What are some examples of recent executive actions affecting LGBTQ+ communities?

The current federal administration has taken a number of actions seeking to limit or eliminate policies that support LGBTQ+ communities throughout the federal government. Some of these actions also seek to place similar limits on state and local government agencies, as well as the private sector, by changing how federal agencies work with, fund, or regulate non-federal actors. Many of these actions are likely illegal, at least in part, and all have been challenged in court. We provide further information about ongoing court cases in later sections of this document.

Some recent executive orders affecting LGBTQ+ communities include the following:

• Executive Order 14168 (issued January 20, 2025) states that it is the policy of the federal government to recognize either male or female as a person’s unchangeable sex. The order directs federal agencies to update all agency policies, documents, and forms accordingly. It also prohibits the use of federal funds to promote “gender ideology” and directs federal agencies to enforce sex-based rights only as they relate to two biologically distinct sexes.
• Executive Order 14183 (issued January 27, 2025) instructs the Department of Defense to develop a plan to prohibit enlistment or service in the US armed forces by transgender and other gender-expansive people.
• Executive Order 14187 (issued January 28, 2025) directs federal agencies to work toward eliminating gender-affirming care for youth by prohibiting agencies from “fund[ing], sponsor[ing], promot[ing], assist[ing], or support[ing]” gender-affirming care; prohibits the Department of Veterans Affairs from providing gender-affirming care; prohibits health insurance for federal employees from covering gender-affirming care; and seeks to prohibit recipients of federal funding (such as research grants) or organizations participating in federally supported programs (like Medicare and Medicaid) from providing gender-affirming care.
• Executive Order 14190 (issued January 29, 2025) builds on EO 14168, described earlier. This order directs the secretaries of education, defense, and health and human services to provide recommendations for “eliminating Federal funding or support” for “gender ideology” and “discriminatory equity ideology.” The order seeks to prohibit schools that receive federal funding from providing education on concepts like critical race theory, gender equity, and LGBTQ+ identities; prohibit schools from affirming the identities of transgender or gender-expansive students; and require disclosure of these students’ identities to their parents without the student’s consent.
• Executive Order 14201 (issued February 5, 2025) seeks to prohibit schools that receive federal funding from allowing trans women and transfeminine and intersex people to compete in sports in public schools and public universities. The order also directs the United States to advocate that international bodies such as the United Nations and the International Olympic Committee prohibit inclusion of trans women and transfeminine and intersex people in sports.

Although it does not specifically target LGBTQ+ communities in the United States, Executive Order 14169 — which seeks to freeze funding for and overhaul the US Agency for International Development (USAID) — has affected efforts to end the global HIV epidemic, which disproportionately affects LGBTQ+ communities.

In addition to issuing these new executive orders, the current administration has rescinded various executive orders issued under the Biden-Harris administration in support of LGBTQ+ communities.

LGBTQ+ communities are also affected by the current administration’s attacks on DEIA; see ChangeLab Solutions’ Executive Orders on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Accessibility: FAQs.

What actions have federal agencies taken in response to recent executive orders?

• Federal agencies have begun to restrict gender on identity documents in the following ways:
  • The Department of State is now only issuing passports and other identifying documents that match the applicant’s “biological sex at birth” and has eliminated X gender markers.
  • The Social Security Administration is no longer processing gender marker updates.
  • The US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has updated its policies and forms to remove the option for X gender markers and instead require the applicant’s “biological sex at birth.”
• Federal agencies have been directed to remove policy documents and previous guidance that are supportive of LGBTQ+ people.
• Federal agencies have removed materials and data related to LGBTQ+ health and stopped collecting data on transgender identity.
• The Department of Defense has taken steps to separate gender-expansive servicemembers from the military and prohibit their enlistment.
• The Department of Veterans Affairs has begun to phase out gender-affirming care.

What are the limits of recent executive orders affecting LGBTQ+ communities?

The Supreme Court has explained that executive orders must be rooted in one of the president’s powers as outlined in the US Constitution or a law passed by Congress. Thus, the US Constitution and existing federal laws limit what executive orders can cover.

Executive orders and other presidential actions are typically used to manage the internal operations of federal agencies and employees under the president’s control. They cannot change existing law, such as the Constitution, statutes, or current judicial interpretation of laws. Activities that were aligned with existing law before the executive orders were issued remain legal today.

