The House on Wednesday voted to pass a bill that could imprison health care providers for providing gender-affirming care for minors.
The bill — titled the “Protect Children’s Innocence Act” and sponsored by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia — would make it a class C felony to treat minors with gender-affirming care like surgeries and puberty blockers. If enacted, the bill could imprison doctors who provide such care for up to ten years.
It’s unclear whether the GOP-led Senate will take up the measure, though it is unlikely it would get enough Democratic support to pass out of that chamber.
The House vote was 216-211. Three Democrats supported the measure, while four Republicans were opposed.
Greene said last week she secured floor consideration of her bill as part of a deal with leaders who wanted her to drop her opposition to advancing a critical defense policy bill.
Civil rights groups including the American Civil Liberties Union described Greene’s bill as “the most extreme anti-trans legislation ever considered by Congress.”
Ahead of the vote, Democratic Rep. Sarah McBride criticized congressional Republicans as being “obsessed with trans people.”
“I actually think they think more about trans people than trans people think about trans people,” said McBride, who is the first out transgender member of Congress.
“They are consumed with this, and they are extreme on it,” the Delaware Democrat added.
A second bill, sponsored by GOP Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Texas, prohibits federal Medicaid funding for “gender transition procedures for minors.” The House is expected to vote on that bill on Thursday.
McBride said Wednesday that Republicans were “trying to politicize a misunderstood community and misunderstood care.”
“No one’s healthcare should be politicized,” she said.
The Justice Department has instructed the Federal Bureau of Investigation to crack down on supposed “domestic terrorist” organizations, the definition of which includes those who promote “radical gender ideology.” Part of that crackdown involves the establishment of a cash reward system for providing information on leaders of so-called “domestic terrorist organizations.”
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memorandum to federal prosecutors and law enforcement agencies on December 4, in accordance with NSPM-7, President Donald Trump’s September directive ordering the investigation of “domestic terrorist” organizations. At the time, NSPM-7 did not come with any enforcement mechanisms; Bondi’s memo provides specific instructions to prosecutors and law enforcement agencies.
The Bondi memo was leaked on December 8, and on Tuesday, LGBTQ Nation first reported on the fact that the memo includes “radical gender ideology” as part of its definition of “domestic terrorism.” In additional to “radical gender ideology,” the memo also defines potential domestic terrorist ideologies as “extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders… anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity… hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality,” and more. Under the Trump administration, “radical gender ideology” has been used as a catchall phrase to encompass issues related to trans and nonbinary communities.
The memo encourages prosecutors to “be particularly mindful of the potential applicability” of charges such as “picketing or parading with intent to obstruct the administration of justice,” “obstruction during civil disorders,” and “providing material support for terrorist activity.” In other words, the memo encourages prosecutors to press charges against certain forms of protest, or for providing supposed aid to organizations that promote what the government is now defining as “terrorist activity.”
The material support statute, in particular, has been used to significantly hinder the work of humanitarian groups, and has been widely criticized for prohibiting free speech. According to the ACLU, material support is defined as any “service,” “training,” “expert advice or assistance,” or “personnel” — an incredibly vague definition that has been used to surveil people and groups without basis since the implementation of the Patriot Act in 2001. Contemporarily, Hina Shamsi, the director of the ACLU’s national security project, wrote about the worrying implications of NSPM-7 on the ACLU’s website in October, stating, “If anyone needed proof that ‘terrorism’ and ‘political violence’ are slippery and fraught categories subject to political, ideological, and racial manipulation and bias — well, this is it.”
The Bondi memo also specifically instructs federal law enforcement agencies to “review their files and holdings for Antifa and Antifa-related intelligence,” and deliver those materials to the FBI within 14 days of its issuance. The FBI is also set to “compile a list of groups of entities engaged in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism” within 30 days of issuance. The FBI will also “disseminate an intelligence bulletin on Antifa and Antifa-aligned anarchist violent extremist groups,” including information on “structures, funding sources, and tactics.” Lastly, the memo directs the FBI to better publicize its domestic terrorism tip line, and will “establish a cash reward system for information that leads to the successful identification and arrest of individuals in the leadership of domestic terrorist organizations.”
