The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has altered the official portrait of Adm. Rachel Levine, the out transgender former assistant secretary for health under President Joe Biden, to display Levine’s deadname — a needless act of transphobia that Levine has called “petty.” Her portrait hangs in the HHS office alongside those of other federal officials who have led the U.S. Public Health Corps.
“During the federal shutdown, the current leadership of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health changed Admiral Levine’s photo to remove her current legal name and use a prior name,” Levine’s spokesperson Adrian Shanker, former deputy assistant secretary for health policy under Biden, told NPR. Shanker called the move an “unprecedented” act “of bigotry against her.” Though Levine said, “I’m not going to comment on this type of petty action.”
When asked about the alteration, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon told the aforementioned news outlet, “Our priority is ensuring that the information presented internally and externally by HHS reflects gold standard science. We remain committed to reversing harmful policies enacted by Levine and ensuring that biological reality guides our approach to public health.”
An anonymous HHS staffer told NPR that they considered the change “disrespectful,” adding that it exemplifies “the erasure of transgender individuals by this administration.” Upon taking office, the president issued numerous executive orders denying all federal recognition of trans people and kicking trans people out of the military for being selfish, dishonorable, deceitful, and undisciplined.
Levine was the first out trans person to receive Senate confirmation. On October 19, 2021, became the first out trans four-star officer in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, a noncombatant service of the nation’s eight uniformed services which promotes public health and safety. She resigned on the current president’s first day in office.
The current assistant secretary for health is Adm. Brian Christine, MD, who was appointed in November.
Aubrey and her wife are preparing to leave the United States for Costa Rica in January – a decision they haven’t taken lightly, after building a life as homeowners in upstate New York.
She says months of unease about the political climate in the United States – from debates over LGBT rights to concerns about basic safety – finally tipped them into making a plan to leave.
Her story is far from unique, according to a recent survey by US analytics firm Gallup which suggests 40% of American women aged 15 to 44 would move abroad if they had the opportunity.
These figures reflect aspirations rather than intentions, but they appear to highlight a trend that Gallup says began more than a decade ago – a growing number of younger American women reassessing where they see their futures.
The rise has also created the largest gender gap in migration aspirations that Gallup has ever recorded, with only 19% of younger men saying they want to leave the US.
Although Aubrey’s decision crystallised in the last few months, under the Trump presidency, the trend has been apparent for many years – starting at the end of the Obama administration, according to Gallup.
Pressures have been building on women from the left and the right, says Nadia E Brown, professor of government and chair of the women’s and gender studies at Georgetown University.
“It’s not just partisan politics,” says Professor Brown. “Women feel caught between expectations from both sides – traditional roles promoted by conservatives, and the pressures of progressive working life. Neither path guarantees autonomy or dignity, and that leaves women considering alternatives like moving abroad.”
Economic reasons like student loans, the rising cost of healthcare and the cost of home ownership are also factors in shaping young women’s decisions to forge a life in another country, she adds.
A recent survey from the Harris Poll – a US market research firm – suggested 40% of Americans have considered moving abroad, with many citing lower living costs as their main reason. The largest demographic groups thinking of moving were Gen Z and Millennials.
‘No strong work-life balance in US’
Kaitlin, 31, who moved from the US to Portugal four years ago, says there wasn’t one big reason why she decided to move abroad but she felt compelled to ditch her day job to explore a new life somewhere else.
“I was working a 9-to-5 in Los Angeles, and every day felt exactly the same. There’s not a strong work-life balance in the US. I wanted to live somewhere with a different pace, different cultures, and learn a new language.”
She now lives in Lisbon, works remotely as a freelancer, and says the lower cost of living and strong social culture have made her feel “more like a whole person again”.
“I can’t imagine ever going back to the US”, she says.
Despite the non-political nature of decisions made by people like Kaitlin, a clear political divide emerged in 2017, with those who disapproved of the Trump presidency far more likely to want to leave, according to the Gallup data, which was based on 1,000 interviews.
The number of young women expressing an interest in leaving actually fell this year compared with Biden’s final year in office but the gender gap has now reached its widest level.
Interest in moving abroad is also rising among Americans using platforms that help plan relocations and explore new countries. Expatsi, which offers scouting trips, expert consultations, and relocation services, has reported a spike in younger women’s interest in recent years.
“Expatsi data shows a clear gender trend,” says its co-founder Jen Barnett. “Our clientele has always been two-thirds or more women, but our first big bump in traffic came after Roe v Wade was overturned.”
‘Women’s rights were being stripped away in real time’
For Alyssa, a 34-year-old mother who moved from the US to Uruguay earlier this year, the decision to leave wasn’t just about lifestyle – it was a response to political and social pressures that felt immediate and personal.
She first began seriously thinking about leaving three years ago, after the US Supreme Court overturned the Roe v Wade ruling – ending the constitutional right to abortion in the US – but didn’t make the move until early 2025.
“I have children and I don’t plan on having more, but the increasing governance of women’s bodies terrified me. I felt like women’s rights were being stripped away in real time,” she explains.
As a Latina, she felt unsafe because of rhetoric around immigration in the US, even as a US citizen. “I genuinely feared being detained in front of my kids,” she says.
