In a controversial move, President Donald Trump has enacted a series of executive orders aimed at reshaping federal policies regarding gender identity, sparking significant backlash from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups and legal challenges. The orders, issued within a two-week timeframe, include measures that formally recognize a two-sex policy across the federal government, prohibit transgender individuals from serving in the military, and mandate that federally funded educational institutions separate athletic programs by biological sex rather than gender identity.
One of the most contentious executive orders, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” was signed on January 28, 2025. This directive instructs federal agencies to halt gender-affirming medical care for individuals under the age of nineteen and requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to take steps to end such practices, including conditions tied to Medicare and Medicaid.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) quickly responded by filing a lawsuit against Trump and various federal officials on behalf of the national LGBTQ+ organization PFLAG, as well as a group of transgender minors and their parents. The plaintiffs argue that the executive order exceeds the president’s authority, claiming that only Congress has the power to control federal spending. They assert that the president cannot impose restrictions on the use of funds that Congress has already appropriated for medical care.
Legal experts highlight the distinction between appropriations laws and substantive laws. While Congress can legislate through appropriations, it must do so clearly, and the plaintiffs have not identified any specific statute that Trump’s order violates. This argument is bolstered by a Supreme Court ruling in Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, which clarified that appropriations measures are not intended to alter existing laws.
In addition to the authority claims, the lawsuit raises constitutional issues. It challenges the executive order as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive due process right of parents to direct their children’s medical care, as well as claims of discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. However, courts have historically upheld that the government is not required to fund specific medical treatments, even if individuals have a right to choose their care.
The First Amendment is also invoked in the lawsuit, with claims that withholding federal grants constitutes viewpoint discrimination. However, legal precedents suggest that the government can impose conditions on federal funding without infringing on constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court is expected to address the question of whether discrimination based on transgender status warrants heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause in an upcoming case. Meanwhile, the president’s executive order appears to satisfy the lowest level of judicial scrutiny, as it aligns with a legitimate government interest in protecting minors. Recent studies, such as England’s Cass Report, have raised questions about the long-term benefits of gender-affirming treatments for minors, lending further support to the administration’s stance.
As the legal battle unfolds, the ramifications of these executive orders will likely continue to be a contentious topic in the national discourse surrounding gender identity and medical care for minors.