Why Allies Must Act: Defending Trans Rights Protects Everyone’s Freedoms
As the election dust settles, the focus shifts to practical realities. For transgender people like me, a pressing question looms: What actions will this new Trump administration take?
It’s tempting to jump to extreme conclusions—like the idea of being rounded up and placed in camps. But it likely won’t look like that. There won’t be “camps,” nor will there be overt “rounding up.” Instead, the approach will be more subtle, and that subtlety is precisely what makes it so dangerous.
The quiet nature of these changes will make them easier for cisgender people to overlook. However, their awareness is vital—not only for our survival but for their own protection, as the erosion of trans rights often signals broader attacks on freedoms that could ultimately affect everyone.
The groundwork for trans oppression is already being laid. In recent years, Republicans have pursued anti-trans legislation with alarming intensity, proposing over 1,000 laws targeting everything from medical care and bathroom usage to IDs, sports, and even how we dress. Trump has vowed to push similar policies at the federal level, and Project 2025 outlines an even more expansive agenda.
To understand what trans oppression under Trump might look like, we can look to other marginalized groups. For instance, the mass incarceration of Black men wasn’t achieved through blatant decrees like “round them up” but through systemic oppression: harsh laws with disproportionate penalties, over-policing, and economic barriers that strip away basic human needs. Trans people have already faced similar tactics, such as laws criminalizing “cross-dressing” to police our existence.
Under another Trump administration, this oppression might escalate. It could involve banning hormone replacement therapy and criminalizing those who seek it out. Policies might mandate that gender markers on IDs match sex assigned at birth, penalizing those of us who continue to live authentically with fraud or perjury charges. Involuntary commitment to mental institutions could even be a reality.
These measures, even if sporadically enforced, create an ever-present climate of fear—a psychological toll that leaves us constantly bracing for the next law, the next crackdown, the next violation of our humanity. And in this hostile environment, the silence or complacency of cisgender allies would make it all the easier for these oppressive systems to thrive.
The coming years will likely see escalating attacks on trans people, particularly the most marginalized among us—trans women of color, disabled trans people, and others who already face significant barriers. These policies will make it harder for them to access stable employment and lead precarious lives, amplifying systemic inequities.
We cannot wait for something as blatant as a “lock up all the trans people” decree. The oppression will come in quieter, more insidious forms: laws and policies that restrict our rights to healthcare, employment, and basic expression. Even if trans people comply with these laws, the result will still be a kind of prison—a life stripped of autonomy and dignity.
If you are cisgender, we need your help. Not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because these attacks on trans rights will eventually pave the way for attacks on your rights. Consider abortion access: for decades, conservatives framed their arguments around “protecting life” to avoid addressing bodily autonomy directly. But the fight against gender-affirming care removes that pretense altogether. By banning medically supported, evidence-based care simply because they don’t like it, lawmakers set a dangerous precedent that could extend to other healthcare decisions.
Your body could be next.
Employment and education are also at risk. Imagine a national “Don’t Say Gay/Trans” policy that bars teachers like me—who are openly transgender—from the profession. Policies like these won’t stop at targeting trans people. Deadnaming and misgendering trans students could morph into strict gendered dress codes for everyone, eroding freedom of expression for all students. What starts as an attack on trans rights often metastasizes into broader assaults on personal liberties.
As we approach January 20th, now is the time to act:
Get involved: Connect with your local LGBTQ+ center and see how you can support their efforts.
Stay informed: Follow trans journalists and activists to keep up with the latest developments.
Advocate: Write to your representatives in both parties, showing them that you stand with trans people.
Speak out: Use your voice, wear supportive messages, and engage your cisgender friends to build awareness.
Support trans people directly: Check in with your trans friends, especially now, as they navigate a political climate fueled by over $200 million of anti-trans rhetoric during the election. Let them know you’re there for them.
This isn’t just about protecting trans people—it’s about preserving freedom and dignity for everyone. Together, we can resist these threats and build a future where everyone has the right to live authentically.
New Policy by Speaker Johnson Mandates Capitol Facilities Be “Reserved for Individuals of That Biological Sex”
Speaker Mike Johnson Announces Policy Banning Transgender Women from Women’s Restrooms and Changing Facilities on Capitol Hill, Likely Targeting Rep. Sarah McBride
Speaker Mike Johnson Declares Capitol and House Office Building Single-Sex Facilities Reserved for Individuals of Biological Sex in Statement Released on Trans Day of Remembrance.
Speaker Mike Johnson Defends New Bathroom Policy, Targeting Rep. McBride, as GOP Figures Push for Bathroom Ban
Speaker Mike Johnson’s new policy, which reserves single-sex facilities in Capitol Hill for individuals of their biological sex, has sparked controversy, especially as it coincides with Trans Day of Remembrance. Johnson emphasized that each member of Congress has access to a private bathroom but insisted, “women deserve women’s only spaces.” In previous remarks, Johnson reiterated his belief that “a man cannot become a woman,” further fueling criticism of his long history of anti-LGBTQ+ statements.
The policy appears to specifically target Delaware Rep. Sarah McBride, the first out transgender woman elected to Congress. McBride has become a focal point of the debate as South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace introduced a resolution for a formal bathroom ban in the House, directly aimed at McBride. Mace referred to herself as “[a] Full TERF” and dismissed McBride’s right to access women’s private spaces.