The language contained in the Bondi memo is reminiscent of that found in a September report from independent journalist Ken Klippenstein. In the report, two anonymous national security experts claimed that the FBI intended to categorize trans people as “Nihilistic Violent Extremists,” a threat category that was created earlier this year. The FBI defines “Nihilistic Violent Extremism” as “criminal conduct… in furtherance of political, social, or religious goals that derive primarily from a hatred of society at large and a desire to bring about its collapse by sowing indiscriminate chaos.” This also ties neatly into the ongoing right-wing attempts to scapegoat trans people for mass shootings and other forms of gun violence, including the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
Notably, all of the federal government’s messaging about “domestic terrorism” ignores the fact that the vast majority of research points to the fact that the bulk of domestic terrorists in the U.S. are aligned with the right-wing.
The Trump administration has set a cap of just 7,500 refugee admissions for 2026, a 94% reduction from the Biden administration’s 125,000-person target, according to a Presidential Determination published Oct. 31 in the Federal Register. A new report from UCLA’s Williams Institute warns the cuts will disproportionately harm LGBTQ refugees worldwide.
At least 62 countries currently maintain laws criminalizing consensual same-sex activity. Thousands of vulnerable individuals face extended waits in dangerous transit countries, according to the report.
LGBTQ refugees encounter unique obstacles under the reduced cap. Many are single adults who fled family persecution and lack reunification pathways that prioritize other refugees. Officials sometimes fail to recognize persecution based on sexual orientation or gender identity, while refugees may fear disclosing their status. Extended waits create economic vulnerability, forcing many into exploitative work situations.
“The lack of reliable data on LGBTQI+ refugees makes the impact of this new cap even harder to measure,” Ari Shaw, director of international programs at the Williams Institute, said in a news release. “Without accurate data, policymakers and service providers cannot fully assess or respond to the needs of LGBTQI+ refugees.”
The Trump administration has not yet appointed a special envoy for LGBTQ rights, eliminating a key referral pathway established under Biden for at-risk individuals, according to the report.
In the midst of the Trump administration’s attacks on both the LGBTQ community and immigrants, the non-profit organization Immigration Equality is working to ensure that queer asylum seekers and refugees have access to legal services.
Immigration Equality, which has represented LGBTQ immigrants since it was founded in 1994, has been a haven for individuals who come from countries where they are persecuted for their identity. They offer both direct representation and a program where asylum seekers’ cases are vetted and matched with pro-bono lawyers.
But since the Trump administration’s recent attacks on immigrants, the process of filing these individuals’ cases and fighting for their safety has become significantly more difficult. Immigration Equality’s director of law and policy, Bridget Crawford, noted in an interview with Gay City News that Trump has been attacking all cases, not just a certain few.
“A lot of what the Trump administration seems to be focused on is not efficient, fair adjudication of claims,” she said. “It seems to be focused on eliminating the claims altogether and preventing people from making them, or quickly dispensing with them without due process.”
Alongside blocking initial claims from being made and removing more than one-third of immigration judges, the appellate courts are also shifting their decisions to move less favorably toward immigrants, despite many of these cases having overwhelming evidence that they meet the requirements for refugee status and protection.
All of these obstacles have resulted in an uptick in Immigration Equality’s cases being denied, and these issues are being further inflamed after Trump recently announced the pause of many immigrant cases, following the shooting of two West Virginia National Guard members.
But Crawford made sure to note that despite these hardships, Immigration Equality is still winning cases.
“We still have many people, both trans and LGB, who are successful in their claims,” she said. “The reality is that under the law, as it is written, and the precedent as it’s been established for decades, these are very strong claims — people continue to win because they meet the definition of asylum under our law.”
These policies have invoked fear in immigrants pursuing a case, as they are scared of not having their case heard and fear showing up for their case and being put into detention centers, despite following all the correct procedures. Being LGBTQ amplifies this fear.
“As an LGBTQ+ advocacy organization, we have long witnessed mistreatment of our population in the immigration detention system,” Crawford said. A 2024 report published by Immigration Equality revealed that under both Democratic and Republican administrations, there were consistent reports of “sexual harassment, verbal and sexual abuse, physical abuse, prolonged solitary confinement, and inadequate medical care.”
The few protections that were in place to prevent this abuse have gradually been gutted, according to Crawford. These included internal watchdog agencies like the Civil Rights Civil Liberties (CRCL). In the past, if someone filed a complaint of mistreatment, it would be investigated by these internal agencies. Recently, though, these complaints have not been looked into.