Confidence in major US institutions drops
Another related issue on which a gender divide appears to have widened is the matter of Americans’ trust in institutions, including the Supreme Court.
This has also sunk to historic lows, according to data from Gallup. Just 26% of Americans say they trust the presidency, 14% trust Congress and fewer than half express confidence in the court.
But the decline has been especially precipitous among young women.
Their scores have fallen by 17 points since 2015 – the sharpest decline of any demographic. Confidence dropped during both the Trump and Biden administrations.
Some women are also weighing practical concerns like healthcare, and climate – factors that can tip the balance when considering a move abroad.
Marina plans to leave the US for Portugal next May with her boyfriend. “Healthcare not being a human right in this country is a huge part of why we’re leaving.”
“We also want to live somewhere where gun violence is unlikely,” she added, citing a decades-old issue in America. “In Portugal it’s much harder to get a gun – that alone makes life feel safer.”
For Marina and her boyfriend, the challenges at home have made the decision to leave the US more urgent – including the nightmare of his house flooding during increasingly extreme weather, another issue that has intensified in recent decades.
“We’re tired of the climate here – it’s become unbearably hot, and it feels like there’s a natural disaster every year now.”
Her concerns reflect a broader mix of economic, environmental and safety pressures drawing younger women towards Europe and elsewhere.
A global trend
Younger American women were previously less likely than those in other advanced economies to see their futures abroad, Gallup has documented, a trend that has reversed since the late 2000s and early 2010s.
But Professor Brown says this “isn’t just a US problem”.
“Women in many countries are navigating similar challenges. The US just happens to be one where these pressures are particularly visible and acute,” she says.
Access to subsidies for childcare and healthcare, which are more common in Europe, can impact an American woman’s decision to move abroad.
“People don’t realise how far behind the US is on maternal care, parental leave, and healthcare,” Alyssa says, “until they leave the country.”
Across the country, LGBTQ+ Americans, people of color, women, religious minorities, and others who feel newly vulnerable under the second Trump administration are quietly constructing “Plan B” escape strategies: securing second residencies, lining up alternate passports, moving assets offshore, scouting communities abroad, or mapping literal escape routes to sanctuary states or neighboring countries.
Some are wealthy enough to buy investment visas in Europe. Others are applying for digital nomad permits that require little more than proof of remote income. Still others are assembling go-bags, stockpiling medication, or rehearsing how they would reach the Canadian border if federal restrictions tightened.
But the phenomenon, a blend of dread, pragmatism, and resignation, is unmistakably rising. None of the people interviewed for this story wants to leave their country. All emphasized that they hope their Plan B remains unused.
They are preparing anyway, because, they say, preparation now feels like survival.
A business built on American anxiety
Eric Major, CEO of the London-based global migration firm Latitude, says his American business has undergone a transformation.
“What used to be a 90 percent, ‘I’m not moving, but I want an insurance policy,’ is now turning into, ‘No, I am moving,’” Major said. “People are saying, ‘I don’t like what I’m hearing or what I’m living or what I’m experiencing.’”
Major, whose company operates across Europe and the Americas, says the shift began in late 2023 and accelerated after Trump’s second inauguration in January, when the administration moved quickly to reinstate the transgendermilitary ban, strip LGBTQ+ recognition from federal websites, and target health care and civil rights protections.
For LGBTQ+ clients, timelines are now one of the first concerns.
The timeline: from 30 days to two years
Major stressed that processing times vary dramatically depending on the country, the type of visa, and how overwhelmed that nation is by American demand.
He says some countries operate at almost lightning speed: Costa Rica, Panama, and other smaller jurisdictions can process residency in as little as 30 to 60 days, depending on background checks and documentation. Malta, too, can process a residency application in approximately three months, making it one of the faster European programs, Major said.
Meanwhile, he noted, countries like Portugal offer popular pathways but now struggle under the sheer volume of applicants. Major said that Portugal’s processing time ranges from six months on the low end to nearly two years on the high end, describing it as a country “victim of its own success.”
Canada, from where Major is originally from, he added, has become similarly stretched; in his experience, no one should expect to receive anything there in under 18 months.
He also emphasized the importance of timing and planning in the application process. Suppose clients know they cannot move until a certain date. In that case, he says the firm essentially reverse-engineers the application, starting preparations early but holding submission to align with a client’s planned departure. Some countries require newly approved residents to arrive almost immediately after approval, he said, which means planning a move is as important as qualifying for one.
‘America is not a safe place in my mind right now’
For “Mark,” not his real name, a gay New Yorker who works as both a physician and a consultant, the ability to pursue multiple residencies is directly tied to his financial circumstances, something he is quick to acknowledge.
He describes himself as “speaking from a very affluent gay perspective,” noting that he has the freedom to work remotely, the savings to invest abroad, and the professional flexibility to relocate. “I have the ability to do such things,” he said. “For me, it was a very no-brainer decision.”
He said the speed at which he could leave mattered as much as the destination.
“When Trump was in office first, I saw the writing on the wall,” Mark told The Advocate in an interview. “I decided one needed an escape mechanism from the United States.”