In response, McBride urged Democrats to disregard these anti-trans actions, framing them as a distraction from more pressing issues. “This is a blatant attempt from far right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing. We should be focused on bringing down the cost of housing, health care, and child care, not manufacturing culture wars,” she said in a statement. McBride later posted on social media, emphasizing her focus on fighting for Delawareans rather than engaging in debates over bathrooms.
LGBTQ+ Advocates Warn Against Dismissing GOP Anti-Trans Policies as Distractions
While Rep. Sarah McBride has urged her fellow Democrats to focus on issues like healthcare and housing instead of engaging in culture wars, some LGBTQ+ advocates argue that the GOP’s anti-trans policies should not be ignored or treated solely as distractions. Jeff Main, cofounder of the trans-led nonprofit Point of Pride, emphasized that these proposals are real threats.
“In addition to being a distraction, these proposals are direct threats,” Main told CBS News Philadelphia. “It’s more than just access to a bathroom or healthcare. It’s about existing. It’s about our right to live authentically, safely, and with pride.” Main expressed concern over the broader implications of these policies for the trans community, stressing the importance of defending basic rights and safety.
A proposed bill in Congress seeks to prohibit transgender individuals from using bathrooms in museums, national parks, and other federal properties. How would this ban be enforced, and what potential consequences could arise?
Congress faces a long list of urgent priorities, including securing funding to prevent a government shutdown, many of which are expected to be postponed until 2025. One new addition to that agenda is legislation introduced by GOP Rep. Nancy Mace, which seeks to ban transgender women from women’s restrooms and transgender men from men’s restrooms on all federal property.
The South Carolina lawmaker introduced this bill after launching a campaign to remove newly-elected Rep. Sarah McBride of Delaware from women’s restrooms on Capitol Hill. Following House Speaker Mike Johnson’s announcement of a rule that aligned with Mace’s initial proposal, she expanded the bill to restrict all transgender Americans from using restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms on federal property nationwide.
If the bill were to become law, how would it be enforced, and what consequences would follow? What is the current atmosphere like for transgender lobbyists and advocates on Capitol Hill? The 19th spoke with several experts to learn more.
Where would such a law apply? This sweeping legislation would lead to widespread discrimination against transgender individuals, experts warn, even though Mace’s rhetoric has primarily targeted transgender women. It could expose trans and nonbinary people to harassment and discrimination at national parks, courthouses, IRS buildings (such as taxpayer assistance centers), Social Security Administration offices, certain post offices, and Native American lands.
If enforceable, this federal ban would prevent transgender individuals from accessing spaces that are intended to be among the most accessible to all Americans, said Kelly Dittmar, an associate professor of political science at Rutgers-Camden University and director of research at the Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP).
“I would assume this includes Smithsonians and other federal buildings, museums, landmarks—places that should be accessible to the public, partly because they are government-funded or operated,” she explained.
The language in Mace’s proposed bill would limit bathroom access in “any building, land, or other real property owned, leased, or occupied by any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States (including the Department of Defense and the United States Postal Service), or any other instrumentality wholly owned by the United States, or by any department or agency of the District of Columbia or any territory or possession of the United States.”
How likely is it that this ban will become law? Mace’s bill is unlikely to advance until the new Congress is sworn in this January, as the Senate is currently adjourned until December 2, and members are focused on major defense and agricultural measures. When and if the bill does come up for consideration, it will likely face a potential filibuster by Senate Democrats, despite Republicans holding a majority in both chambers. It also remains unclear how much support Mace’s bill has within the Republican Party.
How would this law be enforced? Mace’s proposal lacks details on how nationwide restrictions on bathroom use for transgender Americans would be enforced, and her office did not respond to a request for comment. To understand how such a ban might function in practice, experts point to state-level bathroom bans, many of which have surfaced since 2015 but have largely failed to become law.
State bathroom bans often provide few, if any, specifics on enforcement, as they rely on private citizens to act as enforcers. Logan Casey, director of policy research at the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit that tracks LGBTQ+ legislation, explains that these laws are de facto enforced by emboldening individuals to police others’ bathroom use.
“There’s no written enforcement because the proponents of these bills know that just by talking about this, let alone enacting these laws, they are emboldening individual people themselves to enforce these bathroom bans,” Casey said.
A recent extreme example of this can be seen in Odessa, Texas, where a new ordinance allows citizens to sue transgender people using bathrooms that match their gender identity, with damages of “no less than $10,000.”
Deputizing private citizens to enforce such laws can result in high rates of harassment and violence, particularly targeting transgender individuals and cisgender women who do not conform to traditional gender norms, Casey added.
What’s going on at Capitol Hill? Are trans people banned from bathrooms there? “All single-sex facilities in the Capitol and House Office Buildings — such as restrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms — are reserved for individuals of that biological sex,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson in a statement. This policy appears to apply to all transgender individuals working at or visiting the Capitol complex. Johnson’s office did not respond to a request for clarification.
Johnson’s statement also does not clarify how the new policy will be enforced. Mace’s original bill proposed that the House sergeant-at-arms would be responsible for enforcing a bathroom ban, but Johnson’s announcement did not reference this. His office did not respond to a request for comment regarding the enforcement of the new rule.
