Challenging the Harmful Overreach of the Trump administration

Since taking office, President Trump has issued a series of executive orders targeting vulnerable communities, including LGBTQ+ people and their loved ones. Some of the directives will create immediate, tremendous harm, while others will take time and cooperation from policymakers to fully implement.

But we’re fighting back.

Within the first few weeks of the new administration, GLAD Law filed multiple lawsuits challenging these harmful orders.

And we’re making progress. GLAD Law and attorneys across the country are working to stop, delay, and minimize the impact of these attacks on LGBTQ+ rights.

Learn about the executive orders and legal challenges:

How GLAD Law is Fighting Back

GLAD Law and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) are challenging Trump’s ban on military service members:

Talbott v. USA: We are representing individuals who want to enlist as well as active service members who bring decades of experience across all military branches, contributing among the highest levels of service.

  • The latest (as of 6/30): On March 18, the court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction – halting the ban’s enforcement. On March 26, Judge Reyes rejected a Trump administration motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction. On May 6, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling in Shilling v. Trump allowing Trump’s transgender military ban to take effect while multiple legal challenges move forward. Later that night, plaintiffs in Talbott filed a letter brief with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals responding to the SCOTUS ruling and alerting the court to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s open disparagement of transgender troops. On June 1, Judge Reyes blocked the government from discharging the transgender servicemember plaintiffs in Talbott. On June 30, the Federal District Court granted a motion for class certification, extending future rulings against the transgender military ban to all transgender servicemembers currently serving. Learn more.

Ireland v. Hegseth: We are representing two longstanding, high-ranking Air Force service members who are facing significant disruption to their service.

  • The latest (as of 5/15): The plaintiffs in this case are now covered by the case Talbott v. USA.

Doe v. Blanche: At the beginning of President Trump’s second term, GLAD Law and NCLR filed three lawsuits challenging sections of an executive order that directs the federal Bureau of Prisons to house transgender women in men’s prisons and to unlawfully withhold necessary medical care (Moe v. Trump, Doe v. Bondi, and Jones v. Bondi). We quickly got the court to block those transfers. When the Trump administration appealed the decision, we once again stopped the transfer of 14 transgender women to men’s facilities, where they would face heightened risk for assault. We refuse to back down when the government violates constitutional rights and puts people in harm’s way.

  • The latest (as of 6/7): The Federal District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction blocking the transfer of 14 transgender women into men’s prisons where they would be at extremely high risk of rape, violence, and sexual assault. Learn more.

Tirrell and Turmelle v. Edelblut: GLAD Law and the ACLU of New Hampshire are defending Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle, two transgender high schoolers challenging the ban that aims to keep them and other trans girls from playing the sports they love with their friends. The case was originally filed as a challenge to a New Hampshire state law, but was expanded to include President Trump after his February 5 executive order to ban trans girls from sports nationwide.

  • The latest (as of 2/12/25): We expanded our lawsuit beyond New Hampshire, adding a challenge to President Trump’s executive order banning transgender girls and women from sports nationwide. Learn more.

GLAD Law represents families with transgender children in multiple cases challenging Department of Justice (DOJ) demands for sweeping access their private medical records. After several failed attempts to get records from hospitals, the Department of Justice used a criminal grand jury to escalate their demands of medical records of transgender youth. GLAD Law and our partners went to court to protect the privacy of patients and families:

In re: 2025 Subpoena to Children’s National Hospital: We represent 8 families asking a federal court to deny a DOJ-issued subpoena for their confidential medical records related to care received at Children’s National Hospital’s Gender Development Program.

  • The latest (as of 1/21): The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted our motion to quash, blocking the federal subpoena aimed at threatening transgender youth and their families and chilling access to lawful health care. 

In re: Administrative Subpoenas to Children’s Hospitals: GLAD Law and NCLR represent 11 families who have moved for a class action to block DOJ from obtaining sweeping access to private, protected health information about transgender youth from hospitals across the country.

Z.A. v. Blanche: GLAD Law and NCLR represent 6 California families asking a federal court to stop the Trump administration’s Department of Justice from using a grand jury subpoena issued more than 1,500 miles away to seize their children’s confidential medical records from Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford.

  • The latest (as of 7/2): A federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s US Department of Justice from obtaining the private medical records of minors who received transgender health care at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, ruling that the families challenging the government’s demand are likely to succeed on their claim that it violates their constitutional right to privacy. Learn more.
Donate to Help the Fight

Banning Transgender Servicemembers

President Trump issued an executive order on January 27, 2025 banning transgender people from serving in the U.S. military. This reckless ban weakens our military, subjecting qualified transgender servicemembers to discharge because of who they are and turning away skilled individuals who meet rigorous standards and are ready to serve.

Cases

  • Talbott v. USA, filed by GLAD Law and NCLR
  • Ireland v. Hegseth, filed by GLAD Law and NCLR
  • Shilling v. Trump, filed by Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign
    • The latest (as of 10/20/25): The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump Administration’s request to stay the preliminary injunction that blocked enforcement of the executive order. This order lifts the nationwide injunction, allowing the military ban to go into effect. In October 2025, Lambda Legal argued before the Ninth Circuit that the injunction should be restored. A trial is currently scheduled to take place in November 2026. Learn more.

Barriers for Transgender People in Public Life

Executive Order 14168, issued on January 20, 2025, is an alarming attempt to undo the basic protections that allow transgender people to go about their daily lives. It directs the State Department to stop issuing accurate passports for trans people, instructs the Bureau of Prisons to deny incarcerated transgender people health care and appropriate housing, and charges the Department of Housing and Urban Development to reverse rules that give trans people safe access to shelters. It also pushes federal agencies to remove mention of gender identity from their websites, materials, and forms.

