Politics
Maine targeted with federal probes, threats after guv spars with Trump
Just two trans students are competing on girls’ teams in Maine this school year
Less than three weeks after Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D) sparred with President Donald Trump over his executive order prohibiting trans students from competing on school sports teams that align with their gender identity, the state has been hit with sudden cuts to funding and grants along with multiple investigations led by federal agencies and threats of more to come.
The dustup, which came during a Feb. 21 White House convening of the National Governors Association, kicked off when Mills declined to say she would enforce the policy, committing only to abiding by “state and federal law.” The president then threatened to withhold funding for Maine, and the exchange ended with both parties vowing to fight it out in court.
Shortly after Trump’s order was issued, the governing body responsible for overseeing high school sports in Maine said trans athletes would still be allowed to compete because the ban conflicted with provisions of the Maine state Human Rights Act. The Maine Principals’ Association has said only two trans Mainers are competing in girls’ sports this school year.
Hours after that contentious meeting at the White House, the Maine Department of Education, the Maine School Administrative District #51, and the state’s public university system had become targets of inquiries by the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and — the following day — an investigation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
These actions were followed on Feb. 25 by a letter to Mills from Attorney General Pam Bondi providing notice that the Justice Department was likely to soon file a lawsuit because “requiring girls to compete against boys,” or transgender girls, “in sports and athletic events violates Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act of 1972.”
Next came a decision in early March by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to pull the $4.5 million Maine Sea Grant for marine research — with ProPublica noting the agency “didn’t touch the 33 other grantees who get similar funding” — and most recently, last week’s cancellation and subsequent reinstatement of Social Security Administration contracts used by hospitals and nursing homes in the state to automatically report births and deaths.
Noting the concurrent probes led by the federal Education and Health Departments, Bondi warned that, “If these or other federal investigations show that the relevant Maine entities are indeed denying girls an equal opportunity to participate in sports and athletic events by requiring them to compete against boys, the Department of Justice stands ready to take all appropriate action to enforce federal law.”
Moreover, she wrote, because federal law passed by the U.S. Congress supersedes state statutes, it “does not matter if Maine state law allows, or even requires, state athletic associations or other similar entities to require girls to compete against boys in sports and athletic events.”
At the same time, however, Title IX has been interpreted by some courts as protecting the right of trans and gender diverse students to participate in educational programs and activities consistent with their identities, per the statutory anti-discrimination rules established under the Education Amendments of 1972.
In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sex-based discrimination as defined under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which applies to conduct by public and private sector employees with more than 15 workers, also covers acts that are motivated by the employee’s real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.
The decision was cited in the Biden-Harris administration’s updates to the Education Department’s Title IX guidance, which made explicit the argument that trans students in publicly funded schools are covered by explicit protections against discrimination, that the expanded definition of discrimination based on sex applies in the context of public education as well as in employment.
ProPublica, which published a comprehensive report on Tuesday chronicling the Trump administration’s “barrage of investigations and threats” that have come in the wake of the president’s tussle with Mills, notes that the DOJ also recently sent letters to Minnesota and California warning that they would face lawsuits for refusing to comply with or enforce the executive action banning trans students from competitive athletics.
The investigative news outlet also highlighted how unusual it is for an agency like HHS to enforce civil rights laws in a way that falls so far beyond its normal remit, which has primarily and historically centered on issues of health care access, and for the federal government to appear to reach conclusions with “unprecedented speed” in matters whose investigation typically takes months or even years.
The White House
HRC files class action over federal ban on gender-affirming care coverage
Lawsuit filed Monday challenges White House effort to restrict care
The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the nonprofit sister organization to the largest LGBTQ human rights lobbying and advocacy organization in the U.S., along with law firms Correia & Puth and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, filed a class action lawsuit against the government as it attempts to restrict gender-affirming healthcare for federal employees.
The suit, filed on Monday, alleges that the Office of Personnel Management, run by Trump appointee Scott Kupor, is discriminating against LGBTQ federal employees (and their families and retired employees) by prohibiting health insurance coverage for gender-affirming care under the Federal Employees Health Benefits and Postal Service Health Benefits plans. There are five plaintiffs named in the complaint, but it extends to others who have those healthcare plans.
The document asserts that OPM’s prohibition on coverage for “gender transition” care in the FEHB and PSHB programs violates Title VII, the federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, or national origin.
The policy, which was implemented on Jan. 1 following the 2025 issuing of Program Carrier Letter, mandated that insurance providers in these programs deny any coverage for gender-affirming care. In February, HRC filed a federal complaint with OPM over the change in healthcare policy, which was ultimately passed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for review. That complaint is now an officially filed class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Research from the Williams Institute at UCLA Law, a think tank that collects data and conducts research on issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity, indicates that this policy denying gender-affirming care will impact healthcare access for at least 39,400 current and former federal employees and their dependents.
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson released a statement following the lawsuit’s filing.
“Our message to the Trump administration is simple: we’ll see you in court,” said Robinson. “Healthcare access should never be weaponized to advance discrimination — and the denial of coverage for critical healthcare based simply on who you are blatantly violates the rights of all of us.”
Gender-affirming care has been under constant attack by the Trump-Vance administration since its return to the White House, despite the practice being considered as extensively evidence-based but also supported by nearly every major medical organization. This type of care is provided to all people—not just transgender people—and includes things such as social affirmation, including using correct names and pronouns and wearing clothing that matches a person’s gender identity; mental health support, such as counseling to reduce depression and anxiety; and, in some cases, medical interventions such as reversible puberty blockers or hormone therapy when deemed medically appropriate.
