The incoming Trump administration is expected to prioritize legislation focused on trans people. President-elect Trump is preparing to take the oath of office with majorities in both the House and the Senate.
In December, during a speech at America Fest here in Phoenix, Trump said that under his administration, ”it will be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female.”
Statements like that are terrifying for many trans Americans. And there's been plenty of concern about the legislative implications of Trump's second term for their community.
Orion Rummler is a reporter for the 19th, and he has been reporting on a series of bills working their way through Congress that specifically target trans people.
As Rummler told The Show recently, Republican lawmakers seem to have two primary areas of focus: restricting access to gender affirming care, and a bill that would make changes to Title IX, the federal civil rights law prohibiting sex discrimination in schools.
Full conversation
ORION RUMMLER: It wants to amend how schools are in compliance with Title IX to say if a school allows a trans girl who's a student to play on women's sports, that school is no longer in compliance with Title IX, which threatens the funding for that school.
SAM DINGMAN: And when it comes to gender affirming care, what do those pieces of legislation look like? What is the aim of those bills?
RUMMLER: The aim of those bills is to revoke federal funds from hospitals that provide gender affirming care.
DINGMAN: For folks who are listening and who may not know from a practical standpoint what we mean when we say gender affirming care, what procedures, what drugs, what does that refer to?
RUMMLER: So for trans youth, gender affirming care means puberty blockers ahead of when they would enter puberty. They go with their parents to receive that care, and then later on they may choose to take a hormone replacement therapy, which would mean estrogen or testosterone.
DINGMAN: Right. And the effects of these restrictions, if enacted, even though they're at the federal level, would still have a palpable effect at the local level, right?
RUMMLER: Oh yeah, revoking federal funds for gender affirming care, that would cut gender transition care for people who receive Medicaid or a subsidized plan under the Affordable Care Act. Every hospital needs federal funds to survive. And so if you look at a specific state: Illinois is one example. The Chicago Tribune has a great story out about this where doctors in Illinois are aware of these threats to revoke federal funding from hospitals that are providing this care.
What doctors in Illinois were saying is we have, we would have to make a choice between providing this care and getting funding, and the choice would be to keep getting funding. Like, it's not a real choice.
DINGMAN: Right, right. And the Medicaid example that you cited is particularly important here too, right? Because a disproportionately large number of trans people rely on Medicaid for health insurance, correct?
RUMMLER: Yeah, so one in five transgender adults are covered through Medicaid, and some of the context there is because of systemic discrimination. A lot of trans people in the U.S. have incomes under $50,000 per year or are unemployed, so those disparities are some of what fuels that need to access Medicaid, which is meant for low-income folks.
DINGMAN: Can you talk a little bit about what would happen to folks who whose care is disrupted in the event that some of this legislation is passed?
RUMMLER: I'm glad you asked. I guess, a trans man is taking testosterone and suddenly stops. Some of the side effects are gonna feel like going through menopause but very quickly. And hormones regulate just a lot of your body, like physically and emotionally. It's just really not advised to suddenly stop taking these hormones, which a lot of trans people, like you're saying, would be they would be faced with that prospect if they just don't have any other option and they can't afford to get it out of pocket.
DINGMAN: Right. So what are you seeing from congressional Democrats in terms of whether or not they'll be supportive of these efforts? Because even though Republicans will control the entire government, their margins in both the House and the Senate are pretty slim. So is there any indication that Democrats are going to be willing to resist this legislation?
RUMMLER: So to me it's actually not clear if they will resist it. And so far, one of the only examples we can point to where Democrats have compromised on trans rights or a trans policy was in like a must-pass bill to fund the federal government.
DINGMAN: Right, in a $1.2 trillion spending package to fund the federal government through the 2024 fiscal year, there was this provision included that would ban U.S. embassies from flying the pride flag.
That example does stick out to me because it strikes me that when it comes to things like gender affirming care or women's sports, Republicans, if they were so inclined, could ostensibly use science as a kind of a smokescreen to deny that there's any ideological motivation behind a bill related to those things.
But a policy about a flag is different. To me that that would sort of suggest that Republicans are feeling emboldened to say we just don't like the idea of queer and trans people, and we don't want the U.S. to be associated with that.
RUMMLER: Oh yeah, even just in the Title IX sports bill that was reintroduced this week, like whenever Republicans in Congress are talking about that bill, they're talking about sports, but what they're really talking about is that they believe that trans women are biologically male. That's the core belief behind this piece of legislation is we don't believe trans women are women.
DINGMAN: Right. A lot of these legislative efforts that we're talking about align with rhetoric that we've seen from Donald Trump, but he also seems to have his own agenda when it comes to trans issues and things he wants to do with or without the legislative support of Congress. Tell us what he has in mind.
RUMMLER: He wants the Justice Department to quote, investigate big pharma and hospital networks to figure out if they have, how he phrases it covered up side effects of gender affirming care or illegally marketed hormones and puberty blockers.
DINGMAN: Right. So, in my memory, and please correct me if I'm wrong, this wasn't really a priority for Trump and or congressional Republicans during Trump's first term, and now all of a sudden it seems to be close to the center of their priorities. Do we have a sense of what has changed, why this is suddenly such a source of apparent concern for them?
RUMMLER: I'm sure that they watched the state level anti-trans policies proliferate over the past couple years. I mean during the Biden administration, so many states have been and state level Republicans have been introducing these bills, and a lot of the rhetoric revolves around protecting kids, protecting women, protecting the sanctity of the family.
There was an Iowa governor who said knowing boys from girls was as vital as knowing the difference between liberty and tyranny. There is a Republican candidate for attorney general in Nevada who called for fewer trans people to exist. I believe she lost her her race. So I'm not suggesting that this rhetoric was doing folks favors politically.
But Republicans at these state levels have become more and more emboldened to use it to get attention to their races. And if we know one thing about Trump, it is that he does love attention. And so to me, that would be part of why this is part of his strategy.
