Donald Trump policies on transgender and non-binary people

A New Phase in Trump’s Transgender Policies Since returning to the presidency in January 2025, Donald Trump has pursued an agenda aimed at rolling back many of the rights and protections gained by transgender and nonbinary Americans over the last decade. Through a series of executive orders and policy changes, his administration redefined “sex” strictly as biological sex assigned at birth, eliminated recognition of gender identity on many federal documents, restricted access to gender-affirming care, and targeted transgender participation in sports and government institutions.  For much of 2025, many of these policies ran into strong resistance: lawsuits were filed, lower courts blocked enforcement, and civil-rights organizations mobilized to protect affected populations.  But starting in the later part of 2025, a series of rulings — especially from higher courts — have begun to tilt the legal balance in favor of the administration. One recent headline summed it up: the Trump administration is “starting to see wins in transgender court battles.”  This article explores in detail what those wins are, why they matter, and what their implications may be for transgender and nonbinary Americans.  

What Are the Key Policies at Stake? To understand why these court rulings matter, it helps to first understand what key policies the Trump administration has tried to implement — and why these policies triggered lawsuits and resistance. 🔹 Defining Gender as Biological Sex Only Shortly after taking office in 2025, the administration issued a sweeping executive order (Executive Order 14168) that defined “sex” for all federal government purposes strictly according to biological sex assigned at birth. Under this order: federal agencies were instructed to use “sex” (not gender identity), remove materials that “promote gender ideology,” and halt funding for gender-affirming care. Documents like passports, visas, and other identification were to reflect sex at birth, not gender identity.  🔹 Passport Gender Markers and Official Documents Before 2025, under previous administrations, the U.S. State Department allowed transgender and nonbinary applicants to change the sex marker on their passports to reflect their gender identity. In 2021, a notable update allowed applicants to self-select options (male, female) without medical documentation — and introduced a third option “X” for nonbinary or intersex individuals.  The new order reversed that, requiring passports to display the sex assigned at birth. That change sparked lawsuits from transgender and nonbinary individuals, who argued that restricting gender designation violated their rights under the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.  🔹 Military Service, Prisons, and Gender-Affirming Care Under the new policy framework, the administration also sought to bar transgender individuals from serving in the military, restrict access to gender-affirming medical care for minors, limit transgender placement in prisons (e.g., forcing trans women into men’s prisons), and exclude trans individuals from gender-specific government programs or benefits.  

Transgender Participation in Sports 

Expanding its reach into education and athletics, the administration (via another executive order, Executive Order 14201) aimed to ban transgender women and girls from participating in women’s sports teams. Schools and institutions that allowed such participation faced threats of losing federal funding under Title IX.  Collectively, the administration’s actions represented one of the most aggressive federal-level efforts in decades to curtail transgender rights and codify a narrow, biologically determined definition of sex. These policies, for many transgender and nonbinary Americans, threatened to erase recognition of their gender identity in crucial aspects of daily life — from travel, identity, health care, to public services.  

The Legal Backlash: Early Court Challenges Predictably, many of these policies did not go unchallenged. Civil-rights groups, LGBTQ+ organizations, and individuals brought lawsuits. Courts at different levels intervened, in many cases blocking enforcement of the Trump administration’s orders — at least temporarily. Here are some of the key early contestations: In the case of gender-affirming care for minors and bans on trans healthcare, lawsuits like PFLAG v. Trump and others challenged the executive orders. In several states (WA, OR, MN, etc.) courts issued restraining orders and preliminary injunctions to block those orders.  In the prison context, some transgender prisoners filed lawsuits arguing that being placed in men’s prisons or being denied gender-affirming treatment violated their rights under the Eighth Amendment (protection against cruel and unusual punishment) and due process. Courts responded with temporary restraining orders.  LGBTQ+ health organizations — for instance, in San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump — challenged the administration’s moves to strip DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) programs of funding, arguing such moves violated constitutional protections and threatened community health. A district judge granted a preliminary injunction restoring some funding.  

For a time, these legal battles appeared to roll back or stall many of the administration’s more controversial policies. The momentum seemed to favor transgender and nonbinary rights defenders — at least in some corners of the U.S. judiciary.  

A Shift: Why Trump Is “Starting to See Wins” But beginning in late 2025, the landscape began to shift. Several rulings from higher courts — especially the U.S. Supreme Court — have sided with the Trump administration, giving it the breathing room to begin enforcing some of its policies while legal challenges play out. This shift helps explain media assessments that the administration is now “starting to see wins in transgender court battles.”  Here are the most consequential victories so far: Passport Gender Marker: A Major Legal Win On November 6, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) granted a request from the administration to stay a lower-court order that had temporarily blocked enforcement of the policy restricting passport gender markers to sex at birth.  Concretely: this means that while the larger lawsuit proceeds, the administration can enforce its policy — preventing transgender and nonbinary Americans from obtaining passports with gender markers that match their identity (or “X” markers), at least for now.  The Court’s reasoning (in its emergency order) was that displaying sex at birth on passports is analogous to listing someone’s country of birth — a historical fact — and does not necessarily constitute discriminatory treatment under equal protection.  For the administration, it was a symbolic and practical victory: not only did it validate their stance on sex/gender, but it opened the door for immediate enforcement of a major policy targeting transgender people’s travel and identity documentation rights. Military Service Ban, Health Funding, and Other Policies — The High Court’s Deference In May 2025, the Court allowed the administration’s ban on transgender individuals serving in the military to take effect while litigation continues.  Similarly, for other executive actions — such as cuts to grants for LGBTQ-related research or DEI programs, restrictions on gender-affirming care, and changes to other gender-related regulations — the Court has shown a pattern of granting stays or interim rulings in favor of the administration when asked.  Observers note that the Court’s conservative majority has intervened far more often and more quickly than past courts might have — effectively shifting the advantage from plaintiffs to the government, at least for now.  The result: many of the administration's policies — previously blocked or stalled in lower courts — are now being implemented or enforced pending final rulings. Strategically Targeted Approach and “Interim Wins” Part of why these wins are happening now is strategic: the administration often brings these issues before the Supreme Court on emergency or interim motions, asking for stays while appeals are pending. Given the Court’s 6-3 conservative composition and its recent willingness to grant such stays, the administration’s approach is increasingly effective.  In effect, many of these “wins” are not final legal affirmations, but interim rulings that allow policies to be enforced while lawsuits continue — giving the administration leverage and time. Thus, even though long-term outcomes remain unclear, the administration has gained operational control over many of its transgender-targeted policies.  

