- All articles

All articles

- 200,000 March In Budapest Pride, Refusing To Capitulate To Anti-LGBTQ+ Law

- Zohran Mamdani Beats Andrew Cuomo for NY Mayoral Bid—Without Abandoning Trans People

- Why You Need to Hear the Speech That Sylvia Rivera Wasn’t Allowed To Give

- Trump Took Stonewall’s Trans Flags. New Yorkers Brought Their Own.

- What Sarah McBride Gets Wrong

- After Getting The Ruling It Wanted, New York Times Publishes 6 Anti-Trans Articles

- Trans Care Clinics, Complying in Advance, Leave Patients Unsure of What’s Next

- SCOTUS Allows For Trans Discrimination In Medical Care: A Full Analysis Of Today's Ruling

- Federal Judge Grants Class Status To Trans People In Passport Case In Massive Win

- Trump Promises Harsher ICE Crackdowns, Blaming "Transgender For Everybody"

200,000 March In Budapest Pride, Refusing To Capitulate To Anti-LGBTQ+ Law

ERIN REED | JUN 28, 2025, 6:22 PM EDT | SOURCE

The march can teach the world the power of organized solidarity in the wake of a global, anti-LGBTQ+ reactionary movement.

Source: Reddit, /u/uasztalosptr

In recent months, it has been easy for LGBTQ+ people to feel despair. Around the world, laws targeting queer and transgender existence have passed at alarming rates—and here in the United States, even acknowledging transgender people can risk the loss of federal funding. The situation is compounded by a Supreme Court increasingly willing to greenlight every overreach of executive power, leaving constitutional challenges without teeth. But as grim as things have become in the U.S., the crackdown in Hungary has been even more severe. There, the government has passed laws banning Pride festivities entirely, even amending its constitution to block any legal challenge to the ban. And yet, that is not where the story ends. While American institutions wrestle with their commitment to the LGBTQ+ community, Budapest has just shown the world how to fight back: led by the city’s mayor, more than 200,000 people defied the ban and marched for Pride anyway.

The marchers crossed the Elisabeth Bridge, led by Budapest Mayor Gergely Karácsony, who defiantly designated the parade an official city event despite threats from Hungary’s federal government. When it came time to address the crowd, he declared, “You don't look like you've been banned… You gave the finger to the pompous, hateful government.” Standing with him were members of the European Parliament, mayors from across Europe, and local organizers—including one person wearing a “Protect the Dolls” T-shirt, a phrase popularized by actor Pedro Pascal and musician Troye Sivan in support of transgender women.

Mayor of Budapest

Hungary has increasingly restricted the rights of LGBTQ+ people—particularly transgender people—under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s far-right government. Laws enacted in recent years include a ban on legal gender recognition for transgender individuals, a so-called “LGBTQ+ propaganda” law designed to censor LGBTQ+ content in media and schools, and a prohibition on same-sex couples adopting children. Most recently, the Hungarian parliament passed legislation declaring pride parades illegal. To reinforce the ban, lawmakers approved a constitutional amendment prioritizing a child’s “moral development” over all other rights, including the right to peaceful assembly. The amendment was crafted specifically to halt Budapest Pride, with Orbán declaring organizers should “save [their] money and energy,” asserting the event would not happen this year.

Organizers and Mayor Gergely Karácsony had other plans. The city officially designated Budapest Pride as a city-sponsored event—an action he argued exempted it from the national ban. The move mirrors strategies employed by some U.S. cities facing similar restrictions. In response to bans on flying the Pride flag, municipalities such as Missoula, Montana; Boise, Idaho; and Salt Lake City, Utah passed resolutions declaring the Pride flag an official city symbol, allowing them to display it during Pride Month.

Despite the designation, Karácsony and other organizers were warned that they could still face criminal charges and up to a one-year prison sentence. Undeterred, they marched anyway. In defiance of an increasingly authoritarian government, they refused to yield to pressure or capitulate. The parade went on, drawing more than 200,000 attendees, according to estimates from organizers.

Here in the United States, similar restrictions are taking hold, and the far right appears to be charting a course increasingly aligned with Hungary in its treatment of LGBTQ+ people—especially transgender individuals. Pride parades in states like Tennessee and Florida have already been canceled due to restrictive laws or government threats, though in some cases, they have been successfully challenged. This week, the Supreme Court ruled that parents have a right to opt their children out of learning about LGBTQ+ people in schools. Book bans continue to spread, and several states have passed laws to eliminate legal recognition for transgender people.

In the face of mounting attacks, it’s easy for LGBTQ+ people in the United States to feel crushed beneath the weight of it all. But moments like Budapest remind us that even under the most repressive regimes, our communities still rise. Against constitutional bans, prison threats, and state-backed intimidation, hundreds of thousands still marched in the largest Pride parade in history there. What Budapest shows us is that no law, no amendment, no authoritarian edict can erase who we are and those who love us. The arc of history may bend slowly, but it does not bend on its own—it bends because we push collectively, and there are so many who have our backs.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/200000-march-in-budapest-pride-refusing at Jun 28, 2025 at 7:21 PM EDT.

Zohran Mamdani Beats Andrew Cuomo for NY Mayoral Bid—Without Abandoning Trans People

S. BAUM | JUN 25, 2025, 3:06 PM EDT | SOURCE

Trump wants to strip kids of life-saving care. Mamdani says he won&#8217;t let it happen.

Zohran Mamdani Official Account

New York City is buzzing with excitement this morning, as State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani—a 33-year-old Democratic Socialist and political upstart—has been declared the tentative winner of yesterday’s Democratic Primary, beating out former Governor Andrew Cuomo for the Democratic nomination for mayor.

Given the size and scope of the election, plus the city’s ranked-choice voting system, formal vote-tallying will continue through next week. But the initial counts are not even close, and Cuomo told a press gaggle on election night: “Tonight is [Zohran’s] night. He deserved it. He won.” (A spokesperson for the campaign later told The New York Times, however, that it was not a “concession speech” per se.)

In contrast to some supposedly strategic pivots made by Democrats across the country, Mamdani’s apparent victory shows that—in the Big Apple, at least—a campaign built under a big tent works. Meanwhile, spending a political career (allegedly) sexually harassing women and courting rightwing anti-trans extremists fell flat with NYC voters.

Earlier this year, Mamdani told Erin in the Morning that he would fight for trans New Yorkers. “The company you keep says a lot about you — and Andrew Cuomo’s is anti-choice, anti-trans activists and billionaires,” he said. “At a time when Donald Trump is already stripping constitutional freedoms from our city’s residents, we need leaders with conviction, not cowardice.”

Mamdani is also the only mayoral candidate out of the crowded Democratic pool who appears to have participated in the protests against NYC hospitals complying in advance to Trump’s anti-trans health care legal threats.