Without clear guidance on enforcement, transgender lobbyists and advocates like Caius Willingham, a senior policy analyst at Advocates for Trans Equality, are left to wait and see if they will be policed for simply trying to do their jobs and what the consequences of noncompliance might be. Unlike members of Congress, these employees don’t have access to private facilities, and when working on the Hill, alternative options are often scarce.
“The Capitol grounds are massive. Some buildings don’t even have a single, single-occupancy bathroom. So practically, if I’m going to spend the day on the Hill meeting with legislators and staff, which is core to my job, I may have to be strategic about what bathrooms I use,” Willingham said. “I might have to run outside to find a restroom outside the Capitol building.”
The broader implications of a federal bathroom ban would extend this restriction to all of D.C., Willingham added, considering how many people work in federal buildings.
Is this legal? Court opinions on this matter have been divided. Last year, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Florida policy banning transgender students from using bathrooms that align with their gender identity. However, in 2021, the Supreme Court sided with trans advocates by upholding a 4th U.S. Circuit decision that found a Virginia bathroom ban unconstitutional.
Two states—Utah and Florida—ban transgender individuals from using bathrooms and facilities that match their gender identity in all government-owned buildings, K-12 schools, and colleges, according to the Movement Advancement Project. Violating these laws is a criminal offense in both states. Seven other states have passed laws restricting trans Americans’ bathroom access only in K-12 schools.
Article I of the Constitution grants Congress broad jurisdiction over its own internal rules and procedures. However, Mace’s proposed federal bathroom ban could conflict with recent Supreme Court precedent, according to Barbara Comstock, a former Republican congresswoman from Virginia. The majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, written by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, ruled that discrimination based on sexuality or gender identity constitutes unconstitutional sex discrimination.
“I don’t think they’ve looked at this in light of the law whatsoever,” Comstock said. “So I think this is just an embarrassing stunt — which does raise attention to the challenges and discrimination faced by transgender Americans.”
Who is actually endangered by trans people using the bathroom? Research shows that it is transgender people, not cisgender individuals, who are most at risk of violence and discrimination when using the restroom. Transgender people often face harassment, verbal abuse, and even physical violence when trying to use restrooms that align with their gender identity.
The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey found that many transgender people avoid public restrooms due to fear of mistreatment. Of over 27,000 respondents, 26 percent said that in the previous year, they had been denied access to restrooms, had their presence questioned, or were verbally harassed, physically attacked, or sexually assaulted while using a restroom.
Research from the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, conducted in 2018, found that expanding non-discrimination laws to include transgender people does not increase the frequency of criminal incidents in restrooms, locker rooms, or changing rooms. While Mace and other Republican lawmakers have argued that banning trans women from women’s restrooms will protect cisgender women, empirical evidence does not support the claim that including transgender people in these spaces leads to safety or privacy issues.
Willingham shared his experience working in the House as a legislative assistant to Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington from 2021 to 2023, noting that his identity as a transgender person was never an issue. Despite witnessing transphobic rhetoric from some members of Congress during hearings and debates, he was treated with respect by colleagues. It was a jarring and frustrating experience for him.
“It’s really frustrating to see things go backwards in Congress,” Willingham said. “My experience working even across the aisle was extremely positive.”
Trump has pledged to eliminate gender-affirming care for trans youth, ban trans kids from participating in sports, and erase trans people from public life. Is he actually able to carry out these promises?
As the second Trump administration starts to take form, civil rights advocates are bracing for a new wave of attacks on the LGBTQ+ community. During his first term, Trump’s White House enacted over 200 policies that harmed LGBTQ+ equality, including the ban on openly trans individuals serving in the military, cuts to HIV/AIDS funding, and the repeal of protections for trans patients seeking healthcare and trans individuals in need of emergency shelter.
Trump has made it clear that he intends to continue reversing LGBTQ+ rights once he returns to the White House in January. On his 2024 campaign website, the president-elect outlined an aggressive agenda targeting fundamental rights and protections for LGBTQ+ people. This includes a ban on gender-affirming medical care for trans youth, federal “Don’t Say Gay” policies restricting LGBTQ+ discussions in schools, a nationwide ban on trans student-athletes competing according to their gender identity, and a federal law defining gender as binary and assigned at birth—measures that would have far-reaching consequences for trans, nonbinary, and intersex Americans.
Civil rights groups say they are already bracing for the upcoming battle as Trump assembles a diverse group of anti-LGBTQ+ nominees for his Cabinet. What will bolster his administration’s power to push its far-right agenda is the GOP’s control over all three branches of government: six of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican presidents, and conservatives will hold majorities in both houses of Congress for the first time since 2016.
Them spoke with legal experts to assess how feasible Trump’s anti-LGBTQ+ threats are and what strategies advocates might use to fight back. Despite the challenges ahead, Ezra Cukor, co-interim legal director of Advocates for Trans Equality, remains hopeful, believing this is merely “one chapter in a story of trans folks being a part of civil society in the United States.”
“There have been moments of joy, and there have been moments of challenge,” he tells Them. “In this moment, I’m just grateful to be part of a broader civil rights fabric, knowing that there’s a long history of trans folks insisting on our basic rights and working for our liberation and that there are many of us in this together.”
