Connect with us

Federal Government

Trump bans transgender service members from U.S. armed forces

Lambda Legal, HRC announce plans to sue

Published

on

President Donald Trump (Photo via White House/X)

President Donald Trump on Monday signed a series of executive orders focused on the military, including a directive gutting the Pentagon’s diversity, equity, and inclusion programs along with another banning transgender service members from the U.S. armed forces.

White House officials said new military standards for mental and physical readiness will exclude transgender troops, which would mean the EO goes further than the ban Trump implemented during his first term in 2017.

Among the first actions the president took after his inauguration on Jan. 20 was rescinding the order that former President Joe Biden signed immediately after he took office in 2021 that allowed trans and gender diverse service members to serve openly.

“The implementation [of the ban] is on the DoD regarding specifics,” a White House official told CNN.

A February 2018 memo by the U.S. Department of Defense contained carveouts to exempt trans service members already in uniform who had joined the military prior to the policy excluding them, along with those who do not require a change in gender or those who have been “stable for 36 consecutive months in their biological sex prior to accession.”

DEI practices, meanwhile, will be subject to review by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who was narrowly confirmed by the U.S. Senate on Friday.

Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign on Monday announced plans to sue the Trump-Vance administration “to block implementation of yet another discriminatory and dangerous attempt to bar patriotic transgender military service members from serving openly in the U.S. armed services,” Lambda Legal said in a press release.

“We have been here before and seven years ago were able to successfully block the earlier administration’s effort to prevent patriotic, talented Americans from serving their country,” said Sasha Buchert, Lambda Legal counsel and director of the Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project. “Not only is such a move cruel, it compromises the safety and security of our country and is particularly dangerous and wrong. As we promised then, so do we now: we will sue.”

“Thousands of current service members are transgender, and many have been serving openly, courageously, and successfully in the U.S. military for more than eight years — not to mention the previous decades when many were forced to serve in silence,” Buchert added. “Once again, as during the first term, the Trump administration is attacking a vulnerable population based on bias, political opportunism, and demonstrably untrue ‘alternative facts,’ denying brave men and women the opportunity to serve our country without any legitimate justification whatsoever.” 

Sarah Warbelow, vice president of legal at HRC, said “Our military servicemembers, including thousands of transgender troops, wear the same uniform, take the same oath, and meet the same rigorous standards,” adding, “They are heroes who put their lives on the line to protect our country—and we owe them all a debt of gratitude.”

“Instead, this discriminatory ban insults their service and puts our national security at risk. Expelling highly trained members of our military undermines military readiness and wastes years of financial and training investments,” Warbelow said.

“It also needlessly upends the lives of families who have already sacrificed so much,” she said. “The Commander-in-Chief should prioritize our military’s safety and readiness, not use his position to issue bans on entire groups of people. This order is unconstitutional, and we will see this administration in court.” 

GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights also filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday challenging the ban. The suit, Talbott v. Trump, was filed on equal protection grounds on behalf of six active service members and two individuals actively seeking enlistment, according to a statement from the groups.

“When you put on the uniform, differences fall away and what matters is your ability to do the job,” said Nicolas Talbott, Second Lieutenant, Army. “Every individual must meet the same objective and rigorous qualifications in order to serve.”

SPARTA Pride, a nonprofit of transgender people who currently serve or have served in the military, released a statement on Monday:

“Transgender Americans have served openly and honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces for nearly a decade. Thousands of transgender troops are currently serving, and are fully qualified for the positions in which they serve. 

“Transgender service members currently fill critical roles in combat arms, aviation, nuclear engineering, law enforcement, and military intelligence, many requiring years of specialized training and expertise. Transgender troops have deployed to combat zones, served in high-stakes missions, and demonstrated their ability to strengthen unit cohesion and morale. 

