Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Gender-Affirming Care Funding Cut
A federal judge in Seattle has issued a preliminary injunction that prevents the implementation of former President Donald Trump’s plan to withdraw federal funding from institutions providing gender-affirming care to transgender youth. This decision extends a prior temporary restraining order and follows a lawsuit filed by the Democratic attorneys general of Washington, Oregon, and Minnesota, with Colorado later joining the case.
U.S. District Court Judge Lauren King’s ruling, given late Friday, means most of the provisions in Trump’s plan are halted while the case is being decided. The judge noted that the states involved lacked standing on the issue of female genital mutilation, as it is already illegal in those states, and there was no evidence to suggest the plaintiffs intended to perform such procedures.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown responded positively to the ruling, stating, “The president’s disregard for the Constitution is obvious and intentional. But once again, states and the courts have stepped up to affirm the rule of law and the values that hold us together as a nation.”
The case involves two of Trump’s executive orders: “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism,” aimed at removing federal funding from programs promoting gender ideology, and “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” which seeks to cut off research and educational grants to institutions offering gender-affirming care to individuals under 19. Several hospitals have already ceased providing such care following the orders.
Trump’s “Protecting Children” order has implications for Medicaid programs that cover gender-affirming care, suggesting a potential end to this practice. It also raises the possibility of criminal charges for medical professionals providing such care under laws against medically unnecessary genital mutilation of minors, a concept the suing states find legally indefensible.
Youth experiencing gender dysphoria, a condition where a person’s gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth, are at higher risk of severe depression and suicide without treatment. This care can include medical evaluation, social transition, and, if needed, puberty blockers or hormones, though surgery is rare for minors.
Judge King pointed out that the order’s lack of specificity could prevent federally funded providers from offering necessary treatments unrelated to gender identity, highlighting a discrepancy where cisgender teens could receive puberty blockers as cancer treatment, but transgender teens with the same condition could not.
In court, Washington Assistant Attorney General William McGinty emphasized the stakes, stating, “There are going to be young people who are going to take their lives if they can no longer receive this care.”
The language in the executive orders, using terms like “maiming” and “sterilizing,” contrasts with the accepted medical understanding of gender-affirming care, which is supported by major medical organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association.
During the court proceedings, Judge King questioned Justice Department attorney Vinita Andrapalliyal about the orders’ intent and the definition of gender dysphoria. The states argue that the orders breach equal rights protections, the separation of powers, and states’ rights to regulate non-federal issues.
The Trump administration defends the orders, asserting the president’s authority to direct agencies under their statutory powers. These orders are part of broader actions by Trump affecting transgender rights, including potential bans on transgender military service, restrictions on educational approaches to gender, and prohibitions on transgender athletes in certain sports, all of which have sparked numerous legal challenges.