“In light of Trump’s illegal executive order, the question is being asked: Who are we willing to give up?” Mamdani said in a February social media video, captured in the crowds of one such demonstration. “If you’re NYU Langone, Mt. Sinai, [New York] Presbyterian [Hospital] or Mayor Adams, the answer seems to be everyone. But for the rest of us, it's no one.”

Cuomo said he still may run as an independent, which would still make for a competitive general race alongside the GOP’s Curtis Sliwa and current Mayor Eric Adams, who will be also running as an independent. But Mamdani has energized young voters in the city, especially queer and trans young people.

He’s also gained endorsements from various LGBT organizations, as well as the likes of Senator Bernie Sanders, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Attorney General Letitia James—one of the few state Attorneys General who took hospitals and clinics to task over the cessation of trans-affirming care.

Here’s what you need to know about Mamdani’s platform for LGBT rights.

1. He promises to invest $65 million in public providers of trans affirming care, to offset the federal funding withheld by the Trump Administration.

“The Mamdani Administration will budget $65 million in funding to explicitly support and expand access to Gender Affirming Care (GAC) in NYC,” his LGBT policy platform states. “It will direct $57 million to public hospitals, community clinics, federally qualified health centers, and nonprofits providing GAC. In the face of the Trump administration’s proposed elimination of federal support for GAC and his threats to care for adults, this infusion will protect GAC access for both transgender youth and adults.”

The remaining $8 million will be directed to improving the quality of health care through increased telehealth capabilities and a greater emphasis on aftercare and home health support for trans patients.

2. He vows to hold hospitals accountable if they unlawfully capitulate to Trump’s anti-trans demands in advance.

“Hospitals that continue to deny trans youth access to gender-affirming care are in violation of NYS Constitution, as well as multiple state and city laws,” the platform says. “The Mamdani administration will coordinate with the NYS Attorney General and District Attorneys to investigate and hold public hearings on hospitals that deny trans youth their rightful healthcare and hold them accountable to the law.”

3. He says he will make NYC an LGBT Sanctuary City, fortifying protections for trans youth, their families, and their providers.

As per his platform, this includes expanding the 2023 NY Safe Haven for Transgender Youth and Families Act and the 2019 NY Reproductive Health Act; protecting trans New Yorkers by ensuring that private information regarding one’s sex assigned at birth and healthcare will not be shared with other jurisdictions; and safeguarding trans-affirming health care providers from federal harassment and prosecution.

4. He pledges to support the incarcerated trans community.

The Mamdani Administration would follow recommendations from the Task Force on Issues Faced by TGNCNBI People in Custody “in order to ensure the law is actually followed and incarcerated trans New Yorkers are treated with dignity.” This includes Mamdani’s support of Intro 625, a bill that would amend the administrative code of New York City to protect the human rights of transgender and gender non-conforming people in jails.

5. He plans to create an NYC Office of LGBTQIA+ Affairs.

“LGBTQIA+ New Yorkers represent at least 15 percent of the city's population and they intersect and enrich every community in NYC, yet they have unique needs that are underfunded and unaddressed,” Mamdani’s platform says. “While the Adams administration stripped the funding for the Unity Project, leaving one person to manage all LGBTQIA+ city programs, the Mamdani administration will create an Office of LGBTQIA+ Affairs [to] oversee and implement LGBTQIA+ initiatives and coordination” across the city.

Dedicated resources to LGBT care will likely be especially critical in the coming months as the White House continues to target trans-affirming policies through attempts to defund or even prosecute health care providers. These efforts have been supercharged by the recent, devastating anti-trans Skrmetti decision at the Supreme Court.

But for today, many New Yorkers are feeling a glimmer of hope; and trans people across the country have been shown we are not political collateral, but important pillars of a broad-based coalition furthering progressive values.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/zohran-mamdani-beats-andrew-cuomo at Jun 28, 2025 at 7:21 PM EDT.

Why You Need to Hear the Speech That Sylvia Rivera Wasn’t Allowed To Give

S. BAUM | JUN 24, 2025, 11:36 AM EDT | SOURCE

Sylvia Rivera was met with jeers and boos at one of the very first Pride Parades on this day in 1973. Here&#8217;s why that matters now.

On this day, June 24, in 1973, Sylvia Rivera—a founding mother of the queer and trans liberation movement—took to the stage for the fourth annual Christopher Street Liberation Day Rally, as it was called back then. Now, we know it as Pride.

Despite the the parade supposedly honoring the movement she helped ignite, Rivera had to climb up onto the stage at Washington Square Park in New York City and take the mic by force. As she looked out onto the crowd of people gathering to honor the Stonewall Uprisings, just four years prior, members of the crowd erupted in hisses and boos.

She began: “I’ve been trying to get up here all day for your gay brothers and your gay sisters in jail that write me every motherfucking week and ask for your help, and you all don’t do a goddamn thing for them.”

This might be unfathomable to queer activists today, especially younger ones, for whom the names Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson borders on holy. But that wasn’t the case in 1973. Rivera and Johnson were women of color, were sex workers, were in and out of houselessness. They lived among the street queens routinely hauled off to prison for merely “walking while trans.” And there are important lessons we can and must take from them to make sense of the terror we face and feel today.

“I have been beaten. I have had my nose broken. I have been thrown in jail,” Rivera told the crowd. “I have lost my apartment for gay liberation and you all treat me this way? What the fuck's wrong with you all?”

The most marginalized in the community have always been both the most likely agitators to fight for change, and least likely to reap its benefits.

So, this Pride Month, as corporate logos flicker in and out of rainbow hues and elected officials reveal themselves to be fair weather allies, there’s one particular group we should keep in our minds, hearts and activism: the incarcerated trans community.

Disparately targeted by state violence, cast aside in mainstream conversations about trans health, rights and life, and vulnerable to the most gut-wrenching whims of this administration, they challenge traditional paradigms about transgender rights. In a world that tells us we must be good enough, must pass enough, must conform enough to be worthy of freedom and liberty, it is profoundly radical—and necessary—to say, “These, too, are our people.”

We must not allow our government or our movement to consider those living on the margins expendable. If it becomes morally palatable to discard some of us, they will one day discard all of us. Being “one of the good ones” just won’t cut it, especially as more and more facets of trans life become criminalized—through health care bans, through “drag bans,” and through the criminalization efforts targeting the supportive teachers, doctors or parents of trans youth.

It's a terrifying truth, but it is also true that trans communities of color have been subjected to police violence for as long as there have been police. In other words: This battle is not new. We have come this way before, and for some, it has always been this way. The resistance did not start or end with Stonewall.

It’s also important to note that trans people are more likely to be incarcerated not because of some biological predisposition towards crime, but often because of systems outside of personal control—racism, sexism, and transphobia, entrenched in our systems of law and punishment and in our everyday lives.

When I think of Pride today, I think of Cece McDonald, imprisoned for defending herself against anti-trans attackers. I think of Miss Major, sentenced to five years over a robbery she probably would not have committed if her parents hadn’t disowned her as a teen, leaving her homeless. I think of her two subsequent stints in jail: “The first time for wearing makeup, and the second for entering a bar known for catering to ‘deviants,’” as per the archives of OUTWORDS.