“While some transgender troops do have surgery, the recovery time and cost is minimal, and is scheduled so as not to impact deployments or mission readiness (all of which is similar to a non-emergent minor knee surgery). The readiness and physical capabilities of transgender service members is not different from that of other service members.

“SPARTA Pride is standing by to support all transgender service members impacted by this policy.” 

“Donald Trump’s executive orders are not only cruel, discriminatory, and wrapped in disinformation, but they will make all of us less safe. Throughout our military’s history, thousands of transgender people have served with honor, integrity, and bravery,” said Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center. “Attempting to ban them is an insult to their humanity and the contributions that they have made.”

“Additionally, Trump’s decision to remove diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives will lead to further harassment in our ranks, making underrepresented service members a greater target for discrimination,” she said. “Already we are hearing reports of anti-harassment policies being taken down based on the order to end equity and inclusion initiatives, which is appalling, misguided, and a gross insult to those who serve.”

Goss Graves added, “Everyone, regardless of race, gender or sex, should be able to work with dignity— including in the military — without fear of discrimination and harassment. We will continue to fight against these harmful abuses of power.” 

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Federal Government

Bureau of Prisons declines to reconsider transgender inmate policy

Democratic lawmakers raised concerns this week, lawsuit filed

Published

on

(Photo by Andrushko Galyna/Bigstock)

Following a letter sent Monday by several Democratic senators raising concerns about the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ updated transgender inmate policy, the BOP responded to a request for comment from the Washington Blade, saying it does not plan to reverse the changes implemented earlier this year.

The policy was revised in 2025 to comply with President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”

In a statement to the Blade, BOP spokesperson Donald Murphy said the updated policy is rooted in medical guidance and data-driven decision making.

“The BOP implemented the February 2025 policy to ensure that inmates with gender dysphoria are properly diagnosed and treated consistent with best medical practices,” he said. “Unlike the prior administration’s one-size-fits-all approach, the BOP’s new policy ensures individualized assessments and treatments. And while the previous administration’s policies on treating inmates with gender dysphoria was driven by radical ideology, the BOP’s current policy is based on medical studies, medical expert opinions, state correctional policies, caselaw, and penological concerns. Absent court order, there are no plans to reconsider or revisit the policy.”

U.S. Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) signed the letter, arguing that the policy change fails to adequately prioritize the safety of trans inmates — protections they say are guaranteed under the Constitution.

This inquiry comes days after a federal lawsuit was filed against the Justice Department specifically on the concern that trans inmates are not receiving adequate care.

Earlier this month, the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, a legal organization focused on LGBTQ rights since 1977, filed a lawsuit in District Court of the District of Columbia against the Trump-Vance administration in collaboration with GLAD Law, Lowenstein Sandler LLP, and Wardenski P.C.

The suit, filed on May 6, alleges the administration is “ignoring federal protections” designed to prevent sexual abuse of incarcerated trans people.

“Transgender people in prison are sexually abused or assaulted at nearly 10x the rate of the general prison population,” the press release announcing the lawsuit states, adding that federal legislation was enacted to address those risks.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit, Paulina Poe, is a trans woman currently incarcerated in a men’s facility. According to the complaint, she has been “propositioned, groped, sexually harassed, and assaulted” by male inmates and subjected to strip searches by male officers — circumstances the Prison Rape Elimination Act regulations were intended to prevent.

The lawsuit also argues that the policy changes violate constitutional protections and deny trans inmates medically necessary care.

“The Eighth Amendment requires prisons and jails to provide ‘adequate medical care’ to incarcerated people which includes adequate treatment for people diagnosed with gender dysphoria,” says the Transgender Law Center. “‘Adequate medical care’ should be delivered according to accepted medical standards, such as WPATH’s Standards of Care. Some courts have said that in some circumstances ‘adequate medical care’ for gender dysphoria includes providing gender-appropriate clothing and grooming supplies, and the ability to present yourself consistent with your gender identity.”