Mark obtained residency in Portugal, formed a company to gain residency in Panama, and secured status in a Caribbean country. These routes required financial resources, but he stressed that even many of his patients, including those with modest means, are pursuing lower-cost options such as digital nomad visas or temporary residency permits.
Mark said that a significant portion of his own patient population is preparing similar contingency plans. “At least 40 percent of my patients, and 100 percent of my gay patients, all have other residencies now.”
He pointed to Spain’s digital nomad visa, noting that one only needs to show roughly $3,000 in monthly income to qualify. In that program, he said, people can obtain residency and health care after a few years, then become eligible for citizenship after that.
The process brought him a profound sense of security.
“America is not a safe place in my mind right now,” he said. “I’m not going to allow my rights to be taken away from me by some insane lunatic.”
For trans Americans, the calculus is existential
For transgender Americans, the stakes feel even sharper.
Robert, a transgender man in his 60s living in a blue coastal state, began planning immediately after Trump’s inauguration, when the administration reimposed the transgender military ban and targeted trans people’s access to accurate passports and federal recognition.
“I thought we were headed down an authoritarian path — maybe even fascist,” Robert said. “The probability wasn’t zero.”
He initially researched so-called golden passports in the Caribbean, but quickly realized two issues: several of the countries selling them were not LGBTQ+ friendly, and the programs often required investments of $200,000 to $300,000 without guaranteeing a safe environment.
He instead turned to residency programs in Europe and selected Malta, which he identified as one of the most LGBTQ-protective countries in the world. Robert is now deep into the process: he has submitted all documentation, paid the first government fee, and is awaiting final approval before traveling for a required biometric appointment.
But immigration paperwork is only part of his Plan B. Robert has also stockpiled testosterone, a controlled substance, in case access becomes restricted. He has consulted attorneys to secure his real estate holdings, mapped out strategies for exiting the country if his passport is invalidated, and established protocols with his financial institution so that, with a single trigger phrase, his liquid assets can be moved or protected. He said the financial professionals he spoke to did not consider him paranoid; instead, they viewed these preparations as reasonable under the circumstances.
He also acknowledged that his preparation is not something every trans person can do. “My situation is privileged and unique,” he said. “The only thing I tell other trans folks is to at least make a Plan B, even if it’s just knowing how to get to a sanctuary state or across the border.”
For Robert, the red line that would prompt immediate departure is if the government starts signaling that transgender people’s passports could be restricted or invalidated. He said that any move toward requiring trans people to carry identifying markers or any early signs of authoritarian control would also trigger his exit. “Anything akin to the initial steps taken by a fascist regime,” he said.
A new American story
Beyond the logistics and financial planning, the emotional weight of this new reality is heavy.
“People don’t think of what their choices do to people like me,” Robert said. “There’s this level of apathy.”
Mark expressed a similar warning. “Don’t be too late,” he said. “When they start taking passports away and closing borders, it’s too late.”
Major sees this shift reflected in nearly every conversation he has with American clients today. While the process begins with lifestyle questions, financial disclosures, and paperwork, he says the deeper shift is psychological. “Americans are asking: If it gets really bad, where do I go?”
Everyone interviewed emphasized the same hope: that they will never need to use their Plan B.
But preparation itself has become a form of survival.
“I feel it’s a good feeling to be prepared,” Robert said. “I hope I never have to use it. But I’m not willing to gamble my future.”
Mark echoed him, reflecting on how drastically the national mood has shifted. “People usually moved to the United States for better lives. Now people are leaving the United States for better lives.”
The summer of 1985, I turned 16. In Belgium. While I lived primarily in rural, red Florida, summers sometimes had me staying with Dad’s family. At the time, my Army father was assigned to the American embassy in Brussels. With $100 in American Express “travelers’ cheques,” our go-to global currency of the time, it was a thrilling summer.
In Florida, I would’ve spent those months mopping floors or working the grill at a mall job. Instead, I had urban mass transit and could drink in bars. Granted, my Euro ’80s summer was more Depeche Mode than anything as explicit as Call Me By Your Name. Though virginal, at least I passed for something seedier one afternoon.
On a gray August Sunday, I was to meet my pal, Alex. Forget texting, as we didn’t even have email yet. Phone tag was possible, but nobody wanted to leave a message with somebody’s parents. We’d usually just make a vague plan in person. Probably, the previous Friday, it was, “Let’s meet by Rainbow Sunday round 4.” Ironic that a bar in 1985 could be called “Rainbow,” yet have no LGBTQ connection whatsoever. It was, loosely, an American-themed bar, popular with the small cohort of American teens in the city.
As I stood outside in whatever place of Brussels was near Rainbow, I did not know I was to be stood up. In what I thought was my coolest new piece of clothing, a plaid blue-and-white sport coat I’d bought in a cheap-chic bin in Italy, I waited. I checked my Swatch as the minutes passed. At least an hour went by before two Brussels police officers approached me. They wanted to see my “papers.” This was a new experience. The two suspicious policemen were asking me questions in French, which I did my best to translate. Was I meeting someone? Where did I live? How long had I been waiting? It seemed rather invasive, but they were cops, and I was 16.
Back home, my dad told me bluntly that the cops obviously thought I was a sex worker. I knew that new coat looked hot! Then again, the only attention I got was from the police. Ouch.