Ending Gender-Affirming Care for Trans Youth
In a January 2023 video posted on his Truth Social platform, Trump vowed to launch an all-out assault on gender-affirming healthcare for trans youth. He called on Congress to pass a law banning “child sexual mutilation” in all 50 states and pledged to cut Medicaid and Medicare funding to any hospital providing gender-affirming care to minors. Trump also promised to instruct the Department of Justice to investigate whether medical providers had “deliberately covered up horrific long-term side effects” of transition care for youth, and he vowed to support a “private right of action” for patients who might later regret the transition treatments they received as children. (This, despite the fact that rates of transition regret are notably low.)
Civil rights groups are already preparing for the fight ahead as Trump selects a range of anti-LGBTQ+ nominees for his Cabinet. What will strengthen his administration’s ability to push its far-right agenda is the GOP’s control over all three branches of government: six of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican presidents, and conservatives will hold majorities in both houses of Congress for the first time since 2016.
Them spoke with legal experts to gauge how feasible Trump’s anti-LGBTQ+ threats truly are and what actions advocates might take to resist them. Despite the significant challenges, Ezra Cukor, co-interim legal director of Advocates for Trans Equality, remains hopeful, viewing this moment as “one chapter in a story of trans folks being a part of civil society in the United States.”
“There have been moments of joy, and there have been moments of challenge,” Cukor tells Them. “In this moment, I’m just grateful to be part of a broader civil rights fabric, knowing that there’s a long history of trans folks insisting on our basic rights and working for our liberation, and that there are many of us in this together.”
Ending Gender-Affirming Care for Trans Youth
In a January 2023 video posted on his Truth Social platform, Trump promised to launch a full-scale assault on gender-affirming healthcare for trans youth. He called on Congress to pass a law banning “child sexual mutilation” across all 50 states and vowed to eliminate Medicaid and Medicare funding for hospitals providing gender-affirming care to minors. Trump also pledged to direct the Department of Justice to investigate whether medical providers had “deliberately covered up horrific long-term side effects” of transition care for youth, and he expressed support for a “private right of action” for patients who might later regret their transition treatments. (This, despite the fact that regret rates for transition treatments are extremely low.)
Sasha Buchert, a senior attorney with Lambda Legal, argues that the push for a national trans sports ban exposes the hypocrisy of Republicans’ long-standing stance that LGBTQ+ educational policies should be decided at the state and local level. “Once the far right gets in power, suddenly they feel like they should be imposing their beliefs on the rest of the country,” Buchert tells Them, pointing to the 26 state attorneys general who opposed the Biden administration’s interpretation that Title IX protects trans students from discrimination. “These issues aren’t in isolation. They’re part of a widespread onslaught of attacks targeting the trans community and specifically trans youth.”
Given the potential for a filibuster, Buchert predicts Trump will not wait for Congress to act, instead seeking “immediate gratification” to appease his base. She expects him to issue an executive order that would bar trans students from protection under Title IX, echoing the early days of his first term, when his Department of Education repealed Obama-era guidance that required schools to treat trans students in accordance with their gender identity.
Buchert vowed that Lambda Legal would challenge such an order in court, pointing out that courts have consistently ruled against targeted sports bans, which they view as discriminatory toward trans athletes. Anti-trans sports laws in Arizona and Idaho have been blocked by the courts for now, while the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked West Virginia from preventing a trans student, Becky Pepper-Jackson, a 14-year-old middle school runner, from competing. (West Virginia intends to appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court.)
“The federal courts have agreed that it really does deprive [trans student athletes] and harm them by not allowing them to participate,” Buchert says. “The argument that they can still play on a boys’ team or intramural team doesn’t hold any water. The courts have seen right through that. It’s like saying before marriage equality: ‘You can still get married. You just can’t get married to somebody of the same gender.’”
Enacting National “Don’t Say Gay” Policies
Trump has also pledged to implement broader policies targeting LGBTQ+ students in schools, including “Don’t Say Gay”-style restrictions in the classroom and regulations that would force teachers to out trans students to their parents. His 2024 platform promises to “protect the rights of parents from being forced to allow their minor child to assume a gender” without their consent, frequently repeating false claims that schools are transitioning children without their families’ knowledge. “Can you imagine you’re a parent and your son leaves the house and you say, ‘Jimmy, I love you so much. Go have a good day in school,’ and your son comes back with a brutal operation?” Trump asked at a Wisconsin rally. “Can you even imagine this? What the hell is wrong with our country?”
Should Trump push his proposed policies through Department of Education regulations or an executive order, Chris Erchull, a staff attorney with the LGBTQ+ advocacy group GLAD, believes the legal system will stand with queer students. He points out that courts have long held that all students are “entitled to a full education.” “You go all the way back to the promise of Brown v. Board of Education, which said that separate education is not equal education,” he tells Them, referencing the landmark 1954 Supreme Court ruling that desegregated schools by race. “Those principles apply when we’re talking about the rights of LGBTQ+ students today. For students to get a complete education, they need to see themselves represented. You can’t suppress their identities in the classroom, or you’ll be depriving them of that.”