Against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s restrictive immigration policies, the work of Immigration Equality is their clients find hope in them, Immigration Equality finds hope in its clients.
“They are the reason we all went into this work in the first place,” said Crawford. “We have these incredible stories of bravery and perseverance that serve as a source of inspiration for all of us. So many of our clients have survived so much worse, and we look to them for a sense of perspective.”
The state of Texas has continued collecting information on transgender drivers seeking to change the sex listed on their licenses, creating a list of more than 100 people in one year.
According to internal documents The Texas Newsroom obtained through records requests, the Texas Department of Public Safety has amassed a list of 110 people who tried to update their gender between August 2024 and August 2025. Employees with driver’s license offices across the state, from El Paso to Paris to Plano, reported the names and license numbers of these people to a special agency email account. Identifying information was redacted from the records released to The Texas Newsroom.
The data was collected after Texas stopped allowing drivers to update the gender on their licenses unless it was to fix a clerical error. It is unclear what the state is doing with this information.
An agency spokesperson did not respond to questions about why the list was created and whether it was shared with any other agencies or state officials. The Texas Newsroom filed records requests in an attempt to find the answers but did not receive any additional information that sheds light on what the state may be doing with these names.
In recent years, GOP lawmakers have passed multiple laws restricting the rights of transgender Texans, including two new measures that went into effect this year.
One defines “male” and “female” on state documents as being based on a person’s reproductive system. The other, known as the “bathroom bill,” bars governments from allowing people to use a restroom at public buildings, parks or libraries that do not match their sex at birth.
While it’s unclear how the state plans to enforce the bathroom bill, transgender activist Ry Vazquez told KUT News she was asked to show her ID before using a restroom in the state Capitol earlier this month. Vazquez said she and three other people were then cited with criminal trespassing and banned from the building for a year.
Landon Richie, the policy coordinator with the Transgender Education Network of Texas, is concerned that the list the state is keeping will be used to pass more state laws targeting the rights of transgender Texans.
“The state collecting this information raises a lot of red flags, not just in terms of people’s privacy and ability to exist not under a magnifying glass,” he said. He added that he wonders “how this information will be leveraged in terms of drafting and crafting additional legislation” to chip away at the civil rights and freedoms of transgender Texans.
For years, transgender people in Texas could update their state IDs to match their gender identity by obtaining a court order and then submitting this document to the state agencies that issue driver’s licenses and birth certificates. After the state restricted updates to driver’s licenses last fall, the state’s health agency followed suit, blocking changes to birth certificates other than to correct hospital errors or omissions.
In March, The Texas Newsroom reported that the state was collecting information on people who continued to ask for these changes despite the policy shift.
The attorney general, whose office determines what records are public, allowed the agency to keep other documents about the policy shift secret. But it did release a list of the four employees with access to the special email account.
The Texas Newsroom also obtained records that show the agency investigated threats against the driver’s license division chief after news of the policy change was made public. But no case was referred to the Travis County Attorney’s Office for prosecution.
The Texas Newsroom has requested an updated version of the list.
A county government in central North Carolina has dissolved its entire public library board after trustees voted to keep a children’s picture book about a transgender character on library shelves, turning a local book challenge into one of the most severe reprisals yet in the national campaign against LGBTQ-inclusive materials.
The Randolph County Board of Commissioners voted 3–2 last week to dismiss all members of the county library board, weeks after trustees declined to move or remove Call Me Max, a picture book about a transgender boy who asks his teacher to use his chosen name. The decision followed a public hearing that drew nearly 200 residents and revealed a community split almost evenly between those calling for the board’s removal and those urging commissioners to respect the library’s review process.
Library staff and trustees had reviewed the complaint earlier this fall and, in October, voted to keep the book in the children’s section, concluding it complied with the county’s collection policies, local CBS affiliate WFMY reported. Commissioners nonetheless moved to dissolve the nine-member board outright — a step allowed under North Carolina law but rarely taken.
Free-expression advocates said the action represents a dramatic escalation in the political response to book challenges. Kasey Meehan, director of the Freedom to Read program at PEN America, told The Washington Post that Randolph County’s decision is among the harshest penalties she has seen imposed over a single title.
“It’s a pretty dramatic response to wanting to have diverse and inclusive books on shelves,” Meehan said.
Opponents of the book claimed the dispute was a matter of child protection. Tami Fitzgerald, executive director of the conservative North Carolina Values Coalition, which urged supporters to attend the commission meeting, argued that Call Me Max teaches children that their parents may be “wrong” about their gender.