I think of the many trans people sitting in prison today who are subjected to draconian anti-trans violence. In Florida, for example, medical staff (often male) routinely force trans women into a humiliating ritual—making them lift up their shirt, measuring their breasts, and determining whether they are “developed” enough to be legally entitled to a bra, as per The Marshall Project. Otherwise, they are forced to surrender all of their feminine clothing, such as underwear and any feminine toiletry items. Many are forced to shave their heads and face solitary confinement if they resist.

Trans men, too, experience this kind of senseless medical violence—such as an incarcerated trans man in New York subjected to an arbitrary “genital exam.” He was initially sent to solitary when he didn’t comply. He sued the city afterwards—and won a settlement, New York Focus reports.

The Constitution, as flawed a document as it is, still (in theory) prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment.” Nonetheless, throwing a woman into a men’s prison, where she will likely experience rampant sexual violence, and/or forcibly detransitioning people en masse, is still a de facto form state-sanctioned punishment.

As for Sylvia Rivera—let us remember how she organized among the street queens and the queer kids without families to go home to. That the work was messy, and sometimes violent. That there was never a golden age of unity within the queer liberation movement, that there have always been partitions based on race, class and privilege. If we want to survive, we need to keep us safe—every last one of us.

Rivera continued her speech through the jeers. “I believe in the gay power,” she cried out. “I believe in us getting our rights, or else I would not be out there fighting for our rights. The people are trying to do something for all of us, and not just men and women that belong to a white middle class white club [...] Revolution now!”

To learn more about how to help incarcerated trans people, you can go to the Anti-Violence Project, the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, or the Transgender Gender-Variant & Intersex Justice Project (TGIJP) and donate.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/why-you-need-to-hear-the-speech-that at Jun 28, 2025 at 7:21 PM EDT.

Trump Took Stonewall’s Trans Flags. New Yorkers Brought Their Own.

S. BAUM | JUN 23, 2025, 8:58 PM EDT | SOURCE

It is impossible to separate the transgender community from the history of Stonewall, no matter how hard the government may try.

Credit Kevin Kinery

The Trump Administration removed trans flags—as well as flags honoring Black and brown queer communities—from the Stonewall National Monument, but New Yorkers aren’t having it.

As the site of the 1969 Stonewall Uprisings that define the LGBTQ liberation movement as we know it today, the landmark falls under federal jurisdiction. This means when the Trump Administration took the White House, the memorial to queer resistance became subject to the whims of a certain orange demagogue hellbent on the modern-day digital book burning of transgender history and life itself.

Enter Steven Love Menendez, an artist, filmmaker, and LGBTQ activist (or, as his bio now reads on government websites, “LGB activist,” much to his chagrin).

For almost a decade now, he’s celebrated pride in New York City by placing flags around the perimeter. Eventually, the National Parks Service (NPS) took notice and provided him funding for the yearly installation, which involves 250 flags.

As time went on, Menendez included the Progress Pride flag—whose design nods to queer activists of color, as well as those lost to the HIV/AIDS crisis—as well as the trans Pride flag.

But this year, Menendez was told only the “original” Pride flag would be allowed, as per federal regulations imposed by President Trump. This was not only for his installation, but for the nautical flag at the park’s center. Where the gay pride flag and trans pride flag once used to billow side-by-side, only the rainbow remains.

“Excluding the flag is basically excluding trans people,” Menendez told Erin in the Morning. “By having the trans flags, you’re heightening trans visibility. By taking it away and somehow trying to take away trans visibility—I think that's a problem. You're somehow saying there's something wrong with them.”

This comes after the Trump Administration sought to expel any reference to transgender people from all federal resources, as per his January executive orders. As Erin in the Morning previously reported, one glaring example included an informational blurb about Sylvia Rivera, a trans woman of color and street queen who was among the founding mothers of the movement.

“At a young age, Sylvia began fighting for gay and transgender rights,” the original NPS website read. The revised version reads, “gay and rights,” with the word “transgender” removed entirely, rendering the sentence nonsensical.

Nevertheless, however, the trans community has persisted. Menendez says he comes to Stonewall everyday during Pride month to maintain the flag installation—flags may get accidentally knocked down or blown away, which isn’t uncommon. But this year, in defiance of the disappeared trans flags, New Yorkers have been bringing their own, he and other sources said. Those making the pilgrimage to the site have draped the trans flag upon the park’s statues, drawn messages of affirmation in chalk, and placed stickers around the perimeter. “Unauthorized” trans flags have cropped up from the soil through the fence, CBS reported.

When Jay Edidin, a New York-based LGBTQ rights activist heard about the trans flag’s censorship from an article in The Gothamist, he took his own massive trans flag—which had, up until that point, been a window curtain in his home—and stood by the gate for hours to wave the pink, white and blue. He told Erin in the Morning that trans people can’t simply wait around for things to get better or for the government to simply change. Rather, he said, there is something everyone can be doing, and should be doing.

“The government works for us. And if they don't, we do the work ourselves,” Edidin said. “Even these small acts of resistance, I think, mean a lot to people.”

This comes as other direct actions for trans rights have been flaring across the country. In Jacksonville, Florida, community members lit up a bridge rainbow in defiance of Governor Ron DeSantis’s anti-LGBT and anti-Pride initiatives. And this past weekend, nine trans activists were arrested for blocking a roadway at a protest against the recent Skrmetti decision, which could dismantle protections for trans health care access across the country.

Earlier this year, an activist group known as The Transexual Menace staged a day to rally against the trans erasure at Stonewall and the slew of anti-trans policies that have come with it.

“This kind of predictable erasure is as pathetic as it is disgusting,” a Transexual Menace spokesperson told Erin in the Morning in a recent interview.

“It is impossible to separate the transgender community from the history of Stonewall, no matter how hard the government may try. The NYC Transexual Menace will be making peaceful efforts to provide some historical context to the space in the coming days.”

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/trump-took-stonewalls-trans-flags at Jun 28, 2025 at 7:21 PM EDT.

What Sarah McBride Gets Wrong

ERIN REED | JUN 20, 2025, 10:44 PM EDT | SOURCE

Congresswoman Sarah McBride recently interviewed with Ezra Klein at the New York Times, where she advocated for a politics of appeasement when it comes to transgender people.

Donna Burton // Public Domain

On Tuesday, Representative Sarah McBride sat for a 90-minute interview with Ezra Klein of the New York Times, published under the headline “Why the Left Lost on Transgender Rights.” In the interview, McBride suggested that transgender people may have “overplay|ed their| hand” and called for a political strategy in which leaders follow the polls rather than lead with conviction. At a moment when powerful interests are urging Democrats to retreat on support for LGBTQ+ people, immigrants, and other marginalized groups in response to electoral losses, McBride’s approach represents a more cautious—and ultimately more harmful—vision for transgender advocacy where capitulation is the name of the game.