Erchull also notes that in the past year, advocates have won several key victories in the fight against anti-LGBTQ+ restrictions in schools. In March, Florida settled a lawsuit that rolled back parts of its “Don’t Say Gay” law, narrowing the scope of the state’s regulations. The law was so broadly worded that school districts, fearing lawsuits for noncompliance, had applied it to nearly all aspects of campus life, including student clubs like Gender-Sexuality Alliances. Just two months later, a New Hampshire district court ruled that an anti-LGBTQ+ law restricting classroom discussions in the state was “unconstitutionally vague.”
“Those are really powerful examples of how the courts can step up and be a voice of reason amidst attempts to undermine public education,” Erchull says. “There’s this zero-sum thinking where, if LGBTQ+ students are represented and seen, that’s depriving other people of something, and that’s not true at all. What research shows is that inclusive and supportive school environments benefit all students.”
Federal Law Erasing Trans People
Trump’s campaign website promises that, if re-elected, he will push Congress to pass a law defining gender as strictly male and female, assigned at birth. This pledge echoes a policy from his first presidency, when the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) attempted to narrow the federal definition of gender to “immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth.” A 2018 memo reportedly circulated within HHS stated that “the sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.”
Passing a federal bill through Congress to define trans people out of existence would be unprecedented, requiring support from both houses to succeed. Sarah Warbelow, legal director at the Human Rights Campaign, notes that LGBTQ+ advocates have already seen the potential impact of such policies through laws enacted at the state level. In May 2023, Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) signed a law redefining sex as strictly male or female in portions of the state code. While that statute was struck down by a district court earlier this year, Kansas and Tennessee still have similar mandates in place.
Warbelow emphasizes that these types of restrictions have far-reaching consequences on trans people’s daily lives, impacting their ability to obtain identity documents and access spaces that align with their identities. However, she also points out that the full implications of such laws are unclear. After Kansas passed its 2023 law redefining gender, Attorney General Kris Kobach (R) claimed that schools were required to out trans students to their parents, even though the law did not explicitly state this. Warbelow notes that “there are huge unknowns” about how a federal law erasing trans identities would be interpreted or applied, whether by the courts, individual states, or schools.
“It becomes unclear how it would be operationalized,” she tells Them. “To the extent that it is interpreted broadly, it could have ramifications for non-discrimination laws. In Bostock, the Supreme Court interpreted the term ‘sex’ to be broadly understood as including LGBTQ+ people in the context of non-discrimination laws, so it could potentially eliminate those legal protections for LGBTQ+ people in the future.”
That’s why Warbelow says that the Human Rights Campaign, as the nation’s largest LGBTQ+ organization, is exploring “every option” to counter Trump’s anti-trans agenda. She adds that if litigation becomes necessary, the organization will likely invoke constitutional protections related to free speech, equal protection under the law, and due process to challenge a federal redefinition of gender. “We know it’s going to be incredibly tough work, but we have no choice but to fight,” she asserts. “We’ve got to throw our all at preserving democracy and the rights of LGBTQ+ people.”
The Oklahoma Superintendent of Schools recently spent $25,000 in state funds on Trump Bibles.
Ryan Walters, the controversial Oklahoma Superintendent of Schools, has directed school districts statewide to show a video of him praying for President-elect Donald Trump. This unusual and politically charged directive, issued amidst a recall effort against Walters, has sparked strong opposition from local school administrators. The video and accompanying order were sent out to schools on Thursday.
At least seven major Oklahoma school districts announced Friday that they will not show a video in which Superintendent Ryan Walters discusses the objectives of his newly established Office of Religious Liberty and Patriotism, concluding with a prayer for former and future President Donald Trump.
The video, which carries a highly partisan tone, criticizes the “radical left” for attacking religious freedom in schools and accuses teacher unions of undermining patriotism.
“We will not tolerate that in any school in Oklahoma,” Walters declares in the video. “We want our students to be patriotic. We want our students to love this country, and we want all students’ religious liberty to be protected.”
The video wraps up with a prayer in which Walters asks for divine guidance for the nation’s leaders and specifically prays for Trump and his team.
“Dear God, thank you for all the blessings you’ve given our country. I pray for our leaders to make the right decisions. I pray in particular for Donald Trump and his team as they continue to bring about change to the country,” Walters says.
Edmond Public Schools Superintendent Angela Grunewald informed parents on Friday that her district will not disrupt its locally approved curriculum to show Walters’ video.
Grunewald emphasized that her district will continue to teach the Oklahoma state standards and the curriculum set by the local school board. “Any changes to that would be based on local decisions,” she said, citing a recent ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court that upheld the authority of local school districts to make such decisions.
Similarly, Midwest City-Del City Public Schools Superintendent Rick Cobb told the Oklahoma Voice that his district will not show the video. “We do not believe he has the statutory authority to require us to share this content,” Cobb said.
The Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office supported this stance, declaring the mandate unenforceable. “Not only is this edict unenforceable, it is contrary to parents’ rights, local control, and individual free-exercise rights,” said Attorney General spokesperson Phil Bacharach.
Newly sworn-in Democratic state Sen. Mark Mann, a former member of the Oklahoma City Board of Education, also urged other districts to resist the mandate. “When Oklahoma needs to make gains in reading and math scores, the last thing we need to be doing is pushing the superintendent’s blatant, self-serving political agenda,” Mann remarked.