GLAD Law Staff Attorney Sarah Austin also issued a statement when the lawsuit was announced, saying those responsible for the policy changes — and the rollback of protections under the Prison Rape Elimination Act — will be “held accountable for this egregious and lawless action.”

“The federal government’s unlawful attempt to roll back binding Prison Rape Elimination Act regulations is an especially dangerous step in its ongoing campaign to strip transgender people of legal protections,” Austin said. “The targeting of transgender incarcerated people is a deliberate choice to put vulnerable people in harm’s way simply because of who they are.”

The Justice Department has not responded to the Blade’s request for comment.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

Senate Democrats press DOJ over anti-trans prison directives

Markey joins other lawmakers in demanding reversal of policies

Published

on

(Photo by Andrushko Galyna/Bigstock)

U.S. Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) is urging acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and William Marshall III, director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, to reverse a policy affecting transgender inmates that lawmakers say is “endangering” their “health and safety.”

Markey, along with U.S. Sens. Jeffrey A. Merkley (D-Ore.) and Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii), sent the letter that the Washington Blade verified on Monday.

The letter is a direct response to a change in prison policy that went into effect in February 2025, rolling back Biden-era protections for trans inmates. The senators described how President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” forced a policy shift they argue is rooted more in political rhetoric than in medical research or evidence-based correctional practices.

In the letter, the lawmakers wrote “On Feb. 21, 2025, the BOP issued a memo to implement President Trump’s EO, requiring BOP staff to ‘refer to individuals by their legal name or pronouns corresponding to their biological sex,’ banning the use of funds for any ‘items that align with transgender ideology,’ and suspending clothing accommodations, pat search accommodations, and support programs offered to transgender individuals.”

“In a second memo, issued one week later, the BOP banned the use of federal funds for ‘any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex.’ These changes have resulted in the denial — or threatened denial — of hormone treatment and gender-affirming accommodations for transgender individuals in BOP custody.”

“On Feb. 19, 2026, the BOP escalated its attacks, issuing a program statement titled, ‘Management of Inmates with Gender Dysphoria.’ It prohibits incarcerated people from receiving gender-affirming care, even if paid for with private funds. This practice forces incarcerated people to discontinue care, regardless of medical recommendations.”

The senators continued, “The agency has repeatedly enacted policies that strip transgender individuals of their gender identity and dignity. This includes requiring staff to refer to transgender individuals by pronouns that ‘align with their biological sex’ rather than gender identity and to confiscate gender-affirming items, such as undergarments, clothing, cosmetics, and wigs.”

“These policies risk triggering mental health crises, including increased suicidality, among incarcerated people with gender dysphoria. The BOP’s repeated guidance to roll back gender-affirming protections — despite a federal court order finding that the BOP’s actions to discontinue gender-affirming care are likely unlawful — generate confusion about the current state of regulations and convey the BOP’s indifference to court orders and the rule of law.”

“By stripping away appropriate medical and psychiatric care, safety protections, and measures to provide dignity, the BOP is exposing transgender individuals to significant harm.”

The Marshall Project, a nonprofit newsroom focused on the U.S. criminal justice system and immigration enforcement through data-driven reporting, also reported on the policy change. The outlet spoke with Shana Knizhnik, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, about the impact of the changes.

“It’s clear that this new policy is a ban on gender affirming healthcare,” Knizhnik, who works for the nationwide chapter of the ACLU said. “This is a policy that disregards the medical needs of our plaintiffs.”

The letter also asked the BOP and the DOJ specific questions regarding why the policy went into effect, as lawmakers suggested the changes appear politically motivated rather than based on new medical evidence regarding treatment for trans inmates.

The senators requested answers to these trans policy-specific questions by May 21, including:

“Does the BOP plan to monitor and assess the impacts of recent policies that eliminate gender-affirming medical and psychiatric care?”