The article, published Tuesday, quickly became a flashpoint among Democratic insiders, transgender advocates, allies, and political observers. Well-meaning supporters circulated it as an example of good advocacy from McBride. But for those of us who have covered transgender issues extensively, the intent was clear: to lay the groundwork for a rightward shift within the Democratic Party on transgender rights. The interview took place at a paper that has long served as fertile ground for such repositioning, with an interviewer known for advancing those very arguments. And the fallout was immediate—within hours, Fox News blasted out the headline that the most politically powerful transgender official in the country had admitted trans people had “overplayed their hand.”

Klein has repeatedly—if subtly—signaled that transgender people should cede ground on issues he seems to view as politically expendable. In the immediate aftermath of the election, he framed Democratic support for transgender athletes and incarcerated trans people as the result of “pressure,” suggesting party leaders likely regret not “holding the line a bit closer in” on such issues. That framing resurfaces in his interview with Sarah McBride, where she echoes the sentiment, advocating for a political strategy in which Democrats follow the polls rather than lead with principle or conviction or listen to what she calls “the groups.”

“We decided that we now have to say and fight for and push for every single perfect policy and cultural norm right now, regardless of whether the public is ready. And I think it misunderstands the role that politicians and, frankly, social movements have in maintaining proximity to public opinion, of walking people to a place,” says McBride.

She would go on to reiterate this after another question about Trump’s anti-trans ads, “Public opinion is everything. And if you want us to change, you need to help foster the change in public opinion before you’re asking these elected officials to betray the fact that they are, at the end of the day, representatives who have to represent in some form or fashion the views of the people that they represent…There’s always going to be a tension between the groups and elected officials. Everyone has to do their own job, but there has to be some degree of understanding.”

If Sarah McBride had her way, political leadership would amount to little more than a compilation of polls and focus groups wrapped in a suit. While fear in the face of mounting backlash is understandable, deferring to polling on civil rights is a blueprint for failure. Rights are not granted by public opinion. If the nation had waited for interracial marriage to poll well, such bans would have remained in effect until 1997.

This contradiction comes to a head in McBride’s interview with Klein. Klein notes that it’s not just sports that “don’t poll well,” but also issues like bathroom access, education about gender identity in schools, all-ages drag shows, and medical care for transgender youth. His assessment isn’t entirely accurate—polling on transgender issues often hinges on question phrasing, and there’s substantial evidence that these topics rarely drive voters’ decisions—but the point lands. If McBride believes Democrats should yield ground on some “contentious” issues (sports), how can she justify holding firm on others that face similar political headwinds? Pressed on this, McBride doesn’t offer a clear distinction, instead advocating for a “libertarian” position on those topics.

To some extent, McBride clearly does get it—because in rare moments like this, she actually engages in advocacy. I wish I could say it's because, as a leader, she understands the responsibility to fight for her community. But that conviction isn’t consistent across her politics; if it were, she wouldn’t be so quick to excuse throwing certain issues under the bus or advocating for vague notions of “compromise.” What distinguishes issues like medical care, bathroom access, and drag bans from sports—despite all being driven by the same Republican fearmongering—is their personal relevance. McBride knows that medical care bans could target her. She knows what it’s like to be young and trans, to worry about bathroom access, to see drag bans as thinly veiled attacks on trans existence. These issues hit closer to home. And that proximity, not political principle, seems to shape what she’s willing to defend.

The fact is, it’s become increasingly clear that McBride doesn’t see herself as a fighter—and, more troublingly, she seems to believe that fighting for rights is itself a problem. “Sometimes we have to understand that not fighting, not taking the bait, is not a sign of weakness. It’s not unprincipled. Discipline and strategy are signs of strength,” she explains, referring to her decision not to oppose Rep. Nancy Mace and the Republican Party’s imposition of a bathroom ban at the U.S. Capitol—one that was largely directed at her. Her response was simply to comply and not make a fuss. In doing so, she not only left other transgender people working in the Capitol more vulnerable, but also helped establish a precedent that even allies have cited to suggest that silent compliance is now the expected norm.

If it were merely a lack of fight, perhaps it could be excused. McBride is in a difficult position as a transgender woman in a political arena that still often views people like her as lesser. I know what that’s like. I’ve watched my own wife, Rep. Zooey Zephyr, navigate that same terrain in one of the hardest places to be an openly trans political figure: the red state legislature of Montana. But that’s not the problem. McBride isn’t just choosing not to fight—she’s offering cover fire for those urging Democrats to shift right on transgender rights, to abandon key battles in the name of political expediency. She plays into damaging narratives about transgender people, telling Klein, for instance, that transgender medical standards of care “might have gotten too lenient.” In doing so, she hands Fox News and other right-wing outlets the headlines they crave—ammunition to say, “See, even they admit they went too far.”

McBride’s interview with Klein was quickly overshadowed by the Supreme Court’s decision the very next day to allow states to ban gender-affirming care—the latest in a wave of rollbacks on transgender rights. And of course, the New York Times cited the Klein/McBride interview in multiple articles to put the blame on transgender people for the loss. Nearly every state that once passed a sports ban as an early “compromise” has since escalated to banning medical care, restricting bathroom access, censoring books, and more. McBride fails to grasp a hard truth: capitulation has never yielded progress on LGBTQ+ rights—not in public opinion, certainly not in policy, and not in this fight. We aren’t losing ground because we’ve been too loud or too assertive. We’re here because the far right dominates the media ecosystem, funnels hundreds of millions into demonizing transgender people, and has cowed Republican politicians into lockstep obedience. The only antidote is to stand firm and lead with principle.

I still hope McBride finds that principle. I hope that one day, instead of offering cover for those pleading for permission to let us drown, she stands firm—unapologetic, unwavering—and claims the legacy her position demands. As the first trans person to reach the halls of Congress is a responsibility few others will experience. The community doesn’t need a symbol to soothe the conscience of those ready to discard us. We need a spine. We need someone who doesn’t flinch when the battle for rights turns against us—but rises to meet it.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/what-sarah-mcbride-gets-wrong at Jun 28, 2025 at 7:21 PM EDT.

After Getting The Ruling It Wanted, New York Times Publishes 6 Anti-Trans Articles

ERIN REED | JUN 19, 2025, 12:27 PM EDT | SOURCE

The paper has lost all claim to objectivity on transgender people.

Photo by Marco Lenti on Unsplash

Opinion - In the fight for transgender rights, few institutions have been more complicit in fueling the backlash than The New York Times. The paper, which has a documented history of publishing misleading coverage on transgender people, has repeatedly been cited in legal briefs used to justify bans on gender-affirming care. In yesterday’s devastating Supreme Court ruling that stripped medical rights from transgender youth, Times articles were cited seven times to support the decision. Now, fresh off the ruling it helped legitimize, the paper has published at least six more stories spreading misinformation on transgender healthcare, amplifying anti-trans voices, targeting Democrats for supporting trans rights, and laying the groundwork for even harsher crackdowns.