The book has been banned by several school districts and was prominently invoked by RepublicanFlorida Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2022 while promoting his so-called “don’t say gay” legislation restricting classroom discussions of gender identity, a law later challenged in court.
To critics, the Randolph County episode demonstrates how procedural safeguards are increasingly overridden when LGBTQ+ inclusion is at stake. Kyle Lukoff, the book’s author, who is a trans man, said the case is especially troubling because the library followed its own policies and was still punished.
“Policies can be helpful, but this is ultimately a question of power,” Lukoff told The Post. “If there are people in power who believe trans people don’t belong in their communities or the world at large, they will twist those policies to make it a reality.”
Randolph County, home to about 150,000 people, voted nearly four to one for President Donald Trump. Commissioners have not announced when or how they plan to reconstitute the library board.
The Colorado High School Activities Association (CHSAA) has settled a lawsuit brought by right-wing school districts for the right for schools to bar trans students from joining sports teams that align with their gender. The lawsuit targeted multiple defendants and will continue with the remaining ones without CHSAA’s involvement.
“Eligibility decisions have always been left to individual schools and districts, which is why being named in this lawsuit was both frustrating and unnecessary,” a CHSAA spokesperson said in a statement. She went on to call the organization’s inclusion in the lawsuit “much more performative than substantive.”
The lawsuit was brought by several school districts but was led by District 49. That district’s board passed a controversial trans sports ban back in May by a narrow margin. The lawsuit against the state was filed the day after the policy was voted in, calling for Colorado to allow the ban to be enacted and to align policies with the demands laid out in the president’s “two sexes” executive order.
Colorado has state laws prohibiting discrimination against trans people, specifically people’s gender identity or gender expression. While the lawsuit cites the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in arguing that trans girls playing on the girls’ team affects the rights of cis girls, it does not mention the impact on the rights of trans girls.
To settle their part of the lawsuit, CHSAA agreed not to sanction the districts and schools named in the lawsuit for banning trans students from sports teams. It will also not respond to statements the schools make about “advantages of biological males over biological females in competitive sports” or potential propaganda about the hazards of “allowing biological males to play contact sports with or against biological females.” There will also be no penalties from CHSAA for forfeiting against a team because they allow trans children to play.
CSHAA has said that it will still sanction the schools and districts if any of those statements are demeaning in nature or call for violence against trans people. The organization is also recouping $60,000 in legal and operational fees.
While some Colorado school districts specifically allow trans students to play sports under their correct gender identity, others have no concrete rules about it. CSHAA has never stepped in over a trans person being allowed to play school sports, or not being able to.
The lawsuit will continue with the Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser and other Colorado Civil Rights Division officials as the remaining defendants.
Colorado’s District 49 has around 27,000 students. In May, Board President Lori Thompson noted that, as far as she was aware, the district had only had one instance of a trans student trying to join a sports team that aligned with their gender identity. The student in question was a trans boy, and they did not pass tryouts.
The University of Oklahoma (OU) recently dismissed a professor for telling students that they wouldn’t be counted absent from her class if they attended an on-campus protest in support of a transgender teaching assistant (TA) who was placed on administrative leave after she failed a student’s essay that referred to trans people as “demonic.” The newly dismissed professor reportedly didn’t give the same option to students who wanted to protest against the trans TA’s reinstatement, OU said.
OU composition professor Kelli Alvarez was accused of viewpoint discrimination for her alleged actions, OU said in an official statement cited by KFOR. OU’s director of first-year composition emailed Alvarez’s students, calling Alvarez’s actions “inappropriate and wrong,” adding, “The university classroom exists to teach students how to think, not what to think.”
The director informed students that they could miss the Friday class to attend either the protest or the counterprotest. The director also noted that Alvarez has been replaced for the remainder of the term, which ends on December 19. OU said it agrees with the director’s actions.
“Classroom instructors have a special obligation to ensure that the classroom is never used to grant preferential treatment based on personal political beliefs, nor to pressure students to adopt particular political or ideological views,” OU wrote in its statement.
At the Friday protest, hundreds of students rallied in support of Mel Curth, a trans TA who OU placed on administrative leave after she gave a student a grade of zero on an essay about a study on gender roles in which the student called trans people “demonic.” The student, Samantha Fulnecky, filed a religious discrimination complaint with OU in November, and the university put Curth on administrative leave.