Why These Wins Matter 

Impacts on Real People & Institutions It might be tempting to view these court victories as “just legal technicalities,” but in practice they have real and serious consequences for millions of people — and the institutions that serve them. Identity & Travel Documents For transgender and nonbinary people, a passport that does not reflect their gender identity isn’t just a legal inconvenience: it can lead to misgendering, harassment, profiling, or even refusal of service. The reinstatement of the sex-at-birth passport policy — even temporarily — strips many individuals of their ability to travel safely and with dignity. For nonbinary individuals, the elimination of the “X” gender marker erases legal recognition entirely. 🪖 Military Service & Federal Employment Allowing the administration’s ban on trans military service to take effect has immediate and sweeping consequences. Transgender people risk job loss, denied enlistment, canceled deployments, or loss of benefits. More broadly, it sends a signal that gender identity is not protected in federal institutions under the current administration’s definition. 🏥 Health Care and Access to Services Policies restricting gender-affirming care, and those defunding programs related to transgender health or LGBTQ rights, can harm already-vulnerable populations. Clinicians may hesitate to provide care; organizations may shutter gender-affirming programs; individuals may lose access to medically necessary treatment. 🏫 Education, Sports, and Public Funding Banning transgender women/girls from women’s sports—or removing federal funding from schools that allow trans participation—does more than deny athletic opportunities. It institutionalizes a narrow, biological-only view of sex in education and public life. That can widen stigma, increase exclusion, and further alienate transgender youth. ⚖️ Legal Precedent and Future Cases Perhaps most significantly for the long-term, these interim rulings may reshape how future courts treat transgender rights cases. If courts routinely defer to the government under claims of “biological sex” or “historical fact,” then future challenges — even if well supported — may struggle to gain footing.  

Pushback, Resistance, and Ongoing Legal Battles Despite the recent court wins for the Trump administration, resistance has not ended. Civil rights groups, LGBTQ+ organizations, activists, and individuals continue to challenge the legality and constitutionality of these policies — and some courts have still pushed back. Legal groups like Legal Defense Fund (LDF) have publicly condemned recent rulings (such as the passport stay) as enabling “punishment, endangerment, and humiliation of transgender people,” calling for continued resistance.  Lawsuits remain pending — for example, the challenge to restrictions on trans health care, transgender access to federal funds, and the broader range of executive-order consequences on DEI, transgender recognition, and equal protection under law.  Transgender individuals, communities, and supporters continue to mobilize publicly — through protests, advocacy, legal representation, and raising awareness of the human cost of such policies. Many argue that even interim legal defeats can cause real harm long before courts issue final judgments. 

In short: these “wins” don’t necessarily mark the end of the story. They signal a new phase — one in which the government holds legal leverage, but also one in which struggle and resistance continue.  

What Does This Mean for the Future? At this point, it would be a mistake to view 2025 as the end of transgender rights in the U.S. The legal battles are far from over — many lawsuits remain pending, and final decisions could still swing back in favor of plaintiffs. However, several important trends appear likely to shape the near-term future: The administration will likely continue to take its policy disputes to the federal courts — especially the Supreme Court — knowing that interim victories are possible and can allow enforcement in the meantime. Because many rulings so far are “stay” orders or interim decisions rather than final judgments, the possibility remains that lower courts or future full court opinions could reverse some of these outcomes. But the precedent of giving weight to “biological sex” definitions strengthens the government’s legal arguments in the interim. Transgender individuals may face greater uncertainty, particularly around identity documents, healthcare access, military service, and public accommodations. For many, daily life might involve increased risk of harassment, discrimination, and bureaucratic erasure. 

Civil-rights and LGBTQ+ 

organizations are likely to intensify their resistance — pushing for legislative protections (e.g., federal nondiscrimination laws), public advocacy, and legal strategies to challenge not just individual policies but the broader push to erase gender identity from federal law. The broader social and political climate may shift. Even beyond courts, institutions — universities, employers, service providers, social service organizations — may change how they treat transgender people, influenced by federal policy. 

In short: while victories by the administration have real power, they may also galvanize deeper and more sustained resistance.  

A Moment of Legal Shift — Not Yet Final The recent wave of court decisions favoring the Trump administration represents a clear shift in momentum. After a period of setbacks, the legal tide is turning — at least for now. Policies once blocked or stalled are now being enforced, and many transgender and nonbinary Americans face new challenges to their identity, safety, and legal recognition. Yet these are not final, iron-clad rulings. The ongoing litigation — from civil-rights lawsuits to challenges over healthcare, identity documents, and public funding — means the legal battle is far from over. The outcome will likely hinge on courts, future legislative action, and the resilience of transgender communities and their allies. For now, the U.S. finds itself at a crossroads: one path leads toward deeper legal recognition and protection of transgender rights; the other moves toward institutionalized erasure and restriction under strict biological definitions of sex. The coming months and years will show which path becomes the dominant force.