A few weeks later, I told this story to my mom. Her own upbringing took her from Baltimore to Switzerland to Brazil. With that background, she rather patriotically told me that being asked for your “papers” was relatively common outside of the U.S. We Americans, she opined, were used to a degree of anti-authoritarian freedom not found elsewhere. So, “land of the free” was more than jingoistic marketing? Great!
While I’d never been asked for my papers in my home country, I’m not sure I’d ever perceived it as free as my mother had. Sure, there were plenty of scary Soviet stories during the Cold War, the nightmare of the Khmer Rouge my father had seen firsthand…. But I was familiar with Reagan’s arguably racist drug war, kid-glove approach to Apartheid, and support for dictators like Augusto Pinochet and Ferdinand Marcos. At 16, I was definitely more cynical than my mother.
Sadly, today I have more reason than ever to be. Though I guess it’s not cynicism so much as disgust, anger, and resistance to our government’s new police state. A few years ago, I interviewed a man, Butch Merritt, who told tales of working clandestinely for Nixon’s citizen-surveillance machine. I was shocked when he recalled scooping up protest petitions and sign-up sheets from shops and venues around Dupont Circle, which he’d turn over to his FBI or police handlers.
The tools the federal government — along with several other governments around the world — is setting on America makes stealing a petition from Community Bookshop on P Street seem quaint. Hello, Facial-Recognition Technology.
Sure, so many of us use facial recognition to get into our phones and think nothing of it. It did not seem so innocent, however, when Hungary’s authoritarian government passed a law in March allowing it to use the tech to identify anyone who dared to show their face, literally, at Budapest Pride this year. At least Pride-goers threw that threat back in the horrible government’s face, with attendance hitting more than 100,000.
It is a very short line from Budapest to the “Ballroom,” considering the current regime of Viktor Orbán is celebrated in Trump World. The administration’s attacks on universities, media, and law firms reek of Orbán.
So, while I’m shocked to learn that ICE and its adjacent goons have rolled out handheld facial recognition tech across the country, to what is likely an unprecedented level, I’d be embarrassingly naive to be surprised.
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), a veteran of the civil rights movement and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, last month told 404 Media, as reported by Common Dreams, “ICE using a mobile biometrics app in ways its developers at CBP never intended or tested is a frightening, repugnant, and unconstitutional attack on Americans’ rights and freedoms.” Amen.
Now that Trump has issued National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, we are all suspects. “There are common recurrent motivations and indicia uniting this pattern of violent and terroristic activities under the umbrella of self-described ‘anti-fascism,’” reads NSPM-7, in part. “Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”
Are my views on gender “extreme”? Am I “hostile” toward systems that have long been used to oppress me? Are you? Who knows? Who defines these vague, subjective terms? I’m guessing it’s the folks who have decided to throw facial-recognition tech into the surveillance mix, with little, if any, legal restraint. The use of this technology is apparently new enough, that no one has bothered to set down laws to restrain it. Instead, we have protocols and suggestions as the only limits on an administration that delights in destroying whatever stands in its way.
COVID has waned, but this new Big Brother era may soon have us all masking up again for our personal safety, whether for Pride or protests.
In 1980, Cuban police detained Fidel Armando Toboso-Alfonso without charge, encouraged co-workers to publicly shame him, and warned he faced four years in prison unless he fled the country. His “crime” was being gay. Having previously faced 60 days in a labor camp, Toboso-Alfonso chose exile. When he reached the United States, an immigration judge made a historic ruling: He granted Toboso-Alfonso refuge. That decision became a lifeline for countless LGBTQ people.
The United States was once considered a place where LGBTQ people could claim asylum. Today, under a harsher immigration system shaped by Trump-era judges, this image is slipping away.
In June, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued an alert reminding officers that marriages must be legally valid where celebrated to qualify for immigration benefits. For queer couples from countries that criminalize or refuse to recognize same-sex marriage, that’s an impossible standard. They must present a marriage certificate that, in their home country, they could be jailed or killed for attempting to obtain.
This is just one part of the Trump Administration’s broader rollback of protections for immigrants and LGBTQ people.
Under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the United States resettled tens of thousands of refugees annually, including LGBTQ people fleeing persecution, arrest, torture, or death. Today, that number has been slashed to just 7,500—a fraction of its former scale and overwhelmingly skewed toward white applicants from South Africa.
The Trump Administration has also ordered federal agencies to remove recognition of transgender and nonbinary identities from official documents. Because the asylum process demands consistency across forms, nonbinary refugees now face an impossible choice: misrepresent themselves on paper or risk rejection for “inconsistency.”
These bureaucratic changes to passports, marriage certificates, and federal forms carry devastating consequences. By narrowing who counts as married or whose gender “exists” on paper, the White House has effectively barred countless queer individuals from asylum protections. Bureaucracy has become a new border wall, keeping the most vulnerable people out.
The United States does not jail or execute people for being LGBTQ. But the government is asking queer people to erase themselves to remain here—a quieter, procedural form of violence. A nation cannot call itself a refuge while demanding that those seeking safety deny who they are.
