Key Points on Trump’s Radical Anti-LGBTQ+ Agenda for a Potential Second Term

This blog is originally appeared at THEM.

Donald Trump triumphed over Kamala Harris early Wednesday morning in a presidential election marked by the Republican candidate’s anti-trans and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

On what may go down as one of the darkest days in U.S. history, a twice-impeached former president, who is both an accused rapist and a convicted felon, has been elected to the White House once again.

Donald Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris early Wednesday morning in an election dominated by the Republican candidate’s anti-trans and anti-immigrant rhetoric. Trump secured crucial battleground states—North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—after weeks of polling that showed him and Harris in a tight race.

“Trump was expected to declare victory even if he had lost, but his actual win now paves the way for what promises to be one of the most extreme presidential agendas in U.S. history. The consequences of another Trump presidency will be particularly dire for LGBTQ+ Americans, with his campaign platform outlining a full-scale assault on queer rights. On his 2024 campaign website, Trump vowed to implement a federal ban on gender-affirming care for minors and to redefine gender at the federal level, recognizing only male and female as legitimate genders—based solely on birth assignment. His platform also called for national “Don’t Say Gay” policies targeting LGBTQ+ students in schools and vowed to “keep men out of women’s sports.” Trump’s running mate, J.D. Vance, a former senator, introduced a bill that would imprison doctors who provide gender-affirming care to trans youth.

These policies would continue the trajectory of Trump’s first term, which was marked by a relentless assault on the LGBTQ+ community. Among the most significant actions were the ban on transgender people serving in the military, the removal of LGBTQ+ references from federal websites, the rollback of protections for trans students, and the opposition to workplace protections for LGBTQ+ employees. His administration also implemented a ban on people living with HIV from military deployment, disbanded the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, and cut global funding for HIV prevention and treatment.

During his 2024 campaign, LGBTQ+ Americans were once again bombarded with anti-LGBTQ+ messaging. Trump ran on a platform of staunch opposition to trans rights, supported by millions of dollars in ads from right-wing groups that portrayed the trans community as a threat to public safety and decency. One of the most widely circulated ads of the election cycle declared: ‘Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.’ In his first and only debate with Harris, Trump made headlines by falsely claiming that she supported ‘transgender operations on illegal aliens in prison’—a statement LGBTQ+ advocates later clarified was a misrepresentation of the legal requirement to provide medically necessary care to incarcerated individuals. He also falsely accused Harris’ running mate, Tim Walz, of being ‘very heavy into transgender issues.'”

As advocates have consistently warned, the impact of Trump returning to the White House will be devastating for many vulnerable and marginalized groups. While Trump has repeatedly wavered on whether he supports national restrictions on abortion and contraception following the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade, his running mate, J.D. Vance, has made it clear that he ‘would like abortion to be illegal nationally.’ Trump has also floated the idea of defunding schools that teach the history and legacy of slavery, and he has persistently called for the disbanding of the Department of Education. Furthermore, his mass deportation agenda, aimed at expelling thousands of undocumented workers from the U.S., would reportedly cost the federal government millions of dollars each year.

In addition to these proposals, Trump’s allies—such as House Speaker Mike Johnson—have signaled plans to launch another attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. This could jeopardize critical healthcare protections for seniors, pregnant patients, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ individuals, potentially leaving millions without access to vital services.

While it will be months before a second Trump administration fully takes shape, the public already has a clear sense of how he plans to govern. Throughout his volatile presidential campaign, Trump vowed to act as a dictator ‘on day one,’ promising to dismiss Jack Smith, the special prosecutor overseeing numerous criminal cases against him. In recent weeks, he has suggested using the National Guard to target American citizens, even fantasizing about journalists being shot, while repeatedly labeling those who oppose his fascistic views as the ‘enemy from within.’ Trump has also reportedly offered key positions in his administration to figures like Elon Musk and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—the latter being an outspoken conspiracy theorist who has advocated for banning vaccines and removing fluoride from public drinking water.