Find more information on updating your documents in the wake of these attempts to repeal basic protections for transgender people.

Cases

  • Defending the rights of transgender women who are incarcerated:
    • Moe v. Trump, Doe v. McHenry, and Jones v. Trump, filed by GLAD Law and NCLR
    • Doe v. Blanche, filed by GLAD Law and NCLR
      • The latest (as of 6/7): The Federal District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction blocking the transfer of 14 transgender women into men’s prisons where they would be at extremely high risk of rape, violence, and sexual assault. Learn more.
    • Kingdom v. Trump, filed by the ACLU and Transgender Law Center, challenges the policies prohibiting incarcerated transgender people from accessing healthcare.
      • The latest (as of 6/3): The district court granted class certification and a preliminary injunction in Kingdom requiring the BOP to provide hormone therapy and accommodations to incarcerated transgender people while the case continues. Learn more.
  • Challenges to the State Department’s refusal to issue correct passports for transgender people:
    • Orr v. Trump, filed by the ACLU and ACLU of Massachusetts
      • The latest (as of 11/6/25): The US Supreme Court temporarily put a lower court’s order on hold for now, allowing the State Department to implement a passport policy that limits sex markers to a person’s birth sex, preventing transgender and nonbinary people from obtaining passports reflecting a different sex than their birth sex. While litigation continues, the State Department will issue new and renewed passports listing only a passport holder’s birth sex. Learn more.
    • Schlacter v. US Department of State, filed by Lambda Legal
  • American Public Health Association v. National Institutes of Health, filed by the ACLU and ACLU of Massachusetts, challenges the abrupt cancellation of research grants by the NIH due to their connections to gender identity or diversity, equity, and inclusion.
    • The latest (as of 1/6): On June 16, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a final judgement striking down the NIH’s directive that lead to the cancellation of research grants. The court reversed the grant terminations and instructed the government to make the funds available immediately. This decision was appealed, and on January 6, plaintiffs urged the First Circuit to uphold the district court’s judgment. Learn more.
  • Doctors for America v. Office of Personnel Management, filed by Public Citizen against the OPM, CDC, FDA, and HHS, challenges the removal of a broad range of health-related data and information, including information related to LGBTQ+ people, from publicly accessible government websites.
    • The latest (as of 7/3/25): The court granted the motion for summary judgement and ordered for the websites to be restored.
  • E.K. v. Department of Defense Education Activity, filed by the ACLU, ACLU of Virginia, and ACLU of Kentucky, challenges the Department of Defense Education Activity’s removal of educational material related to race and gender from its libraries and classrooms in K-12 schools.
  • GLMA v. National Institutes of Health, filed by Lambda Legal, challenges the termination of hundreds of research grants that aimed to improve the health of LGBTQ+ people.
  • National Urban League v. Trump, filed by Lambda Legal on behalf of the National Urban League, the National Fair Housing Alliance, and the AIDS Foundation of Chicago, challenges three executive orders that target DEIA initiatives and seek to deny the existence of transgender people.
    • The latest (as of 5/2/25): The district court declined to grant a preliminary injunction. Learn more.
  • Rhode Island Latino Arts v. National Endowment for the Arts, filed by the ACLU and ACLU of Rhode Island, challenges the NEA requirement that grant applicants certify they will not use use federal funds to “promote gender ideology.”
    • The latest (as of 9/19/25): A federal judge ruled that the NEA’s policy violates the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. Learn more.
  • San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump, filed by Lambda Legal on behalf of multiple LGBTQ, Health, and HIV organizations, challenges three executive orders that seek to deny the existence of transgender people and prohibits and prohibits federal contractors from respecting their identities, terminate equity-related grants, and prohibit federal contractors and grantees from employing DEIA principles in their work.
    • The latest (as of 6/9/25): The court granted the motion for preliminary injunction, preventing the Trump Administration from defunding the nine organizations represented in the lawsuit as the case proceeds. Learn more.
  • Schiff v. Office of Personnel Management, filed by the ACLU, ACLU of Massachusetts, and the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School on behalf of doctors from Harvard Medical School, challenges the removal of research articles that mention LGBTQ+ people from a government-run website.
    • The latest (as of 2/18): A binding agreement was secured, requiring the government to maintain the court-ordered restoration of scholarly research that included references to the LGBTQ+ community. Learn more.

Restricting Health Care

On January 28, 2025, President Trump signed an order intended to ban health care for transgender young people under age 19. It seeks to deny coverage for medically necessary care to transgender dependents of federal employees and seeks to ban federal funding for any healthcare organization that provides this necessary and proven healthcare for transgender people under 19.

Learn more about protecting your access to health care and what to ask your care provider about potential restrictions on transgender health care.

Cases

  • PFLAG v. Trump, filed by ACLU, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU of Maryland
    • The latest (as of 3/4/25): A federal judge granted a request for preliminary injunction, blocking enforcement of the executive orders threatening federal funding for providers of gender-affirming medical care for people under 19. Learn more.
  • Washington v. Trump, filed by Attorneys General from Washington, Minnesota, and Oregon
    • The latest (as of 4/23/25): The court stayed the preliminary injunction while the appeal is underway.

Targeting Transgender Girls in Sports

President Trump signed an executive order barring transgender girls from participating in school sports. President Trump’s order subjects transgender girls to discrimination in violation of federal equal protection guarantees, including their rights under Title IX. The order also unlawfully subjects schools to the threat of losing federal funding for allowing transgender girls to play school sports.

We’re working to fight against discrimination toward transgender girls in athletics. See how you can get involved and support our goal to keep sports inclusive.

Cases

Resources

Fight Trump’s Executive Orders

Sign up for the latest updates on LGBTQ+ rights and GLAD Law’s work toward justice.

Get Updates