Last week, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump Administration to require that U.S. passports list only the sex assigned at birth. The decision halts lower-court efforts to block the policy, meaning the State Department may now refuse to process passports reflecting a person’s self-identified gender. The change may seem technical, but it signals something larger: When combined with other anti-LGBTQ measures, it threatens not only the rights of citizens, but also the safety of queer immigrants and refugees.
Meanwhile, some lawmakers are pushing to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court decision that recognized same-sex marriage as a constitutional right. The Court recently declined to hear one such challenge, but its mere consideration shows how precarious equality has become.
For queer asylum seekers already in the United States, the situation remains perilous. Claims based on sexual orientation or gender identity are often met with skepticism, as adjudicators demand “proof” of identity—an impossible expectation when visibility itself can be a death sentence. Instead of offering protection, the system pressures applicants to conform to stereotypes of what being “gay enough” looks like.
Worse still, immigration judges may now deny asylum applications without hearings, silencing stories that could save lives. Bureaucracy, once again, has become a weapon.
The next generation must do more than defend LGBTQ people—they must reclaim the promise of this country. A true refuge is defined not by paperwork or policy, but by the belief that every person deserves to live in truth and safety.
Liberty Counsel, the Christian hate group behind Kim Davis’s attempt to have the Supreme Court overturn its marriage equality decision, says their fight to end LGBTQ+ equality is far from over.
“I have no doubt that Davis’s resolve will serve as a catalyst to raise up many more challenges to the wrongly decided Obergefell opinion,” wrote Liberty Counsel President Mat Staver in a message on the group’s website. “Until then, we must pray, fight, and contend for when Obergefell is no longer the law of the land.”
The Supreme Court ruled in its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that people have a fundamental right to choose who to marry, regardless of their spouse’s gender. The decision legalized marriage equality in all 50 states.
A county clerk in Kentucky, Kim Davis, refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, which led to a lawsuit and ten years of legal fights.
This year, with help from the lawyers at Liberty Counsel, she filed an appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn a judgment against her that required her to pay $360,000 to a gay couple whom she had illegally denied a marriage license. In that petition, she asked the Supreme Court to end marriage equality, arguing that her case proved that LGBTQ+ equality was inherently a threat to the rights of Christians like herself.
Last week, the Supreme Court rejected her appeal, leaving its decision in favor of marriage rights in place for at least another year.
Anti-LGBTQ+ activists, though, aren’t going to give up.
“This time, Kim Davis is the victim of religious animus and is being deprived of her constitutional freedom of religion,” Staver wrote. “Tomorrow, it could be you.”
“This may mark the end of an era in litigating Davis’s case, but the fight to overturn Obergefell and protect religious liberty has just begun.”
Staver’s argument is similar to an argument that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito made in 2020 that the mere existence of married same-sex couples is a violation of Christians’ religious freedom because seeing married same-sex couples encourages people to judge Christians “as bigots.” (That opinion was delivered in the context of a different appeal filed by Davis.)
“Since Obergefell, parties have continually attempted to label people of good will as bigots merely for refusing to alter their religious beliefs in the wake of prevailing orthodoxy,” Thomas wrote at the time.
A Virginia transportation security officer is accusing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security of sex discrimination over a policy that bars transgender officers from performing security screening pat-downs, according to a federal lawsuit.
The Transportation Security Administration, which operates under DHS, enacted the policy in February to comply with President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring two unchangeable sexes: male and female.
According to internal documents explaining the policy change that The Associated Press obtained from four independent sources, including two current and two former TSA workers, “transgender officers will no longer engage in pat-down duties, which are conducted based on both the traveler’s and officer’s biological sex. In addition, transgender officers will no longer serve as a TSA-required witness when a traveler elects to have a pat-down conducted in a private screening area.”
Until February, TSA assigned work consistent with officers’ gender identity under a 2021 management directive. The agency told the AP it rescinded that directive to comply with Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order.
Although transgender officers “shall continue to be eligible to perform all other security screening functions consistent with their certifications,” and must attend all required training, they will not be allowed to demonstrate how to conduct pat-downs as part of their training or while training others, according to the internal documents.
A transgender officer at Dulles International Airport, Danielle Mittereder, alleges in her lawsuit filed Friday that the new policy — which also bars her from using TSA facility restrooms that align with her gender identity — violates civil rights law.
“Solely because she is transgender, TSA now prohibits Plaintiff from conducting core functions of her job, impedes her advancement to higher-level positions and specialized certifications, excludes her from TSA-controlled facilities, and subjects her identity to unwanted and undue scrutiny each workday,” the complaint says.
Mittereder declined to speak with the AP but her lawyer, Jonathan Puth, called TSA’s policy “terribly demeaning and 100% illegal.”
TSA spokesperson Russell Read declined to comment, citing pending litigation. But he said the new policy directs that “Male Transportation Security Officers will conduct pat-down procedures on male passengers and female Transportation Security Officers will conduct pat-down procedures on female passengers, based on operational needs.”
Other transgender officers describe similar challenges to Mittereder.
Kai Regan worked for six years at Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas, but retired in July in large part because of the new policy. Regan, who is not involved in the Virginia case, transitioned from female to male in 2021 and said he had conducted pat-downs on men without issue until the policy change.