Walters’ controversial order, which is seen as unenforceable, accompanies his ongoing effort to distribute 55,000 Bibles to Oklahoma schools. On the same day his prayer video was released, Walters posted another video celebrating the arrival of the first 500 Bibles in AP Government classrooms.
Walters’ budget request was specifically aimed at purchasing a version of the Bible known as the “Trump Bible,” which combines the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Old and New Testaments into a single Christian nationalist text. The initial purchase of these Bibles amounted to $25,000.
Walters has been mentioned as a potential candidate for Secretary of Education in Trump’s second-term Cabinet. Both Walters and Trump have advocated for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education.
There is no conclusive evidence to support the claim that transgender girls possess a substantial biological advantage in sports.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, along with attorneys general from 23 other states, filed an amicus brief advocating for the prohibition of transgender girls participating in sports.
The brief specifically requests the Supreme Court to review and overturn an injunction issued by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had blocked Arizona’s ban on transgender athletes.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall collaborated with Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin to draft the amicus brief, with support from attorneys general in 22 other states, including Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.
The injunction being challenged was issued in September by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a unanimous 3-0 decision. This injunction blocked Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act, a law imposing a blanket ban on transgender girls participating in girls’ sports, regardless of their transition timeline or use of puberty blockers. The lawsuit challenging the law was filed by two transgender girls and their parents seeking to overturn the ban.
In the court’s decision, Judge Morgan Christen wrote, “[The law] permits all students other than transgender women and girls to play on teams consistent with their gender identities. Transgender women and girls alone are barred from doing so. This is the essence of discrimination.”
The amicus brief presented several arguments in favor of the ban. One claim was that implementing policies allowing transgender girls to join girls’ sports teams would be costly and logistically difficult for schools—despite evidence showing that many schools nationwide have successfully adopted trans-inclusive policies without significant challenges.
The brief also asserted that sex and gender identity are not equivalent under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, a stance that contradicts legal precedent established in Bostock v. Clayton County. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that protections against sex-based discrimination include transgender individuals due to their gender identity.
Additionally, the attorneys general argued that the Circuit Court’s ruling was legally flawed. They suggested that the decision could be interpreted in ways more favorable to their case and called for a rational-basis review. This review would evaluate whether the plaintiffs’ claims were consistent with constitutional equal protection principles or whether they failed to meet that standard.
It remains uncertain whether these arguments will prevail. The Supreme Court has not announced whether it will hear this case. However, the Court has already agreed to consider United States v. Skrmetti, which will address the legality of state bans on gender-affirming care for minors.
Evidence does not support claims that transgender girls have a significant biological advantage in sports. In fact, studies indicate that transitioning, including the use of puberty blockers, can mitigate differences and create a fairer playing field.
Despite this, anti-trans rhetoric continues to shape these legal battles. “Our coalition is determined to preserve the 50 years of work that expanded opportunities and leveled the playing field for girls and women in sports,” Attorney General Marshall stated in a press release.
He added, “But the left continues to pander to a small minority of their base… Parents of daughters are rightfully outraged at the loss of positions on teams and college scholarships. As our multiple briefs to the Supreme Court show, it’s time to return to fairness in opportunity for sports.”
“No one stepped in to help,” one witness said, describing how people cheered as the women were assaulted.
LGBTQ+ advocates say bystanders cheered as two transgender women were brutally attacked in Minneapolis earlier this month.
According to a statement from Minneapolis Police to The Independent, the two women were confronted by a group making derogatory comments at a downtown light rail station on November 10, which escalated into a “physical altercation.”
Amber Muhm, one of the organizers of a rally supporting the victims of the attack at the station, spoke with The Independent about the incident. She identified the two women only as Dahlia and Jess. They told her that as they were leaving the station, a man yelled anti-trans slurs at them. When Jess asked him to stop, he “sucker punched” her. In response, Dahlia struck the man with her cane, which prompted four or five other men to join in and violently assault the pair.
Both women were knocked unconscious, with Dahlia suffering a broken nose and Jess left with multiple rib contusions.
“No one came to help them,” Muhm told CBS News, recounting that bystanders cheered on the attackers while the women were being beaten. “It was a traumatic event, and they’re still dealing with the physical consequences, but the community is what’s keeping them grounded right now,” Muhm added.
Minneapolis police confirmed to CBS News that they were investigating the incident, but no arrests had been made as of Sunday night. Muhm called for more urgent action from the police. “They need to step up because this keeps happening, and it’s ridiculous and unacceptable at this point,” she said.
Dahlia and Jess had moved to Minnesota from Iowa specifically because of the state’s Trans Refuge law, which was introduced by state Rep. Leigh Finke (D), Minnesota’s first openly trans legislator. The law, passed in March 2023, protects access to gender-affirming care in the state, regardless of laws in other states.
At the rally, Rep. Finke predicted that more trans people would likely relocate to Minnesota following the re-election campaign of former President Donald Trump, whose political ads during the 2024 election cycle fueled anti-trans rhetoric. “People are so emboldened now. There’s so much false data, so many false narratives about trans people,” Muhm said, referencing claims made by rally bystanders that gender-affirming surgeries were being performed “on 10-year-olds.”
One speaker at the rally told CBS News that Trump’s re-election is instilling fear in the trans community. “People are talking to me about erasing their social media presence, going back in the closet,” they said.