One article criticizes transgender activists for the “real-world complications of self-ID,” effectively suggesting that the government should have the authority to restrict a person’s core identity. “That possibility has left some trans people wondering if it is time to build a new, less dogmatic politics to defend their rights,” writes Nicholas Confessore, who continues: “A movement that could grapple more honestly with scientific uncertainty and the real-world complications of self-ID, they believe, might be more capable of defending their health care and a legal path to transition.” The vague reference to “some trans people” reads less like sourced reporting and more like a projection of Confessore’s own hopeful vision for the future—one where more concessions are made to the anti-trans right. But the transgender people and families I know aren’t hoping for a softer movement. They’re furious. And they’re fighting harder than ever against efforts to erase them.

Other articles lean heavily on selective European reviews used to justify restricting transgender healthcare, ignoring that several countries—France, Germany, Switzerland, and Austria—have recently reaffirmed the importance of such care in newer guidelines. A Republican-commissioned review in Utah similarly found the care to be critical for transgender youth, yet goes unmentioned. One piece frames the Supreme Court decision as a backlash to a movement “consumed by theories of sex and gender that most voters didn’t grasp or support,” subtly legitimizing a rollback of rights as a reasonable voter reaction. In all, at least half a dozen articles have been published by the Times in the 24 hours following the ruling—ink still drying—spreading misinformation, shaming transgender people, and giving prominent space to voices that seek to strip us of our rights.

This fits squarely within the New York Times’ long history of publishing anti-transgender content. In 2024, columnist Pamela Paul published a 4,500-word piece that became one of the most widely criticized examples of disinformation on transgender issues in a mainstream outlet. Among its many falsehoods, the article claimed a therapist had been investigated for “approaching gender dysphoria in a more considered way”—when, in reality, the investigation stemmed from her alleged use of aversive techniques, including recommending that trans youth be stabbed with acupuncture needles to induce pain. Paul also promoted the debunked theory that many transgender people are simply gay individuals transitioning due to greater societal acceptance—a claim sharply contradicted by actual data on discrimination and acceptance rates. Additionally, she repeated the discredited statistic that 80% of transgender youth eventually “desist,” despite the most robust studies placing that figure between 1% and 3%. Her article was cited twice in Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion in United States v. Skrmetti, helping to spread these inaccuracies into Supreme Court precedent.

Justice Samuel Alito also cited New York Times reporter Azeen Ghorayshi’s interview with Jamie Reed, a self-described whistleblower from a Missouri transgender youth clinic, to support the claim that detransition might be common. Ghorayshi’s report was widely criticized for giving a sympathetic platform to Reed, whose allegations were later found to include several false or misleading claims—such as attributing a medical complication to puberty blockers when the patient in question had actually experienced side effects from an anti-COVID medication following a severe infection.

Now, the New York Times appears to be dancing on the graves of the transgender youth it has repeatedly thrown to the wolves. Where are the transgender journalists at the paper who could report on this moment with lived experience, deep ties to impacted communities, and insight into the clinicians and families affected? Where is the coverage of the sharp rise in suicidality following anti-trans legislation? Where is the analysis of how the Skrmetti decision could ripple far beyond trans rights, further eroding women’s rights and bodily autonomy?

The Times has made its editorial choices. It has chosen to elevate anti-LGBTQ+ voices and platform hate groups as if they are neutral experts, while framing families seeking basic medical rights as extremists who have “pushed too far.” In doing so, the paper has abdicated its journalistic responsibility. Its failures will be a black stain on its legacy for a generation.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/after-getting-the-ruling-it-wanted at Jun 28, 2025 at 7:21 PM EDT.

Trans Care Clinics, Complying in Advance, Leave Patients Unsure of What’s Next

S. BAUM | JUN 19, 2025, 11:00 AM EDT | SOURCE

&#8220;Many were simply told that services would no longer be available, with little to no guidance on what to do next.&#8221;

Debster88 // CHLA // Wikimedia Commons

Editor's Note: Most sources in this article have been granted anonymity.. This is due to increasingly violent attacks against trans-affirming parents, activists, patients and health care providers.

Last week, the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles’ (CHLA)—which houses one of the largest and oldest gender-affirming care programs for youth—announced it was closing its gender clinic doors, citing pressure from the federal government.

It is among the latest gender care facility to cease or restrict its care amidst the Trumpian anti-trans wave, which resulted in a series of executive orders signed at the beginning of his second term. Subsequently, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services sent a May 28 letter to hospitals across the country pushing a pseudoscientific report on trans-affirming health care, penned by an anonymous panel of government “experts.” It demanded that, within 30 days, gender-affirming care providers have to fork over detailed financial records pertaining to the care of trans patients. It also directed providers to create new treatment guidelines replacing globally-renowned best practices with the recommendations of Trump’s highly propagandized report.

A recent statement by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) denounced this report in the strongest terms, arguing that while ongoing research is still vital, Trump’s report is both dangerous and wrong.

“Policies affecting transgender health must be informed by recognized experts and guided by clinical evidence, not ideology,” it said.

Nonetheless, new closures and restrictions may be imminent in the aftermath of Wednesday’s Skrmetti decision, in which SCOTUS greenlit anti-trans health care bans for youth.

Care Restrictions from Coast to Coast

Following the May 28 letter, Erin in the Morning received reports from across the country of further health care restrictions for youth beyond CHLA. One nurse said that Stanford Health quietly ceased offering new puberty blocker implants or gender-affirming surgeries to trans patients under 19. (Stanford will continue to offer replacement implants, the source said, and that new patients may still be offered other kinds of hormone therapies.) Meanwhile, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), which had previously stopped accepting new patients under 19 years old, has now begun cancelling many appointments for youth altogether, one clinician in Pennsylvania said. In addition, Penn Medicine announced publicly that it would no longer perform gender-affirming surgical procedures for trans minors.

Most recently, Montana media reported that Missoula’s Community Medical Center (CMC) will stop providing “gender-affirming care” for those under the age of 18.

None of these medical institutions responded to requests for comment.

Parents, clinicians, community advocates and trans people impacted by these restrictions report that the fallout has been saturated with confusion and panic. Patients are finding out about their loss of care through the news. Doctors are reticent to so much as offer a referral, lest they be targeted by federal prosecutors.

“I could get killed for doing this.”

For some parents, such as Diana—a California parent of a 14-year-old transgender boy—getting gender-affirming care for her son has been life-changing, but also Sisiphysian.

She says her child’s top surgery changed his life. “The joy that we all experienced with him going through this was extraordinary,” she told Erin in the Morning. “It has made him a new person.”

It also required a level of privilege—Diana devoted herself to countless hours of health advocacy navigated endlessly frustrating and complex bureaucracies. “When you’re talking about families where people don’t speak English, where they don’t have insurance, what is this supposed to mean for them?” she said.