“Since January 20, 2025, how many transgender, nonbinary, intersex, and gender-diverse individuals have been transferred to a different facility to meet the EO’s goal of housing individuals ‘according to their biological sex?’”

“Given that the BOP has stopped enforcing Prison Rape Elimination Act regulations related to gender identity and collecting data on gender identity, how will the BOP protect the physical and emotional health and safety of incarcerated transgender individuals?”

“How does the BOP plan to monitor and assess the impact of eliminating protections against sexual violence for this population?”

“Does the BOP plan to institute a specific process by which transgender individuals may seek assistance or lodge complaints regarding harms they experience from the recent BOP policies and actions implementing President Trump’s EO?”

“Describe the specific criteria the BOP intends to use to determine whether it will allow a ‘social accommodation’ for gender dysphoria.”

Markey also included a personal statement to the Blade explaining why he is using his position on Capitol Hill to push for more information and advocate for reversing the policy.

“This administration continuously shows their contempt for trans people and a total disregard for their rights and humanity. As part of this cruel campaign, the Bureau of Prisons has systematically stripped health care access and basic protections from trans people, abandoning its duty to the people in its custody. I won’t stop fighting until this administration’s hateful anti-trans policies are reversed and trans people’s rights are secured.”

The Blade reached out to the DOJ and the BOP for comment but had not received a response at press time.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

DOE investigates Smith College’s trans-inclusive policy

Mass. college accused of violating Title IX

Published

on

The Department of Education building in Washington, D.C.

The U.S. Department of Education announced on Monday that it opened an investigation into Smith College for admitting transgender women.

Smith College, a private and famously all-women’s college in Northampton, Mass., established in 1871 and opened in 1875, has a long list of women who make up its historic alumni — including first ladies, influential political figures, and cultural leaders.

The DOE released a statement about the investigation into the institution through the Department’s Office for Civil Rights, saying it was looking into the possibility that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was violated by allowing trans women, referred to in the statement as “biological males,” into women’s intimate spaces protected by IX.

The statement explicitly highlighted that this stems from trans women being granted “access to women-only spaces, including dormitories, bathrooms, locker rooms, and athletic teams” while also allowing their audience into the school itself.

This is the first time the Trump-Vance administration has taken a step into admissions processes, a stark jump past investigating policies that allowed trans women to participate in women’s sports and use women’s bathrooms, and allows for the administration to go more after trans acceptance policy as a whole.

Smith’s admission policy allows for “any applicants who self-identify as women,” including “cis, trans, and nonbinary women,” according to the college’s website, and has since 2015, when it updated its policy.

“The college is fully committed to its institutional values, including compliance with civil rights laws,” Smith’s statement in response to the DOE’s investigation said. “The college does not comment on pending government investigations.”

“An all-women’s college loses all meaning if it is admitting biological males,” said Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey. “Allowing biological males into spaces designed for women raises serious concerns about privacy, fairness, and compliance under federal law. The Trump administration will continue to uphold the law and fight to restore common sense.”

This move continues to align with actions the Trump-Vance administration has taken to curtail LGBTQ — and specifically trans — rights in America, as members of the administration attempt to break down safeguards and protections that have long been used to protect marginalized communities.

Since Trump took office in his second term, there have been significant legal challenges. According to the National LGBTQ+ Bar Association, there are over 35 court cases that have emerged since his second swearing-in that directly relate to the administration’s attempts to minimize the rights and protections of trans Americans — from medical care and educational protections to military policy.

Much of this anti-trans policy direction was outlined beginning in 2022 with the Project 2025 playbook, which Trump officials have used as a guide to scale back protections for LGBTQ people, Black Americans, poor and Indigenous communities, while also increasing costs for lower-income Americans and providing tax cuts to the wealthy and ultra-wealthy. The plans also “erode” Americans’ freedoms and remove crucial checks and balances that have allowed the executive branch to remain in line with the Constitution without becoming too powerful over either the courts or the legislative branch.

Continue Reading

Popular