Despite the mounting fear, Muhm encouraged the community to remain strong. “The community here is beautiful. We’re building a movement, we’re going to get through this, and we’re going to be stronger for it. Minneapolis is going to be such a beautiful place for trans people to live,” she said.
However, with rising concerns about anti-trans violence, Muhm acknowledged that many trans people in the city are preparing for a possible surge in hostility. “People are about to get a lot more hostile and emboldened in their transphobia,” she said. “So, what do we do to protect ourselves when we’re out?” Many in the community are enrolling in self-defense classes and looking into acquiring handgun permits to safeguard themselves.
The Trump-appointed judge argued that trans youth can still access talk therapy, suggesting that treatment options remain available to them.
A three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has approved the implementation of Indiana’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
The law, signed by Governor Eric Holcomb (R) in April 2023, prohibits doctors from prescribing puberty blockers and hormone therapy to transgender minors. Despite acknowledging that the bill was “clear as mud,” Holcomb still signed it into law. The bill passed with overwhelming support in both chambers of the state legislature, giving lawmakers the ability to override a potential veto.
The ACLU of Indiana filed a lawsuit on behalf of four families to prevent the law from taking effect, and a district court judge issued a preliminary injunction to halt its implementation while the case proceeded through the legal system.
The state appealed this injunction to the Seventh Circuit, which lifted it in February and has now issued its final ruling against it. The judges concluded that the district court was wrong to claim that the law would cause “irreparable harm” to transgender youth forced to detransition, arguing that “psychotherapy and parasocial support” could serve as alternatives to gender-affirming care for treating gender dysphoria.
Judge Michael Brennan, appointed by Donald Trump, wrote, “It might be different if Indiana barred all treatment for gender dysphoria, but SEA 480 does no such thing.”
All major medical organizations in the U.S. endorse gender-affirming care as safe and effective.
The majority of the panel also ruled that the state law does not violate the due process or equal protection rights of transgender youth, noting that both transgender boys and girls are prohibited from accessing gender-affirming care.
Brennan wrote, “So, sex does not indicate on what basis treatment is prohibited. The law does not create a class of one sex and a class of another and deny treatment to just one of those classes.”
This argument hinges on not recognizing transgender people as a distinct class. Cisgender youth are still permitted to access gender-affirming care under the law, which specifically bans certain treatments only when used to alter someone’s appearance to “resemble a sex different from the individual’s sex” assigned at birth.
Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, appointed by President Joe Biden, dissented from Brennan’s decision, while Judge Kenneth Ripple, appointed by Ronald Reagan, joined Brennan in the 2-1 ruling.
“We are disappointed and are considering our options,” said Kenneth Faulk of the ACLU of Indiana.
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) praised the decision, citing God in his statement.
“The Seventh District Court of Appeal’s decision today is a huge win for Hoosiers and will help protect our most precious gift from God — our children,” he said.
The bill affects all students across the state and will limit the rights of thousands of transgender individuals if signed into law by the governor.
On Wednesday, the Ohio State Senate approved Senate Bill 104, a transgender bathroom ban for all students in the state, including those in higher education.
Titled the “Protect All Students Act,” the bill passed with a 24-7 vote, strictly along party lines.
The bill states, “A school shall designate each student restroom, locker room, changing room, or shower room that is accessible by multiple students at the same time, whether located in a school building or in a facility used by the school for a school-sponsored activity, for the exclusive use by students of the male biological sex only or by students of the female biological sex only.”
The bill will soon be sent to Governor Mike DeWine (R) for either approval or veto. While he is expected to sign it, the Associated Press reports that he will first conduct a legal review.
The ban exempts school faculty, children under 10 who require family assistance, and individuals with disabilities.
Rather than defining gender, the bill relies on the concept of biological sex, which it defines as “the biological indication of male and female, including sex chromosomes, naturally occurring sex hormones, gonads, and nonambiguous internal and external genitalia present at birth, without regard to an individual’s psychological, chosen, or subjective experience of gender.”
The bill does not address or provide exceptions for intersex individuals, who do not fit neatly into traditional biological sex categories.
The Ohio Center for Christian Virtue strongly supports the bill. “Today is a huge victory for children and families in Ohio,” said David Mahan, the group’s policy director, calling it “common-sense legislation.”
However, Jocelyn Rosnick, Policy Director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, expressed strong opposition. “We are incredibly disheartened by the Ohio General Assembly’s continuous attacks against transgender and gender non-conforming individuals across Ohio. Senate Bill 104 is a cruel invasion of students’ rights to privacy, which could result in unwarranted governmental disclosures of private, personal information.”
She added, “If allowed to go into effect, SB 104 will create unsafe environments for trans and gender non-conforming individuals of all ages. This bill ignores the material reality that transgender people endure higher rates of sexual violence and assaults, particularly while using public restrooms, than people who are not transgender. All Ohioans deserve to access the facilities they need, in alignment with their gender identity, without fear of harassment or bullying. The ACLU of Ohio remains steadfast in our commitment to standing with trans Ohioans and is closely considering next steps.”
“‘I will always stand with trans people and the entire LGBTQ+ community. This Congresswoman sees you and loves you,’ said Rep. Ayanna Pressley.”
It’s clear that a potential second term for Donald Trump would have devastating consequences for queer and trans Americans.