“Federal employees have been through the wringer with the Trump administration,” said Cathy Harris, partner at Correia & Puth. “We draw the line at blatant discrimination to deny healthcare to our nation’s dedicated civil servants.”
“This odious policy is the latest example of the Trump administration’s obsession with targeting transgender people, using shameful and cruel tactics to threaten their employment, their health, and the well-being of themselves and their families,” Robinson added. “OPM’s actions will not go unchallenged, and we’ll continue to fight so that federal employees and their families receive the dignity they deserve.”
This is not the first time the White House has directly attacked gender-affirming care.
In January 2025, the administration issued Executive Order 14187, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” The order directs federal agencies to restrict gender-affirming medical care — including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries — for individuals under the age of 19.
For more information on how to get involved with the lawsuit, visit hrc.org.
Politics
Buttigieg indicates he may run for president in 2028
Former Transportation Secretary was in Biden-Harris administration’s Cabinet
Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told a podcaster he is considering throwing his hat in the ring for president once again.
“I don’t know,” Buttigieg told Steven Bartlett, the British host of The Diary of a CEO, the most popular top business and tech podcast on Spotify, which aired Monday. “I think I’m more inclined than not, but there’s so much we don’t know.”
“There’s so much I don’t even know about what’s going to happen this year, let alone … what we need to know later,” he added.
Buttigieg is no stranger to running for the Oval Office.
In 2019, the former South Bend, Ind., mayor was a serious contender in the Democratic primary for the 2020 presidential election but ultimately ended his campaign and endorsed Joe Biden.
In May, an Emerson College Polling survey found Buttigieg at the top of the list of potential presidential contenders, leading California Gov. Gavin Newsom, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, former Vice President Kamala Harris, and others.
In addition to discussing his future in federal politics, Buttigieg also discussed President Donald Trump’s handling of the Iran war — which reached its 5-month mark two weeks ago — the changing landscape of U.S. jobs due to the rise of artificial intelligence, and the growing national debt, all issues he could face if he ultimately returns to the White House.
Following his 2020 presidential campaign, Buttigieg gained prominence within the Democratic Party, eventually leading to his confirmation as Transportation Secretary. In February 2021, he became the first openly gay Cabinet member to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
In addition to his experience as an elected official, the 44-year-old served as a Navy intelligence officer in the reserves from 2009-2017, including a seven-month deployment to Afghanistan in 2014. Buttigieg came out as gay in 2015 and later married his husband, Chasten Glezman, in 2018. The couple now has two children: twins.
Buttigieg also has an extensive educational background.
He graduated from Harvard University with a bachelor’s degree in history and literature and later became a Rhodes Scholar, attending the University of Oxford, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in philosophy, politics, and economics.
This is not the first time Buttigieg has made headlines this year.
In June, he went public about being falsely accused of posing a threat to his children’s safety. An anonymous police report claimed he was a danger to his 4-year-old twins and was not allowed to be with them until after police interviews were conducted.
The police report was later determined to be false. The Washington Blade reached out to the Michigan State Police to ask what course of action, if any, would be taken against the woman who filed the false report, but the agency did not answer the question.
The Blade reached out to Buttigieg’s team for comment on his potential 2028 presidential bid, but did not hear back before publication.
Congress
House blocks effort to codify transgender servicemember ban into law
Lawmakers approved two anti-trans NDAA amendments
The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday rejected an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have codified a ban transgender servicemembers in the military.
The bipartisan vote was 212-217.
The NDAA is for the 2027 fiscal year and sets policies for the Defense Department programs and activities and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.
U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) proposed the amendment on July 21. It stated that all personnel are required to serve in accordance with their biological sex, citing military readiness and discipline.
Human Rights Campaign Senior Director of Government Affairs Jennifer Pike Bailey stated that she is grateful for the bipartisan vote that rejected President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “dangerous and discriminatory policy that has kicked brave transgender servicemembers out of the military and weakened our national security.”
“Everyone who meets the same rigorous standards should be able to serve their country. We should honor that patriotism, particularly in this moment where we are witnessing brave servicemembers making the ultimate sacrifice for our country, instead of ending their careers and politicizing their existence. We’re grateful that a permanent extension of this ban failed, and we will keep fighting to reverse this senseless policy,” Bailey said.
Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, stated that he and his members put in countless hours of work to kill the amendment.
“When Americans know they or their families are going to be targeted by or not supported by the military, that leads them to avoid signing up to serve or staying in the service — making it harder to keep the ranks of the armed services full and our nation safe. My colleagues in the Equality Caucus and I will continue working to prevent these attacks on our servicemembers and their families from becoming law,” Takano said.
According to the Congressional Equality Caucus, two other bills could potentially be passed that would also target the transgender community, both of which were proposed by U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.).
The first was a bill that would have prohibited gender-related medical care under TRICARE and to prevent TRICARE from covering certain gender-related medical procedures and treatments, which was approved in a vote of 219-208.
The second was a bill that would have prohibited male participation in female sports at DoDEA schools. DoDEA schools are Department of Defense Dependents Schools, which is a network of primary and secondary schools.
The amendment was approved in a vote of 221-203.