For LGBTQ+ communities, federal statutes that may limit the applicability or legality of recent executive orders (in addition to state and local protections) include the following:

• The Civil Rights Acts (particularly Title VII, which prohibits discrimination in employment, and Title IX, which prohibits discrimination in education)
• The Affordable Care Act (which prohibits discrimination in health care)

To learn more about general limits on executive orders, see Act for Public Health’s resource Executive Orders & Public Health Practice: FAQs.

Do recent executive orders mean that _____ (gender-affirming care, trans people competing in sports, etc.) is now illegal?

Not necessarily. Recall that this explainer addresses only federal executive orders. Many states and localities have passed laws affecting the LGBTQ+ community as well. Support for LGBTQ+ communities may be required by various aspects of federal and state laws, especially protections under civil rights and nondiscrimination laws. Tensions between executive actions, different laws, and different jurisdictions must generally be resolved by courts, making it especially important to remain aware of developments in the many legal cases involving recent executive orders. (See subsequent sections of this document for more information and resources).

Again, recent executive orders do not change any underlying laws. However, by using enforcement and litigation as tools and by advancing a different interpretation of the law, the federal administration could lay the groundwork for future changes to law through court decisions.

In some instances, an agency or organization’s failure to support LGBTQ+ communities may make it more vulnerable to claims of unlawful discrimination. For example, the Supreme Court has held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects people from employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Overcompliance with anti-DEIA efforts to limit hiring or inclusion of LGBTQ+ people or communities in the workplace may therefore put agencies and organizations at risk of violating nondiscrimination law. For this reason, organizations — particularly non-federal agencies and private-sector organizations, which are not under the president’s direct control — should avoid unnecessary overcompliance. However, the general atmosphere of confusion and threats to rescind federal funding or commence federal enforcement actions may coerce state and local agencies and private entities into compliance or deter them from exercising their right to challenge federal executive actions, even when they cannot be required by law to comply.

What are the nature and status of ongoing legal challenges to recent executive orders affecting the LGBTQ+ community?

All of these executive orders have been challenged by at least one lawsuit, and several are the subject of multiple lawsuits. Common grounds for challenges involve numerous constitutional protections:

• Equal protection — prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex or gender, which may include gender identity or transgender status
• Procedural due process — establishing the right to be notified and have your legal case heard before your rights are changed or taken away
• First Amendment — protecting transgender and gender-expansive people in their gender expression and protecting medical providers in discussing gender-affirming care or providing it to their patients
• Separation of powers — prohibiting the president from exceeding executive authority and from taking actions that the Constitution reserves for other branches of government

Claims have also been made under federal statutes, especially those that include civil rights and nondiscrimination protections. Some claims have cited the Administrative Procedure Act, which limits the authority of executive agencies and requires them to follow certain procedures before making changes that affect people’s rights.

Other grounds include Eighth Amendment rights for people who are incarcerated to be held free from substantial risk of harm and to receive medically necessary care. Constitutional rights to privacy and to travel have also been cited as grounds for challenges.

The courts have issued many temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions that prevent the government from trying to enforce executive orders while litigation against them continues. However, the current administration has filed some appeals that seek to undo these restraining orders and injunctions. In addition, the restraining orders and injunctions may be limited in nature — for example, applying only to the specific parties in the case or within specific jurisdictions. It is important that you work with local counsel in your jurisdiction to understand how ongoing litigation or injunctions might apply where you live.

One important case to follow is PFLAG v. Trump, which has brought the broadest challenge to Executive Orders 14168 and 14187 on “gender ideology” and gender-affirming care.

For additional information about ongoing litigation, see the trackers and resources listed at the end of this document.

How might recent executive orders related to LGBTQ+ communities affect public health practice?

A hostile social environment, stigmatization, and discrimination contribute to adverse health outcomes in LGBTQ+ communities. Efforts to restrict gender-affirming care, in particular, are harmful to the public’s health. Trans and gender-expansive people, especially youth, experience significant disparities in mental health outcomes, and gender affirmation (including appropriate medical care) has consistently been shown in studies to improve mental well-being, including reduced depression, anxiety, and suicidality, making gender affirmation a life-saving treatment for some individuals.