“It made me feel inadequate at my job, not because I can’t physically do it but because they put that on me,” said the 61-year-old, who worried that he would soon be fired for his gender identity, so he retired earlier than planned rather than “waiting for the bomb to drop.”
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward — a legal organization that has repeatedly challenged the second Trump administration in court — called TSA’s policy “arbitrary and discriminatory,” adding: “There’s no evidence or data we’re aware of to suggest that a person can’t perform their duties satisfactorily as a TSA agent based on their gender identity.”
DHS pushed back on assertions by some legal experts that its policy is discriminatory.
“Does the AP want female travelers to be subjected to pat-downs by male TSA officers?” Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin asked in a written response to questions by the AP. “What a useless and fundamentally dangerous idea, to prioritize mental delusion over the comfort and safety of American travelers.”
Airport security expert and University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign professor Sheldon H. Jacobson, whose research contributed to the design of TSA PreCheck, said that the practice of matching the officer’s sex to the passenger’s is aimed at minimizing passenger discomfort during screening. Travelers can generally request another officer if they prefer, he added.
Deciding where transgender officers fit into this practice “creates a little bit of uncertainty,” Jacobson said. But because transgender officers likely make up a small percent of TSA’s workforce, he said the new policy is unlikely to cause major delays.
“It could be a bit of an inconvenience, but it would not inhibit the operation of the airport security checkpoint,” Jacobson said.
TSA’s policy for passengers is that they be screened based on physical appearance as judged by an officer, according to internal documents. If a passenger corrects an officer’s assumption, “the traveler should be patted down based on his/her declared sex.” For passengers who tell an officer “that they are neither a male nor female,” the policy says officers must advise “that pat-down screening must be conducted by an officer of the same sex,” and to contact a supervisor if concerns persist.
The documents also say that transgender officers “will not be adversely affected” in pay, promotions or awards, and that TSA “is committed to providing a work environment free from unlawful discrimination and retaliation.”
But the lawsuit argues otherwise, saying the policy impedes Mittereder’s career prospects because “all paths toward advancement require that she be able to perform pat-downs and train others to do so,” Puth said.
According to the lawsuit, Mittereder started in her role in June 2024 and never received complaints related to her job performance, including pat-down responsibilities. Supervisors awarded her the highest-available performance rating and “have praised her professionalism, skills, knowledge, and rapport with fellow officers and the public,” the lawsuit said.
“This is somebody who is really dedicated to her job and wants to make a career at TSA,” Puth said. “And while her gender identity was never an issue for her in the past, all of a sudden it’s something that has to be confronted every single day.”
Being unable to perform her full job duties has caused Mittereder to suffer fear, anxiety and depression, as well as embarrassment and humiliation by forcing her to disclose her gender identity to co-workers, the complaint says. It adds that the ban places additional burden on already-outnumbered female officers who have to pick up Mittereder’s pat-down duties.
American Federation of Government Employees National President Everett Kelley urged TSA leadership to reconsider the policy “for the good of its workforce and the flying public.”
“This policy does nothing to improve airport security,” Kelley said, “and in fact could lead to delays in the screening of airline passengers since it means there will be fewer officers available to perform pat-down searches.”
When the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices meet behind closed doors on Friday, the justices will decide whether to hear an appeal from former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, a name that became synonymous with anti-LGBTQ+ attitudes to marriage equality a decade ago.
Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after Obergefell v. Hodges made marriage equality the law of the land in 2015, has asked the court not only to overturn her financial settlement in a civil case loss in lower courts but also to reconsider the landmark ruling itself.
While Davis’s petition centers on whether she can be held personally liable for emotional-distress damages, her legal team is also urging the justices to revisit the constitutional right to marry. For those who remember the culture war that surrounded Davis’s defiance, the possibility that her name might again appear on the Supreme Court docket has reignited deep anxiety across the LGBTQ+ community
In separate interviews with The Advocate, Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff whose name now defines that right, and GLAD Law legal director Josh Rovenger described the moment as both surreal and revealing. One is the man who stood before the Court ten years ago and won the right to have his marriage recognized. The other works at the organization that helped secure that victory. Both see the Davis petition not just as a legal maneuver but as a test of whether the country can sustain a principle it once declared settled.
“A narrow case, shoehorning a broad agenda”
Rovenger explained what this case is and what it isn’t.
“This is a narrow case with a technical legal question,” he said, emphasizing that it concerns emotional-distress damages and qualified immunity, not marriage equality itself. “Attorneys who want to overturn Obergefell are trying to shoehorn that into a very narrow case.”
Davis, a former Rowan County clerk, was found liable for denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples in violation of clearly established law. A jury awarded damages to those couples, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Davis’s petition now asks the Supreme Court to review that ruling, Rovinger explained. While she has framed the case as one about her religious freedom, Rovenger said the issue before the Court remains technical.
“The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions a year,” he said. “It would really be anomalous for them to take a case with such a narrow fact pattern and use it to revisit Obergefell.”
Still, Rovenger acknowledged why people are uneasy.
“Given the rollback of rights we’ve seen in other areas, Dobbs being the most prominent, that fear makes sense,” he said. “But this case is not the vehicle for that kind of sweeping reversal.”