Students at the protest chanted, “OU shame on you,” “Protect our professors,” and “Justice for Mel,” KOKH-TV reported. Even students who didn’t agree with Curth’s failing grade for the student agreed that Fulnecky’s essay was poorly written and that Curth didn’t need to be put on leave.
At one point in the protest, a Turning Point USA (TPUSA) supporter got in front of the crowd and began counterprotesting.
The OU Chapter of the right-wing young conservatives group published a transphobic tweet saying, “We should not be letting mentally ill professors around students. Clearly this professor lacks the intellectual maturity to set her own bias aside and take grading seriously. Professors like this are the very reason conservatives can’t voice their beliefs in the classroom.”
In her paper, Fulnecky wrote that people aren’t “pressured to be more masculine or feminine,” that she doesn’t see it as a problem when peers use teasing to enforce gender norms, and that “eliminating gender in our society… pulls us farther from God’s original plan.” She also said trans identities are “demonic and severely [harm] American youth.”
In her response, Curth — to whom the OU Department of Psychology recently gave its Outstanding Graduate Teaching Award — wrote that her grade wasn’t because Fulnecky had “certain beliefs,” but rather because the paper “does not answer the questions for this assigment, contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence in a scientific class, and is at times offensive.”
In a statement, OU wrote that it takes First Amendment rights and religious freedoms seriously and began a “full review” of the situation to “swiftly” address the matter, including a “formal grade appeals process” and a review of the student’s claim of “illegal discrimination based on religious beliefs.”
The university also said that Curth had been placed on administrative leave during the finalization of the discrimination review, leaving “a full-time professor” to serve as the course’s instructor for the rest of the semester.
A federal judge has blocked a gender-affirming care ban for trans inmates in Georgia that has been in effect for several months. Judge Victoria Calvert agreed with the plaintiffs that the blanket ban violated the Eighth Amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishment.
“The Court finds that there is no genuine dispute of fact that gender dysphoria is a serious medical need,” Judge Calvert wrote in her opinion. “Plaintiffs, through their experts, have presented evidence that a blanket ban on hormone therapy constitutes grossly inadequate care for gender dysphoria and risks imminent injury.”
Georgia Senate Bill 185 was signed into law in May by Governor Brian Kemp (R). The bill prohibited state funds and resources from being used to provide gender-affirming care to inmates in Georgia prisons. That included hormone replacement therapy (HRT), as well as “sex reassignment surgeries or any other surgical procedures that are performed for the purpose of altering primary or secondary sexual characteristics,” and even “cosmetic procedures or prosthetics intended to alter the appearance of primary or secondary sexual characteristics.”
The bill took effect in July, and five plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against it in August. In addition to arguing that SB 185 constituted cruel and unusual punishment, the lawsuit also claimed that it violated the Equal Protection Clause. HRT and other gender-affirming care treatments were not banned under the bill for all inmates, only for those who were trans. The bill also prohibited trans inmates from paying for the care themselves while incarcerated.
“We would never allow a state to decide that people in prison with diabetes should be cut off of insulin just because the state didn’t want to pay for it anymore,” said Celine Zhu, a Staff Attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is representing the plaintiffs. “So why would we allow Georgia to cut off medically required care for people with a similarly serious diagnosis of gender dysphoria?”
SB 185 was a blanket ban that overruled the opinions of judges, doctors, and the Georgia Department of Corrections, all of whom have previously acknowledged that gender-affirming care is medically necessary for incarcerated trans people.
While the judge’s ruling makes it clear that not every inmate is entitled to gender-affirming care, it puts those decisions back in the hands of medical professionals and the patients rather than having the legislature make medical decisions for trans people.
“The Court requires healthcare decisions for prisoners to be made dispassionately, by physicians, based on individual determinations of medical need, and for reasons beyond the fact that the prisoners are prisoners,” the judge said in her ruling.
Current estimates suggest that there are around 300 out trans people incarcerated in Georgia state prisons.
After the ruling, the Department of Corrections filed a notice of appeal with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
This sort of case has been litigated for over twenty years now. In 2005, Wisconsin introduced a ban on doctors providing trans inmates with gender-affirming care, affecting inmates who had been on hormones since the early 90s. The law was overturned by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the state’s appeal in 2011.
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.
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.