But the road to her son’s transition was also paved with terror. She recalls being asked to sign a form at the eleventh hour that would waive her son’s privacy rights, should the federal government inquire about her son’s medical records in regards to gender-affirming care. She remembers a surgeon saying over and over, “I could be killed for doing this.” And she recalls a heated phone call with a senior hospital administrator, where she begged officials to fight for her son’s care legally.

“I was like, ‘So, what are you doing to show families that you think that this care is worthwhile?’” she told Erin in the Morning. The answer he gave, as Diana remembers it: “On trans visibility day, we will hang the trans pride flag in front of our hospital.”

The Real Cost of Trans Care—And Trans Care Bans

Dr. Tyler Titus, Vice President Erie City Council in Pennsylvania and a practicing Licensed Professional Counselor, treats trans youth who often receive care through UPMC, one of the facilities that has reportedly begun withdrawing care after the May 28 letter.

Titus saw saw an “immediate spike” in suicidal ideation and emergency care sessions among their trans patients, who may now be suddenly and forcibly detransitioned if they cannot find another provider.

“Many were simply told that services would no longer be available, with little to no guidance on what to do next,” Titus said.

Like many care restrictions across the country, Titus said UPMC’s new policy did not only affect minors.

“As both a therapist and an advocate, I’ve sat with young people, legally adults at 18, who are navigating the crushing weight of a system that tells them they are old enough to be compelled into military service, but not old enough to make decisions about their own bodies,” Titus said. “The contradiction between being deemed ‘old enough’ to sacrifice your life for your country and ‘too young’ to advocate for your truth is not just hypocrisy, it’s cruelty.”

A Double Standard

“Gender-affirming care” has become a buzzword for trans issues, but in actuality, it encompasses many long-standing, evidence-based medical interventions for a variety of health issues—from puberty blockers, to hormone replacement therapy, to surgical procedures, to behavioral health care (like psychotherapy).

Such interventions may be used to treat children of all genders and sexes, although only trans or presumed-trans people have been explicitly targeted by the government. (Of course, gential mutilation remains a perfectly legal and standard practice for intersex babies.) But the gender panic dragnet impacts anyone seeking these modes of care, regardless of the reason.

For example, breast reductions—aka “top surgeries”—are commonly associated with trans men, but the majority of these procedures are actually used on patients assigned male at birth to treat gynecomastia, an excess of breast tissue. And hormone therapies are overwhelmingly used for cancer patients, postmenopausal women and men with erectile dysfunction (ED).

“I think for the most part, providers will continue to do exactly what they're supposed to do, and deliver the care indicated for whatever condition they're treating a patient,” said Abby, a health care provider at a major hospital on the East Coast, which is still providing gender-affirming care—at least for now.

At the same time, she said, “I think there will be a not insignificant number of people either whose access is challenged, or whose providers are afraid to recommend legitimate first line treatments,” she told Erin in the Morning.

“We are seeing a situation where there is heavy anti-transgender sentiment that is causing providers to adopt a defensive crouch," said Alex Rate, legal director of the ACLU of Montana, to Montana Public Radio, in light of the Missoula’s clinic’s pause on care.

Abby compared it to stories emerging from red states, where anti-abortion laws have created a medical chilling effect; complex pregnancies are turning fatal or near-fatal as doctors back away from life-saving medical interventions that could be perceived as an unlawful abortion.

“I think the landscape has become so chaotic that no one knows what exactly they're allowed to actually do, so providers who do this work are fearful all the time,” she said. “It really is a total reprisal of the abortion playbook.”

“Pushing Back”

In theory, trans-affirming care is protected by many states’ laws, in spite of President Donald Trump’s anti-trans EOs and anti-trans directives from federal agencies.

In some states with strong trans protections, officials can put pressure on gender clinics to keep their doors open, as Attorney General Leticia James did in New York.

Despite California laws’ robust trans protections, Governor Gavin Newsrom does not seem inclined to act on them. He has taken a right turn on LGBT issues, sympathizing with the violent and anti-trans politics of Charlie Kirk on his podcast, “This is Gavin Newsom,” as well as cutting critical funding for LGBT services in the state. One parent of a trans kid said plainly, “Gavin Newsom has abandoned us.”

Some who spoke to Erin in the Morning saw the care stoppages or restrictions as a needless compliance in advance—and say hospitals should be doing more, including taking the administration to court over its potentially unlawful enforcement of its anti-trans policies.

Dannie Ceseña, Director of the California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network, said there are options to fight back, but ceded that gender-affirming care providers are in a tough spot.

“Hospital systems are coming from a place of fear of losing federal funding,” Ceseña told Erin in the Morning. This is especially potent for the CHLA, which relies heavily on federal funds and serves a high population on state welfare. In an email leaked to the LA Times, executives lamented that “hundreds of thousands” of other children could lose their care without federal funds.

“I think what it comes down to is that Children's Hospital of LA and the Board of Directors are too afraid to push back on the Trump Administration, too afraid to file a lawsuit in collaboration with California and other states and institutions that are pushing back,” Ceseña said. “They are just caving because they want to protect their bottom line.”

But Ceseña and others who spoke to Erin in the Morning for this piece emphasized that appeasement will never be a viable solution. The threats to bodily autonomy and access to quality health care won’t stop at trans youth, or trans people, period. And while many institutions are turning their backs on trans patients, others across the country are finding unique ways to continue to serve their communities.

Some can pivot to private funds (such as philanthropic donations), as well as state-backed or county-backed grants. Other institutions reversed course after communities mobilized, protested, and phone zapped medical institutions and local legislators. Other trans health advocates have built coalitions with the reproductive health movement and broader health care initiatives—such as in Washington, where legislation to increase hormone therapy access for everyone, just trans people, gained bipartisan support and passed.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/trans-care-clinics-complying-in-advance at Jun 28, 2025 at 7:21 PM EDT.

SCOTUS Allows For Trans Discrimination In Medical Care: A Full Analysis Of Today's Ruling

ERIN REED | JUN 18, 2025, 3:39 PM EDT | SOURCE

Today, SCOTUS released its ruling on Skrmetti, allowing Tennessee to ban transgender healthcare. The ruling was both devastating and limited, leaving many fights unsettled.

Photo by Ian Hutchinson on Unsplash

Today, the Supreme Court issued a devastating 6-3 ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors and delivering a major blow to transgender rights. The case raised foundational constitutional questions: whether transgender people constitute a class triggering higher constitutional scrutiny, whether laws targeting them violate equal protection, and whether the Constitution guarantees their right to access medically necessary treatment. The Court sidestepped nearly all of those questions, instead issuing a narrower opinion that carves out an exception permitting medical discrimination based on “gender dysphoria”—a distinction it bizarrely treats as separate from discrimination against transgender people. The ruling effectively greenlights medical care bans across the country and may pave the way for broader restrictions, including for adults, while leaving lower court rulings on bathrooms, schools, sports, and employment remain intact—for now.

