Court Halts Trump’s Order on Trans Youth Care Funding

In Seattle, a federal judge announced a lasting decision to block President Donald Trump’s initiative to withdraw federal funding from institutions that offer gender-affirming care to transgender youth. The ruling came from U.S. District Court Judge Lauren King, following a temporary restraining order she had previously issued at the request of Democratic attorneys general from Washington, Oregon, and Minnesota. Colorado later joined the lawsuit.

Judge King’s temporary order expired on Friday, prompting her to conduct hearings before ruling to temporarily halt most of Trump’s plans until a conclusive decision is reached in this matter. However, she dismissed a part of the legal action concerning the order’s safeguards against female genital mutilation, stating there was “no credible threat of prosecution” in these instances.

Two executive orders from Trump are pivotal in this case. One order, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism,” seeks to retract federal funds from initiatives endorsing gender ideology. The second order, “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” aims to terminate research and education grants for institutions, such as medical schools and hospitals, that administer gender-affirming care to individuals below the age of 19. This order has led to several hospitals across the nation discontinuing services that include puberty blockers and hormone therapies.

In certain states, Medicaid programs cover gender-affirming care, but under Trump’s “Protecting Children” order, such practices might come to an end. The order also suggests the potential for criminal charges against healthcare professionals providing gender-affirming care under laws that outlaw medically unnecessary genital mutilation of minors—a prospect that states challenging Trump have labeled both morally reprehensible and legally indefensible.

For young individuals who exhibit persistent gender dysphoria—a condition where one’s gender identity is at odds with their sex assigned at birth—treatment is crucial to circumvent severe depression or suicidal tendencies. Typical care involves evaluation by medical professionals, social transitions like changes in hairstyle or pronouns, and possibly puberty blockers or hormones, though surgery for minors is exceedingly uncommon.

In her ruling, Judge King noted the broad implications of the order, emphasizing that it was not confined to minors or irreversible procedures nor does it specifically target medical procedures performed on cisgender children. She highlighted a disparity, explaining, “A cisgender teen could acquire puberty blockers for cancer treatment from a provider funded by the federal government, whereas a transgender teen with an identical cancer care plan would be prohibited from doing so.”

During the proceedings, Washington Assistant Attorney General, William McGinty, underscored the urgency, expressing concerns that “young people might resort to ending their lives if deprived of this essential care.”

The executive orders utilize pejorative language such as “maiming,” “sterilizing,” and “mutilation,” which contradicts the accepted norm for gender-affirming care in the United States, a practice endorsed by major medical organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association.

In court, Judge King challenged Justice Department attorney Vinita Andrapalliyal, querying the definition and impact of gender dysphoria. Despite Andrapalliyal’s admission of lack of expertise, King pressed for a rationale behind the orders, stating her quest for a “legitimate government interest” to justify Trump’s actions.

The Democratic attorneys general contended that the orders violate constitutional protections of equal rights, infringe on the separation of powers, and undermine state sovereignty on issues not reserved for the federal government. Although the Trump administration refuted these arguments in legal filings, asserting the established authority of the President to set governmental agenda within statutory limits, the controversy over these executive actions continues.

Aside from the orders affecting healthcare and defining gender in immutable terms, Trump has enacted other policies potentially banning transgender individuals from serving in the military, altering how gender topics are discussed in educational settings, and prohibiting transgender athletes from competing in girls’ and women’s sports. These actions have prompted numerous legal challenges across the country.