In response to the looming threat of a second Trump term, some LGBTQ+ U.S. residents—particularly families of trans youth—have already fled the country out of fear for their safety and well-being. However, many others who would be directly impacted by his policies will not have the privilege of leaving. As during his first presidency, LGBTQ+ advocates are expected to continue their fight through the courts, the legislature, and public protests, standing firm against a wave of harmful policies that threaten their rights and freedoms.

Appeals court denies request to remove injunction on rule designed to enhance protections for LGBTQ students

This blog originally appeared at NBC NEWS.

Republicans contend that the policy is a ploy to permit transgender girls to join girls’ athletic teams.

A federal appeals court on Wednesday refused to lift a judge’s order temporarily blocking the Biden administration’s new Title IX rule aimed at expanding protections for LGBTQ students.

The ruling from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction issued last month by a federal district judge in Kentucky. This order blocked the new rule in six states — Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia — though similar legal battles are ongoing in Republican-led states nationwide.

“In our view, the district court likely correctly concluded that the Rule’s definition of sex discrimination exceeds the (U.S. Education) Department’s authority,” the 6th Circuit’s three-judge panel stated in its majority ruling.

The Education Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment via email and phone.

Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman praised the ruling as “a victory for common sense.”

“For 50 years, Title IX has created equal opportunities for women and young girls in the classroom and on the field,” said Coleman, a Republican. “Today, the 6th Circuit becomes the first appellate court in the nation to halt President Biden’s blatant assault on these fundamental protections.”

Chris Hartman, executive director of the Fairness Campaign, a Kentucky-based LGBTQ advocacy group, warned that the ruling would endanger transgender children.

“We believe Kentucky schools have an obligation to protect all students, including transgender students, and that they should implement the new Title IX Rule regardless of the 6th Circuit’s opinion,” Hartman said in a statement Wednesday evening.

The rule aims to expand Title IX civil rights protections to LGBTQ students, broaden the definition of sexual harassment in schools and colleges, and introduce additional safeguards for victims. While civil rights advocates have praised the new protections, opponents argue that they undermine the spirit of Title IX, a 1972 law that prohibits sex discrimination in education.

Most Republican state attorneys general have taken legal action to challenge the new rule.

The regulation is set to take effect on Aug. 1, but judges have temporarily blocked its enforcement while legal cases proceed in 15 states: Alaska, Indiana, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

The regulation faces legal challenges from 12 other states where enforcement has not been paused: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, and South Carolina.

Republicans argue the policy is a ploy to allow transgender girls to participate in girls’ athletic teams. The Biden administration clarified that the rule does not apply to athletics.

In its ruling on Wednesday, the 6th Circuit panel noted that critics of the rule warned that implementing it just before the start of the new school year would impose an “onerous burden” on the states.

The 6th Circuit panel also expedited a full hearing of the case for this fall.

In granting the preliminary injunction last month, U.S. District Judge Danny C. Reeves in Kentucky noted that Title IX was intended to “level the playing field” between men and women in education, but said the department was seeking to “derail deeply rooted law” with the new policy.

“At bottom, the department would turn Title IX on its head by redefining ‘sex’ to include ‘gender identity,’” he said in his ruling. “But ‘sex’ and ‘gender identity’ do not mean the same thing. The department’s interpretation conflicts with the plain language of Title IX and therefore exceeds its authority to promulgate regulations under that statute.”

Responding at the time to Reeves’ action, the Education Department stated: “Title IX guarantees that no person experiences sex discrimination in a federally funded educational environment. The department crafted the final Title IX regulations following a rigorous process.”

The appeals court ruling included a partial dissent from one member of the three-judge panel.

“All three members of the panel, it bears emphasis, agree that these central provisions of the Rule should not be allowed to go into effect on August 1,” the majority ruling said. “Our modest disagreement turns on the question, in this emergency setting, of whether the other parts of the Rule can be separated from these central provisions.”

Read more.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