In its ruling, the majority opinion of the Supreme Court states that it does not need to address whether or not discrimination against transgender people is sex discrimination because the Tennessee law banning gender affirming healthcare for trans youth is based on “gender dysphoria.” Similarly, the majority argues that it does not have to address whether or not transgender people represent a class that triggers heightened scrutiny, a higher level of scrutiny for constitutional review that has resulted in anti-trans laws being struck down by lower courts. The court states in its majority opinion:

“The plaintiffs argue that SB1 warrants heightened scrutiny because it relies on sex-based classifications. But neither of the above classifications turns on sex. Rather, SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor’s sex… By the same token, SB1 does not exclude any individual from medical treatments on the basis of transgender status. Rather, it removes one set of diagnoses—gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence—from the range of treatable conditions.”

In issuing such a ruling, the Court asserts that discrimination based on “gender dysphoria” is somehow distinct from discrimination on the basis of transgender status or sex—creating a loophole wide enough to drive a truck through. In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor calls out the contradiction directly, noting the majority’s logic would permit states to target transgender people while avoiding constitutional scrutiny simply by reframing the language of their laws:

“In addition to discriminating against transgender adolescents, who by definition ‘identify with’ an identity “inconsistent” with their sex, that law conditions the availability of medications on a patient’s sex. Male (but not female) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like boys, and female (but not male) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like girls.

Tennessee’s law expressly classifies on the basis of sex and transgender status, so the Constitution and settled precedent require the Court to subject it to intermediate scrutiny. The majority contorts logic and precedent to say otherwise, inexplicably declaring it must uphold Tennessee’s categorical ban on lifesaving medical treatment so long as “‘any reasonably conceivable state of facts’” might justify it. Ante, at 21. Thus, the majority subjects a law that plainly discriminates on the basis of sex to mere rational-basis review. By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.”

The Tennessee law, Justice Sotomayor and the dissent argue, explicitly classifies on the basis of sex—so overtly that the majority’s attempt to sidestep that reality reads as disingenuous. The statute itself declares that one purpose of the ban is to “encourage minors to appreciate their sex,” and yet the majority still concludes it does not constitute sex-based classification. Sotomayor dismantles that claim with precision in her dissent, exposing the logical inconsistency at the heart of the Court’s reasoning:

“Consider the mother who contacts a Tennessee doctor, concerned that her adolescent child has begun growing unwanted facial hair. This hair growth, the mother reports, has spurred significant distress because it makes her child look unduly masculine. The doctor’s next step depends on the adolescent’s sex. If the patient was identified as female at birth, SB1 allows the physician to alleviate her distress with testosterone suppressants. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 266a (describing such treatments); App. 100 (same). What if the adolescent was identified male at birth, however? SB1 precludes the patient from receiving the same medicine.”

One of the more strained justifications in the majority opinion mirrors arguments once used to deny rights to same-sex and interracial couples: that the law does not discriminate against transgender people, but instead bars both cisgender and transgender people from receiving medication to treat gender dysphoria. It's a tortured rationale—functionally absurd given that transgender people will need the medical treatment for gender dysphoria, not cisgender people.

Sotomayor compares this rationale to that used in Loving v. Virginia, a ruling which struck down laws against interracial marriage:

“But nearly every discriminatory law is susceptible to a similarly race- or sex-neutral characterization. A prohibition on interracial marriage, for example, allows no person to marry someone outside of her race, while allowing persons of any race to marry within their race….

In a passage that sounds hauntingly familiar to readers of Tennessee’s brief, Virginia argued in Loving that, should this Court intervene, it would find itself in a “bog of conflicting scientific opinion upon the effects of interracial marriage, and the desirability of preventing such alliances, from the physical, biological, genetic, anthropological, cultural, psychological, and sociological point of view.” … “In such a situation,” Virginia continued, “it is the exclusive province of the Legislature of each State to make the determination for its citizens as to the desirability of a policy of permitting or preventing such [interracial] alliances—a province which the judiciary may not constitutionally invade.” Id., at 7–8.

While the ruling is sweeping in its implications for transgender medical care—and could easily be used to justify future restrictions on adult care—the majority sidestepped key constitutional questions. The Court declined to answer whether discrimination against transgender people constitutes sex discrimination, whether transgender people qualify as a protected class warranting heightened scrutiny, or whether the Bostock decision applies beyond the Title VII employment context. A ruling on any of these issues could have turned an already devastating outcome into a catastrophic one, potentially overturning dozens of lower court decisions on bathroom access, forced outing in schools, and participation in sports. Though the majority avoided that outcome, three justices—Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Amy Coney Barrett—wrote separately to express that they would have gone further, explicitly denying transgender people equal protection under the law.

Several rulings in recent months will remain unaffected by the Court’s decision. Just yesterday, a federal judge certified a class of transgender people in a lawsuit challenging a passport ban and opened the door for gender marker updates. Similarly, rulings blocking the government from stripping funding from organizations that mention transgender issues or gender identity are expected to remain intact, as are decisions involving school bathroom access and participation in sports. As a result, the impact of this ruling is likely to remain confined to the medical context—for now. Still, the decision provides a blueprint for future legislation targeting “gender dysphoria” as a proxy for discriminating against transgender people without explicitly naming transgender status or sex.

“Today’s ruling is a devastating loss for transgender people, our families, and everyone who cares about the Constitution,” said Chase Strangio, Co-Director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Though this is a painful setback, it does not mean that transgender people and our allies are left with no options to defend our freedom, our health care, or our lives. The Court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful. We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person and we will continue to do so with defiant strength, a restless resolve, and a lasting commitment to our families, our communities, and the freedom we all deserve.”

The decision will send shockwaves through the transgender community. By embedding discrimination into Supreme Court precedent, the justices have ensured that transgender Americans will likely spend a generation clawing back rights now imperiled. And yet, the ruling leaves cracks in the foundation—enough space, for now, to regroup and keep fighting. Protective laws in many states remain on the books. Key court victories still stand. It is in those openings, however narrow, that hope persists—and where the fight continues.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/scotus-allows-for-trans-discrimination at Jun 28, 2025 at 7:21 PM EDT.

Federal Judge Grants Class Status To Trans People In Passport Case In Massive Win

ERIN REED | JUN 17, 2025, 6:03 PM EDT | SOURCE

Transgender people may be able to update their passports shortly.

Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

On Tuesday evening, a federal judge granted class certification to transgender people seeking to update the gender marker on their passports. The ruling expands a prior decision—previously limited to a handful of named plaintiffs—to now cover all transgender individuals applying for a passport or seeking to renew one with an accurate gender marker. The order took effect immediately, meaning transgender people should be able to begin submitting updated applications, though appeals could stall implementation or throw applications into chaos and thus some caution may still be warranted. Still, the ruling marks one of the most significant legal victories for transgender people under Trump’s second presidency, striking at one of the administration’s most punitive policies to date.