The limits of the Respect for Marriage Act
Part of the current confusion, Rovenger said, stems from uncertainty about how the Respect for Marriage Act interacts with the Obergefell decision. The 2022 law, signed by President Joe Biden, requires states and the federal government to recognize marriages performed in other states. However, it does not compel every state to issue marriage licenses if Obergefell were to be overturned.
“In a world where Obergefell didn’t exist,” he said, “a couple married in one state would still have their marriage recognized federally and by other states, but not necessarily be able to marry everywhere.”
He called that distinction significant, not only for its practical consequences but for what it would signal about equality itself.
“A patchwork approach across states,” he said, “is fundamentally different from a nationwide right.”
Rovenger also pointed to the Supreme Court’s own language on “reliance interests” — the idea that people build their lives on the stability of established rights. Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett, he noted, has recently said marriage equality has created such interests, making it less likely to be undone. Barrett had told the New York Times that Obergefell created “concrete reliance interests.”
“Those interests,” Rovinger said, “remain one of the critical factors the Court considers when deciding whether to revisit precedent.” According to Gallup, 68 percent of Americans support marriage equality.
Jim Obergefell: “Disgusted by this twisting of religious freedom”
For Jim Obergefell, the case is personal. He said he was “disgusted” that his fellow citizens would work against another group’s well-being and happiness, using religious liberty as an excuse.
“This modern version of religious freedom — this belief that one’s personal religion trumps everything else — is a twisting and perverting of what our founders intended,” he said.
Obergefell said Davis’s refusal to follow the law was emblematic of a broader problem: public officials placing private faith above civic duty.
“She swore an oath to serve all people,” he said. “And yet she used her government position to persecute others.”
His frustration extends to the justices themselves and their recent decisions, which have often ignored established understandings of the law. Justice Clarence Thomas recently said that past decisions “aren’t gospel.”
“Why should anyone feel secure about the right to marry,” he asked, “when this Court has proven it doesn’t believe in precedent?”
“One of those justices’ own marriage exists because of a Supreme Court decision,” Obergefell said, referring to Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 ruling that struck down bans on interracial marriage. Thomas is Black, and his wife, Ginny, is white. “If this Court overturns Obergefell, then what does that say about their own logic?” Obergefell added.
“People should be concerned”
Obergefell said that the LGBTQ+ community’s fear is warranted.
“Absolutely, people should be concerned. I’m concerned,” he said on Saturday. “Yesterday I officiated a wedding for a cousin who asked whether they should get married now instead of waiting. My answer was yes.”
He explained that even with the Respect for Marriage Act in place, states could still move swiftly to block new marriages if Obergefell were struck down.
“Ohio [where I live] still has a Defense of Marriage Act on the books,” he said. “If Obergefell is overturned, Ohio could immediately say, ‘no more marriage licenses for queer couples.’”
Obergefell warned that political forces aligned against LGBTQ+ rights have shown a willingness to manipulate electoral systems to maintain power.
“We have a political party that has turned its back on democracy,” he said. “They’re doing everything they can solely to remain in power — to punish and to be vindictive.”
A fragile majority, a durable principle
Despite deep pessimism about the Court, Obergefell said he still finds hope in younger generations.
“They don’t see difference the way older generations do,” he said. “There are millions of people out there who share my values, who believe in humanity, who believe every person deserves happiness and rights. That gives me hope.”
Rovenger echoed the sentiment, though his version is more procedural.
“We’re all watching closely,” he said. “We’ll keep an eye on whether the case gets relisted and on any separate statements that come out. But we’re not panicking. We’re prepared for all possibilities and ready to meet that moment if it comes.”
For now, the fate of Obergefell doesn’t hinge on oral arguments or public hearings but on what happens in a private conference room inside the marble halls of the Supreme Court. Whether the justices see the Davis case as a technical dispute or a cultural flashpoint will determine not only one woman’s liability but perhaps the trajectory of a right that has defined a generation.
If the Court declines to hear the case, the lower-court rulings stand, and marriage equality remains intact. If it grants review, the nation will enter another defining chapter in its legal history.
Either way, Obergefell’s warning lingers: “They’ve turned the idea of freedom on its head,” he said. “And unless we stand up for what it truly means, we risk losing more than marriage, and we risk losing the very promise of equality itself.”
A federal judge has quashed the Department of Justice’s subpoena for the records of QueerDoc, a telehealth service that prescribes medications and offers consulting for gender-affirming care in 10 states.
The DOJ subpoenaed QueerDoc June 11, requesting personnel information, documents identifying patients, patients’ medical records, billing records, insurance claims, communications with drugmakers, and more. It was among more than 20 such subpoenas issued.
The same day, the DOJ’s Civil Division issued a memo saying it would “prioritize investigations of doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other appropriate entities” for “possible violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and other laws” regarding medications used in gender-affirming care and False Claims Act violations by health care providers who “evade state bans on gender dysphoria treatments by knowingly submitting claims to Medicaid with false diagnosis codes.”