The accused rapist and his party have been outspoken in their opposition to trans rights. According to data from Ad Impact, reported by Washington Post’s Casey Parks on November 5, Republicans spent nearly $215 million on anti-trans ads during the 2024 election cycle. On Trump’s 2024 campaign website, he pledged to redefine gender at the federal level, recognizing only male and female as assigned at birth, and to push for a nationwide ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
To make matters worse, Democrats like New York Rep. Tom Suozzi and Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton chose to scapegoat trans people for their party’s failure to win the presidency, House, or Senate.
Despite the troubling implications of the 2024 elections, many Democratic politicians have made it clear that supporting the trans community is a top priority, regardless of what the next four years bring.
From calling out transphobia within their own party to working to enshrine LGBTQ+ protections at the state level, these leaders are standing up for trans rights.
Gov. JB Pritzker and State Rep. Kelly Cassidy (Illinois) Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker reaffirmed his commitment to LGBTQ+ Americans in a tweet, declaring that Illinois would remain “a refuge for those whose rights are denied elsewhere.”
Pritzker went on to specifically highlight the communities he’s standing with, including “those seeking reproductive healthcare, immigrants working hard for a better life, LGBTQ+ Americans looking for protection, and people with disabilities whose civil and human rights are under attack.
Meanwhile, Illinois State Rep. Kelly Cassidy recently told the Chicago Sun-Times that a coalition of state lawmakers has been working to protect access to trans and reproductive healthcare since the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. Now, this coalition is examining Project 2025 to assess what additional protections they can put in place in the near future.
Cassidy mentioned that one key issue the coalition hopes to address before the fall legislative session concludes is the use of geolocators to track individuals who access healthcare facilities.
Gov. Gavin Newsom (California)
On November 7, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a special session of the California Legislature, set to begin on December 2. This session will focus on strengthening California’s legal resources to safeguard climate action, civil rights, immigrant families, and reproductive freedom in response to Trump’s reelection.
According to a release from Newsom’s office, this special session is a direct response to the public statements and proposals made by President-elect Trump and his advisors, as well as actions taken during his first term. These efforts, Newsom’s office warns, could threaten essential freedoms and individual rights, including women’s rights and LGBTQ+ rights.
In 2023, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed nine LGBTQ+ rights bills into law in just a few days, despite vetoing a bill that would have provided stronger protections for trans children in custody and visitation cases. Earlier this year, he also signed the Support Academic Future and Educators for Today’s Youth Act (SAFETY Act), which prohibits schools from implementing policies that require staff to out students to their parents. The law also mandates the California Department of Education to create resources for LGBTQ+ students and their families.
Salem City Councilor Kyle Davis (Massachusetts) Salem, Massachusetts City Councilor Kyle Davis called out Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton in a series of X posts after Moulton made transphobic remarks to the New York Times.
In an interview with the Times on November 7, Moulton stated, “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete. But as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”
The following day, Davis responded strongly on X, not holding back in his critique.
‘Resign @sethmoulton,’” he tweeted on November 8. Shortly after, he followed up with a second post, stating, “I’m not looking for an apology from @sethmoulton, I’m looking for a resignation.
On November 11, Davis posted a gif of a woman named Jenn holding the progress Pride flag, with the caption, ‘@Sethmoulton represents this district. He does not represent me.’
The city councilor went on to question the timing of Moulton’s remarks in an interview with the Boston Globe last week.
“With all the things Trump has said about trans people, this is a time when the trans community is feeling a lot of fear,” Davis said.
State Senator Jamie Eldridge (Massachusetts) Massachusetts Senator Jamie Eldridge also spoke out against Moulton’s transphobic comments. On November 8, Eldridge took to X to share a link to a Boston Globe article highlighting local Democrats who were condemning Moulton’s remarks.
As a legislator fighting for #LGBTQ rights—from marriage equality to #transgender rights to the #ParentageAct—and with pride in Massachusetts being a welcoming state, I condemn Cong. Moulton’s comments on transgender athletes,” Eldridge wrote. “@MassDems do not abandon our values.”
Rep. Becca Balint (Vermont) Vermont Rep. Becca Balint succinctly summed up the sentiment in a November 9 X post, writing, “Leave trans kids alone.
When Balint was elected in 2022, she made history as the first openly LGBTQ+ person and the first woman elected to Congress from Vermont.
Rep. Ayanna Pressley (Massachusetts) Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley reinforced her commitment to the trans and LGBTQ+ communities in a November 10 X post, reaffirming her unwavering support.
This election wasn’t the first time we’ve seen the trans community scapegoated and dehumanized, but know this: I will always stand with trans people and the entire LGBTQ+ community,” she wrote. “This Congresswoman sees you and loves you.
Attorney General Rob Bonta (California) On November 5, California Attorney General Rob Bonta—who, last year, sued a school district in his state to block a policy requiring teachers to out trans students to their parents—told Cal Matters that his office is already preparing legal challenges to the incoming Trump administration. Bonta’s team has preemptively drafted briefs and tested arguments to counter policies they anticipate Trump will push during his second term, including those that could undermine civil rights for trans youth.
“Unfortunately, it’s a long list [of issues],” the attorney general said. “We are and have been for months developing strategies for all of those things.”
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.