The court has certified two classes:

- A class of all people (1) whose gender identity is different from the sex assigned to them under the Passport Policy and/or who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and (2) who have applied, or who, but for the Passport Policy, would apply, for a U.S. passport issued with an “M” or “F” sex designation that is different from the sex assigned to that individual under the Passport Policy (“M/F Designation Class”); "

- A class of all people whose gender identity is different from the sex assigned to them under the Passport Policy and who have applied, or who, but for the Passport Policy, would apply, for a U.S. passport with an “X” designation (“X Designation Class”).

“This decision acknowledges the immediate and profound negative impact that the Trump administration's passport policy has on the ability of people across the country to travel for work, school, and family,” said Jessie Rossman, Legal Director at the ACLU of Massachusetts. “The Trump administration’s passport policy attacks the foundations of the right to privacy and the freedom for all people to live their lives safely and with dignity. We will continue to fight to stop this unlawful policy once and for all.”

According to the ACLU, the class status applies to anyone applying to:

- Obtain a new passport,

- Change the sex designation or update their name on their current passport

- Replace a lost, stolen, or damaged passport, or

- Renew their passport within one year of its expiration.

Previously, the court had ruled that the passport policy, which has blocked transgender Americans from being able to update their passport with their correct gender identity, was motivated by clear animus towards transgender people. The administration’s actions "convey a fundamental moral disapproval of transgender Americans,” wrote Judge Julia Kobick.

This is a developing story. Should the ACLU issue guidance on whether transgender people should update their passports immediately, Erin In The Morning will provide updates.

Editors Update 1: According to preliminary conversations with expert attorneys, whether transgender people should submit a passport update request immediately depends on their risk tolerance and individual circumstances. A motion to stay the ruling could come within days. Those most likely to benefit from applying immediately are individuals with incorrect gender markers, those seeking their first passport, or those with expired documents who need to travel soon. Expedited processing may increase the likelihood of receiving a passport before any potential appellate or Supreme Court intervention.

Update 2: The ACLU has released a full FAQ and guidance on what to do in order to get your passport with the correct gender marker, and whether you should attempt to right now or wait.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/federal-judge-grants-class-status at Jun 28, 2025 at 7:21 PM EDT.

Trump Promises Harsher ICE Crackdowns, Blaming "Transgender For Everybody"

ERIN REED | JUN 16, 2025, 12:43 PM EDT | SOURCE

The president has graduated to blaming transgender people for nearly anything he does.

White House Official - Public Record

On Sunday evening, fresh off the heels of a lackluster military parade in Washington, D.C.—and perhaps feeling upstaged by massive protests across the United States—President Donald Trump announced a new wave of immigration crackdowns targeting major Democratic-led cities. The announcement, made via Truth Social, followed a familiar script of inflammatory rhetoric aimed at immigrants. But what made this announcement stand out was its bizarre detour: amid his focus on immigration, Trump veered into blaming transgender people as part of the justification for his crackdown.

“We must expand efforts to detain and deport illegal aliens in America’s largest cities, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, where millions upon millions of illegal aliens reside,” stated the post on Truth Social. “These Radical Left Democrats are sick of mind, hate our country, and actually want to destroy our Inner Cities — and they are doing a good job of it! There is something wrong with them. That is why they believe in Open Borders, Transgender for Everybody, and Men playing in Women’s Sports — And that is why I want ICE, Border Patrol, and our Great and Patriotic Law Enforcement Officers, to FOCUS on our crime ridden and deadly inner cities, and those places where Sanctuary Cities play such a big role.”

There was no explanation for what “transgender for everybody” has to do with immigration policy and the use of draconian crackdowns on immigrants in the United States, but two of the three listed reasons for the crackdowns focus on transgender people. Increasingly, the Trump administration has focused his administration’s efforts to target transgender people, repeatedly using the phrase “transgender for everybody” as a new catch-phrase for any criticism he makes of Democrats.

He has similarly used the phrase to defend his transgender military ban, stating, “No soldier ever volunteered for the Army to be lectured about transgender diversity or inclusion. You don't want to hear that. Transgender for everybody. We don't do that.”

In a speech to West Point graduates, Trump discussed deploying Marines to “liberate” Los Angeles and support ICE operations in the city. Flanked by handpicked service members expected to cheer him on, he declared: “Have you heard of the place, where I’ve deployed thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines to protect federal law enforcement from the attacks of a vicious and violent mob and some of the radical left. They say, “Oh, that’s not nice.” Well, if we didn’t do it, there wouldn’t be a Los Angeles. We’d be burning today just like their houses were burning a number of months ago… We’re not going to let that happen. Remember, millions of people were allowed to come into our country totally unchecked and unvetted by stupid people or radical left people or sick people. But regardless, open-border policy, the dumbest policy yet. I would say even dumber than men playing in women’s sports, transgender for everyone, even dumber than that.”

The Trump administration’s targeting of transgender people has been pervasive from the earliest days of his second term. His policies have included scrubbing the word “transgender” from federal websites, erasing transgender history from the Stonewall National Monument, defunding LGBTQ+ organizations, and pressuring groups like the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to deadname trans youth. Clinics have shut down under FBI threats. Disinformation—much of it crafted under RFK Jr.’s HHS—has been used to justify sweeping federal restrictions. Aside from immigration, no group has received more attention from this administration’s ire than transgender people, with dozens of executive orders, agency rulings, and policy memos designed to make daily life more difficult.

It remains to be seen how Trump intends to act on his catchphrase “transgender for everybody,” a slogan that veers between absurdity and menace. Its vagueness makes it a useful cudgel—shapeless enough to apply to any grievance, yet pointed enough to justify sweeping crackdowns. But behind the nonsense lies a chilling truth: the vision advanced by Trump and those he’s empowered is not one of inclusion gone too far. It’s a world where transgender people are denied care, visibility, and existence. “Transgender for nobody” is closer to the goal.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/trump-promises-harsher-ice-crackdowns at Jun 28, 2025 at 7:21 PM EDT.

Table of Contents

Erin in the Morning: 2025 Jun 28

All articles

200,000 March In Budapest Pride, Refusing To Capitulate To Anti-LGBTQ+ Law

Zohran Mamdani Beats Andrew Cuomo for NY Mayoral Bid—Without Abandoning Trans People

Why You Need to Hear the Speech That Sylvia Rivera Wasn’t Allowed To Give

Trump Took Stonewall’s Trans Flags. New Yorkers Brought Their Own.

What Sarah McBride Gets Wrong

After Getting The Ruling It Wanted, New York Times Publishes 6 Anti-Trans Articles

Trans Care Clinics, Complying in Advance, Leave Patients Unsure of What’s Next

SCOTUS Allows For Trans Discrimination In Medical Care: A Full Analysis Of Today's Ruling

Federal Judge Grants Class Status To Trans People In Passport Case In Massive Win

Trump Promises Harsher ICE Crackdowns, Blaming "Transgender For Everybody"