These investigations derived from Donald Trump’s executive order recognizing only male and female sexes as assigned at birth and another denouncing gender-affirming care for minors as “a stain on our Nation’s history” that “must end” and threatening federal funding that provide such care. He also directed the DOJ to investigate providers. In April, Attorney General Pam Bondi released a memo saying the DOJ would “act decisively to protect our children and hold accountable those who mutilate them under the guise of care.” She used the same language about mutilation in a later press release. That a day after QueerDoc filed motions with a U.S. District Court in Washington State to quash the subpoena and seal the court proceedings, according to the court.
“DOJ issued its inflammatory press release declaring that medical professionals have ‘mutilated children in the service of a warped ideology,’ one day after QueerDoc filed these motions, effectively destroying any claim to investigative confidentiality while attempting to sway public sentiment against healthcare providers like QueerDoc,” Judge Jamal Whitehead wrote in his ruling, which came out Monday. “Such conduct appears calculated to intimidate rather than investigate.”
“The question before the Court is whether DOJ may use its administrative subpoena power to achieve what the Administration cannot accomplish through legislation: the elimination of medical care that Washington and other states explicitly protect. The answer is no,” he continued. He noted that gender-affirming care is supported by major medical groups and many courts.
Whitehead added, “When a federal agency issues a subpoena not to investigate legal violations but to intimidate and coerce providers into abandoning lawful medical care, it exceeds its legitimate authority and abuses the judicial process.”
He denied the motion to seal the proceedings “because, despite legitimate safety concerns, transparency in judicial proceedings remains paramount when challenging executive power,” he wrote.
QueerDoc welcomed the ruling. “The court affirmed that government power cannot be used to intimidate providers or breach the confidentiality of patients seeking medically necessary care,” the organization said in a statement on its website. “This is a win not just for QueerDoc, but for every clinician and patient fighting for the right to safe, private healthcare.”
The subpoena was “a calculated attempt by the Trump administration and Attorney General Pam Bondi to weaponize the Department of Justice against transgender people and the clinicians who care for them,” the statement noted. QueerDoc did not surrender any patient information to the DOJ, and care was not disrupted, the group said.
Asked by Politico for comment on the QueerDoc ruling, the DOJ issued this statement: “As Attorney General Bondi has made clear, this Department of Justice will use every legal and law enforcement tool available to protect innocent children from being mutilated under the guise of ‘care.’”
Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) seeks to end all Medicaid and Medicare funding for young people’s gender-affirming care (GAC), according to newly proposed rules shared by NPR. A trans activist said the rules would amount to a “de facto national ban” on GAC.
The proposed rules would prohibit all federal Medicaid and Medicare funding — as well as funding through the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) — for any services at hospitals that provide GAC for trans youth.
“These would be proposals that would go out for public comment, it would take months for the Trump administration to issue a final rule, and then, if past is prologue, we would see litigation over whatever the final rules are,” Katie Keith, director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at Georgetown University, told NPR.
Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, a right-wing think tank that has pushed national transphobia as an effective Republican political strategy, said of the proposed rules, “I think these restrictions are very good. It’s going to change the entire transgender industry, and it’s going to take away a lot of their funding streams.”
“This would be a de facto national ban,” wrote trans activist and civil rights attorney Alejandra Caraballo via Bluesky. “There would still be providers in blue states that don’t take federal funding but the large interdisciplinary teams of just a few years ago would be nearly impossible to maintain. The result is that the care that remains would largely be underground with worse support and likely outcomes.”
“They’ll never be able to fully ban this care,” Caraballo added. “There will always be providers willing to provide it like abortion. Even without access to providers, many trans youth will simply go DIY [do-it-yourself] like trans folks have done for decades. They’re not actually banning this care, they’re making it less safe.”
The administration’s “toxic” war on gender-affirming care
Though there is no federal law banning gender-affirming care, the current presidential administration has sought to eradicate the practice through a January executive order (that has since been blocked by several courts). The order instructed the DOJ to extend the time that patients and parents can sue gender-affirming doctors and to use laws against false advertising to prosecute any entity that may be misleading the public about the long-term effects of gender-affirming care (GAC).
In April, Bondi issued a memo to DOJ employees, telling them to investigate and prosecute cases of minors accessing gender-affirming care as female genital mutilation (FGM), even though hospitals don’t conduct such female genital surgeries. The memo threatened to jail doctors for 10 years if they provide gender-affirming care to young trans people.
The following June, the DOJ sent subpoenas to 20 medical providers who offer GAC to trans youth, demanding patients’ Social Security numbers, emails, home addresses, and information on the care they received, as well as other sensitive information dating back to January 2020. A federal judge blocked the subpoena in one instance and accused the DOJ of going on a “bad faith” “fishing expedition” to interfere with states’ rights to protect GAC within its borders, to harass and intimidate providers from offering such care, and to dissuade patients from seeking such care.
Fewer than 3,000 teens nationwide receive puberty blockers or hormone replacement therapy, according to a 2025 JAMA analysis of private insurance data. Gender-affirming care is supported by all major medical associations in the U.S., including the American Medical Association, the Endocrine Society, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, as safe and life-saving for young people with gender dysphoria.
One doctor interviewed by The Washington Post called the federal government’s crusade against gender-affirming care a “toxic plan” that will force some patients to detransition, potentially forcing them into adverse psychological and physical effects, including increased anxiety, depression, and the development of unwanted physical changes.
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.