Court halts Trump order on trans youth care funding

In a significant legal development on Friday, a federal judge in Seattle has extended the blockage of former President Donald Trump’s effort to withdraw federal funding from institutions offering gender-affirming care to transgender youth. Initially, U.S. District Court Judge Lauren King had issued a two-week restraining order when the Democratic attorneys general from Washington, Oregon, and Minnesota, later joined by Colorado, challenged the Trump administration’s orders. The temporary order was set to expire, but Judge King has now issued a preliminary injunction to halt the plan pending further court proceedings.

Two executive orders by Trump are central to this legal battle. The first, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism,” seeks to remove federal aid from initiatives that support gender ideology. The second, known as “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” aims to cease funding research and educational programs at institutions, including medical schools and hospitals, that cater to individuals under 19 with gender-affirming care. As a result of the latter order, several hospitals across the nation have reportedly stopped providing treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapies.

Medicaid, in some states, currently provides coverage for gender-affirming care, yet Trump’s “Protecting Children” order suggests the potential elimination of such coverage. Furthermore, the order raises concerns about the possibility of criminal charges being filed against medical personnel providing these services, citing laws against the unnecessary genital mutilation of minor females—a prospect that the suing states find reprehensible and legally untenable.

Transgender youth who consistently experience a misalignment between their gender identity and birth-assigned sex, known as gender dysphoria, face higher occurrences of severe depression and suicide risk if left untreated. Effective treatment generally involves assessments by medical experts, social transitions like adopting new hairstyles or pronouns, and provision of puberty suppressants or hormone treatments, although surgeries remain uncommon for minors.

Judge King highlighted in her Friday ruling that the orders in question are not confined to children or non-reversible treatments and pointed out disparities in accessing medical interventions unrelated to gender identity for cisgender and transgender children under federal funding. Specifically, a cisgender teenager needing puberty blockers as part of a cancer treatment plan could access them, while a transgender teenager with a similar plan might not.

Washington’s Assistant Attorney General William McGinty underlined the urgency of these proceedings, asserting the potential for increased suicide rates among youth unable to access necessary care. He argued that withholding such care contradicts established medical practices endorsed by leading organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association.

During court discussions, Judge King sought clarity from Justice Department attorney Vinita Andrapalliyal on the understanding and implications of gender dysphoria, pressing for a legitimate government interest to justify the executive orders. The Democratic attorneys general further argued that these orders infringe upon rights to equality, overstep separation of powers, and encroach upon states’ governance rights.

Despite these challenges, the Trump administration defended its position through court documents, asserting the president’s established authority to direct agencies in implementing his policies. Parallel to these healthcare-related orders, Trump had also enacted several controversial measures involving the military service roles of transgender individuals, educational rules regarding gender discussions, and participation rights of transgender athletes in sports.

This case is among many legal challenges that have emerged, questioning the broader implications of these presidential directives.