What Trump’s Presidency Could Mean for Trans People: Potential Policies and Warning Signs to Watch

This blog is originally appeared at LGBTQ Nation

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.

Trump-appointed judge won’t force Texas university to allow drag show

This blog originally appeared at Reuters.

Sept 22 (Reuters) – A LGBTQ student group did not have an inherent constitutional right to hold a charity drag show on West Texas A&M University’s campus over the objections of the school’s president, who deemed such performances “misogynistic” and mocking of womanhood, a federal judge ruled.

Sept 22 (Reuters) – A LGBTQ student group did not have an inherent constitutional right to hold a charity drag show on West Texas A&M University’s campus over the objections of the school’s president, who deemed such performances “misogynistic” and mocking of womanhood, a federal judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who before becoming a judge in Amarillo, Texas, was a Christian legal activist opposed to LGBTQ rights causes, on Thursday ruled that it was far from clear that drag shows were covered by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment’s protections for free expression.

The LGBTQ student group, Spectrum WT, sued in March after the school’s president, Walter Wendler, barred a charity drag show set for that month from going forward even though, he said, “the law of the land appears to require it.”

The group later moved that event off campus, but it continued to seek an injunction barring him from banning future events including a planned drag show in March 2024.

But Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former Republican President Donald Trump, said Wendler was wrong that the law required him to allow drag shows, which can involve “sexualized conduct” that can be regulated to protect any children in an audience from “lewdness.”

The LGBTQ student group, Spectrum WT, sued in March after the school’s president, Walter Wendler, barred a charity drag show set for that month from going forward even though, he said, “the law of the land appears to require it.”

The group later moved that event off campus, but it continued to seek an injunction barring him from banning future events including a planned drag show in March 2024.

But Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former Republican President Donald Trump, said Wendler was wrong that the law required him to allow drag shows, which can involve “sexualized conduct” that can be regulated to protect any children in an audience from “lewdness.”

Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office, which defended the university, did not respond to a request for comment.

Kacsmaryk gained national attention in April when he suspended approval of the abortion pill mifepristone. An appellate court overturned parts of that ruling, and the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the pill to remain on the market while appeals proceed.

His ruling on Thursday conflicted with recent decisions by judges in Utah, Tennessee, Montana and Texas blocking state and municipal laws banning drag shows.

Kacsmaryk in reaching his conclusion cited “older rules” of First Amendment case law that recognized an “outer limit” for expressive conduct.

He said those remain valid even under modern free speech jurisprudence, which “only intermittently” examines what is protected historically, in contrast to how the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms is interpreted.

The conservative-majority Supreme Court last year ruled that gun laws must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” to pass muster under the Second Amendment.

The case is Spectrum WT v. Wendler, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, No. 2:23-cv-00048.

For Spectrum WT: J.T. Morris of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

For the West Texas A&M University defendants: Charles Eldred of the Office of the Texas Attorney General

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