Recent executive orders are already having negative effects on public health practice. Researchers have lost funding, and loss of data and loss of important federal materials on LGBTQ+ health could result in critical gaps in knowledge and an inability to respond appropriately to public health issues related to the LGBTQ+ community. Federal workers have lost jobs; federal agencies have had funding cut or are being restructured; and recipients of federal funding may feel unable to act in ways that support LGBTQ+ communities. Even though the executive orders do not apply directly to state and local public health practitioners, they may be affected by threats to funding or loss of funding; state and local laws and policies against LGBTQ+ communities; and overall confusion — all of which contribute to uncertainty, fear about acting, or inability to act.

How might I respond to recent presidential actions affecting LGBTQ+ communities?

To learn more generally about potential responses to executive actions, see Act for Public Health’s resource Executive Orders & Public Health Practice: FAQs.

For LGBTQ+ communities, it may be particularly important for state and local agencies and private entities to continue to collect and maintain data related to LGBTQ+ communities and needs where possible, to help fill gaps created by federal changes, keeping in mind that decision making should be made strategically among partners, with the best available information on the importance of practices potentially restricted by an executive order; the health, fiscal, administrative, or other costs associated with proposed responses to the order; your or your entity’s resources and risk tolerance; and the legality of the order.

Recent executive orders also contribute to an atmosphere in which attacks against LGBTQ+ communities are normalized and people in state and local governments and private organizations are emboldened to take further actions against LGBTQ+ communities. Again, where possible, it may be important for state, local, and community public health practitioners to highlight the importance of LGBTQ+ health and the negative health impacts of federal changes.

As federal agencies continue making changes to implement these executive orders and the orders continue to be challenged in court, public health practitioners may have opportunities to provide expertise through various legal and policy pathways. For example, agencies may propose regulatory changes that require a notice and comment period, allowing public health practitioners and the public to weigh in on the changes and their potential health impacts. Participation in such activities, particularly in your official, professional capacity, may depend on state and local laws; internal agency or organizational policies; and funding restrictions, making it important to consult with legal counsel about what actions are possible or most appropriate for you.

Litigation can also be supported by parties to the case who are directly affected and are challenging the law or action, as well as by amici curiae (“friends of the court”) through amicus briefs. Amici are not parties to the case, but they ask the court for permission to express their perspective on the issues to help the judge or judges make a more informed decision.

Stories of how executive orders have affected public health practitioners and public health are especially important to share. In the context of a lawsuit, such contributions can become crucial evidence. In some cases, it may be possible to present information anonymously. Outside of the court system, information can be published or shared through the press in op-eds or articles; through presentations; on social media; or in other ways.

In you are interested in participating in litigation, as a party or as an amicus, you should work with legal counsel. You can also submit a request for technical assistance from Act for Public Health.

What if I have additional questions?

An attorney can assist with interpretation and help you understand how specific executive orders might or might not apply to your work. If you do not have legal counsel, you might consider engaging a law firm, a nonprofit organization, or a local law school for representation (paid or pro bono).

You can also submit a request for technical assistance to Act for Public Health. Although we cannot provide individualized legal advice, we can provide information.

Additional information about these executive orders and their implications for public health is forthcoming from Act for Public Health. We will update this page with new information as it becomes available.

Resources

Trackers (including tracking of legal challenges to executive orders)

• National LGBTQ+ Bar Association: Trump Anti-LGBTQ+ Executive Order Litigation Tracker
• Democracy 2025: Response Center Tracker
• Just Security: Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions
• Forbes: Here Are All the Major Lawsuits Against Trump and Musk
• Economic Policy Institute: Federal Policy Watch

Other LGBTQ+-specific resources

• Human Rights Campaign: Understanding Executive Orders and What They Mean for the LGBTQ+ Community
• KFF: Overview of President Trump’s Executive Actions Impacting LGBTQ+ Health
• Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law: Publications (including many on the impacts of recent executive orders)
• PFLAG: Executive Order Explainers and Resources
• GLAAD: Order in the Courts: LGBTQ Legal Groups Move Against Discriminatory Executive Actions

Advocacy

• ChangeLab Solutions: Public Health Advocacy: The Basics
• American Public Health Association: Speak for Health
• Global Health Advocacy Incubator: Advocacy Action Guide