Judge Blocks Trump’s Order Cutting Funds for Transgender Youth Care/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ A federal judge in Seattle has issued a preliminary injunction blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to cut federal funding for institutions providing gender-affirming care to transgender youth. The ruling, handed down by U.S. District Judge Lauren King, follows a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, and Colorado. The judge found the order overly broad and discriminatory, halting its enforcement while legal proceedings continue.
Trump’s Order Blocked: Quick Look
- Judge Lauren King issued an injunction, preventing the federal government from cutting funding to medical institutions offering gender-affirming care.
- The ruling follows a lawsuit filed by four Democratic-led states, arguing the order violates constitutional rights and state authority.
- Trump’s executive orders targeted gender-affirming treatments for transgender minors and sought to restrict Medicaid coverage for such care.
- Hospitals had already stopped offering care in response to the order, affecting access to puberty blockers and hormone therapy.
- Judge criticized administration arguments, noting that the order does not limit itself to minors or irreversible treatments.
- Legal battles over transgender rights escalate, as other Trump policies on gender identity and transgender athletes face court challenges.
Judge Blocks Trump’s Order Cutting Funds for Transgender Youth Care
A Major Legal Setback for Trump’s Policy
In a major legal blow to the Trump administration, U.S. District Judge Lauren King ruled late Friday that federal funding cannot be revoked from hospitals and medical schools that provide gender-affirming care for transgender youth.
This decision follows a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, and Colorado, who argued that the executive orders unfairly target transgender individuals and violate constitutional protections. The ruling blocks two of Trump’s most controversial orders:
- “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism”, which sought to defund programs that promote gender-affirming care.
- “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation”, which attempted to strip research and educational grants from institutions offering such treatment.
Judge: Order Lacks Legitimate Government Interest
Judge King was highly critical of the administration’s justification for the orders. She emphasized that the policy does not differentiate between care for transgender youth and medical treatments given to cisgender children.
“For example, a cisgender teen could obtain puberty blockers for cancer treatment, but a transgender teen with the same cancer care plan could not,” she wrote in her decision.
Her ruling also rejected a portion of the states’ lawsuit challenging Trump’s provision on female genital mutilation, stating that “no credible threat of prosecution exists” in those cases.
States Argue Policy Harms Vulnerable Youth
The Democratic-led states fighting the order argued that restricting gender-affirming care could lead to severe mental health consequences for transgender youth.
Washington Assistant Attorney General William McGinty highlighted the urgency of the issue:
“There are going to be young people who will take their lives if they can no longer receive this care,” he told the court.
Medical professionals overwhelmingly support gender-affirming care, with organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association backing treatments such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy.
Trump’s Justice Department Struggles to Defend Policy
During oral arguments, Justice Department attorney Vinita Andrapalliyal struggled to explain the administration’s stance on gender dysphoria, the medically recognized condition for which gender-affirming care is prescribed.
Judge King pressed Andrapalliyal on whether gender dysphoria was a legitimate medical diagnosis:
“What is gender dysphoria?” King asked.
“Your honor, I am not a medical provider,” Andrapalliyal responded.
“It’s a thing, correct? It’s a medically recognizable diagnosis?” King continued.
“I don’t have an official position on that,” the government lawyer replied.
The exchange highlighted the administration’s weak legal footing, with King expressing skepticism that Trump’s orders serve any legitimate governmental purpose.
Trump’s Broader Efforts Against Transgender Rights
Trump’s orders on gender-affirming care are just part of a larger effort to roll back transgender rights across multiple areas:
- Military Service: The administration has reopened discussions about banning transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military.
- Education: Schools may be restricted from teaching gender identity topics, and funding for LGBTQ-inclusive programs is under review.
- Sports: A separate Trump executive order seeks to ban transgender athletes from women’s and girls’ sports nationwide.
With multiple lawsuits already filed challenging these policies, the legal battle over transgender rights is far from over.
What’s Next?
- The preliminary injunction remains in place while the courts review the constitutional merits of the case.
- The Justice Department could appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- More legal challenges are expected, as additional states could join the lawsuit against Trump’s gender policies.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.