more broadly. The suit was brought by several trans-identified teens as well as the activist organizations PFLAG and GLMA. The order blocks enforcement of section 3g of EO 14168 which prevents federal funds from being used to promote gender ideology, and section 4 of EO 14187 which conditions the receipt of federal funds on halting sex-trait modification interventions for persons under 19. According to the Hill, U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson concluded after a hearing that “the group of transgender teens and LGBTQ organizations that sued were likely to prevail on all of their claims that the orders are without authority and amount to illegal and unconstitutional discrimination.”
In a memo addressed to Pentagon leadership and military command, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced an immediate freeze on sex-trait modification procedures for all active-duty military personnel, and a freeze on promotions for service members with “a history of gender dysphoria.” The memo begins the process of implementing Trump’s executive order entitled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” which argues that trans-identification and gender dysphoria are incompatible with the professional demands of military service. Two lawsuits have already been filed challenging the executive order on constitutional grounds.
On Tuesday, Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed the Help Not Harm Act, legislation which would prohibit minors from accessing sex-trait modification procedures. Kelly vetoed a similar bill last year and Republicans failed to procure the two-thirds majority to override it. This year, however, Senate President Ty Masterson declared that the Senate is prepared to “swiftly override her veto before the ink from her pen is dry.” House Speaker Dan Hawkins said Kelly’s choice to veto the bill prioritized “partisan politics over the safety and wellbeing of our Kansas children.”
A second lawsuit has been filed challenging Trump’s EO that aims to prohibit the use of federal funds for sex-trait modification procedures for persons under 19. The suit, filed in the Western District of Washington, is spearheaded by Washington State AG Nick Brown, and joined by the attorneys general for Oregon and Minnesota, as well as three physicians. The suit argues that Trump’s EO violates equal protection under the 5th amendment, separation of powers, and the 10th amendment.
On his Substack, journalist Ben Ryan unpacks the contents of a secret memo drafted by, and circulated among, LGBTQ advocacy groups that offers public messaging tips for pushing back against Trump’s executive order targeting pediatric gender medicine. What chiefly stands out about the memo, as Ryan points out, is that it encourages advocates to steer clear of discussions about the quality of evidence or specific research studies. Instead, the memo emphasizes that advocates should center their messaging around due process arguments related to the rights of parents and families to make medical decisions without “extreme government overreach.” Taken together, the recommendations “suggest that the memo’s authors see questions about the strengths of the relevant research as a crucial weakness in their overall public relations strategy to aid this besieged—and, some might argue, out-right doomed—medical field” Ryan writes.
In a short letter to the Supreme Court clerk, the new Department of Justice has withdrawn its position in the case of Tennessee v. Skrmetti, a pending case argued before the Supreme Court on December 4th. The Biden administration had previously joined the suit, arguing that Tennessee’s SB1, which restricts access to sex-trait modification procedures to minors, violates the equal protection clause. “The Department has now determined that SB1 does not deny equal protection on account of sex or any other characteristic. Accordingly, the new Administration would not have intervened to challenge SB1—let alone sought this Court’s review of the court of appeals’ decision reversing the preliminary injunction against SB1” the letter states. Despite its change in position, the DOJ advised the high court to go ahead with deciding the case.
In City Journal, Leor Sapir outlines the implications of Trump’s EO on “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” and argues that the issue of men in women sports was the canary in the coal mine issue that signaled the public’s waning support for gender ideology. Sapir writes that “the irony that Title IX, a law closely associated with female sports, was used to let boys and men compete against girls and women has not been lost on the American public.” In 2022, a Pew poll revealed that 58 percent of respondents favored athletic participation based on sex. By 2023, this number reached 69% in a Gallup poll, and by 2025, it had reached 79% in a New York Times/Ipsos poll. “It’s hard to think of another issue in contemporary American politics where the American public is split 80-20. President Trump’s directive on women’s sports may be one of the most popular executive orders of the twenty-first century” Sapir concludes.
On Wednesday, two trans-identified high school students in New Hampshire launched a legal challenge against Trump’s executive order prohibiting boys and men from competing on women’s sports teams. The two high schoolers had previously filed a suit against the state of New Hampshire, which passed a law in August that prevents boys in grades 5 through 12 from playing on girls' sports teams. The suit has since been amended to add Trump and his administration as defendants. In their initial suit, the two athletes were granted a preliminary injunction in September by a federal judge, allowing them to participate while the lawsuit plays out, however, Trump’s EO raises new complications.
New data obtained by the Telegraph using freedom of information laws reveals 3,490 girls and women sought “gender affirming” mastectomies between 2021 and 2023 via England’s National Health Service Gender Dysphoria National Referral Support Services. Up to 80% of the service's users are females between the ages of 17-25. Moreover, 1,000 referrals a year for “top surgery” may significantly undercount the actual total, because many people seek surgical interventions with private insurance to avoid long NIH waiting lists. Co-founder of the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine (SEGM), Zhenya Abbruzzese, told the Telegraph “We are concerned that young people are being told that these new procedures will relieve their distress when the research cannot find the benefits, but the harms of losing a functioning body part are certain.” Over the same time frame between 2021 and 2023, 780 women were also referred for “genital gender reassignment” or “bottom” surgery.
Joseph Figliolia
Policy Analyst
News
