我們將持續面臨壓力測試，看看我們能容忍多少針對邊緣化社區的殘酷行為，直到更多的人認識到對移民的攻擊使每個美國人都面臨被剝奪正當程序的風險；對跨性別醫療保健的攻擊導致現有醫療機構和研究的破壞；PrEP 覆蓋範圍的挑戰導致乳房 X 光檢查和疫苗等體育保健的瓦解；而公共教育系統調查只是破壞我們公共教育系統的又一種手段。
With daily crises erupting—deportations of students here legally, federal troops deployed against peaceful protesters, public health dismantled, LGBTQ+ young people under attack—it’s easy to get distracted by the chaos. But step back, and a different pattern emerges.
New administrations routinely change policy priorities, using federal oversight and funding to push institutions toward compliance with their agenda. This is normal democratic governance. But what’s happening now is different. This isn’t about institutional compliance; it’s about institutional destruction.
The daily chaos has conditioned us to expect crises, but this systematic dismantling of foundational structures feels different. It’s slower, more methodical, and doesn’t trigger the same alarm bells. It’s jarring and disorienting precisely because it doesn’t feel like the kind of crises we’ve been trained to recognize.
This administration knows that direct attacks on popular institutions generate resistance. So they’ve developed a different approach: use vulnerable communities as testing grounds to build infrastructure needed for broader institutional control and, ultimately, destruction.
This isn’t just scapegoating. It’s much more strategic. Attack the most stigmatized groups first to create legal precedents, enforcement mechanisms, and bureaucratic authorities that can later apply everywhere to destroy foundational structures of governance.
Here are three examples:
A recent Department of Health and Human Services report rejects proven care for transgender adolescents. At its strategic heart, this isn’t about transgender people—it establishes federal authority to override medical judgment. Now, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services demands hospital reporting, and the FBI solicits public complaints about providers. This apparatus, once in place, can target and destroy any disfavored medical practice.
What looked like a narrow religious liberty case in 布雷德伍德訴貝塞拉 has morphed into an assault on the federal task force that identifies which preventive services insurance must cover. PrEP was the vehicle leveraged to try to destroy scientifically sound preventive care recommendations for everyone. Attack public health care associated with gay men, and mammograms, vaccines, and colonoscopies, potentially lose coverage too.
With investigations launched by the United States Department of Education supposedly focused on transgender athletes, schools across the country face compliance burdens far beyond LGBTQ+ students—curriculum audits, bathroom policies, and withdrawal from state programs. The demands are designed to be impossible to meet, forcing schools to choose between excluding transgender students or facing bureaucratic destruction that makes normal operations impossible. The goal is to make public education unworkable.
Each attack creates infrastructure that serves as a destruction mechanism far outlasting the initial target. The process masquerades as routine—agency reports, compliance requirements, targeted defunding. We’re conditioned to expect chaos, so systematic dismantling can feel routine or be invisible to those who think they’re unaffected.
This systematic assault demands a systematic response. GLAD Law’s surge litigation, deploying resources to swiftly challenge the administration’s most dangerous moves, represents just the kind of rapid-response strategy needed to disrupt this demolition project. By moving quickly and strategically, we can prevent these precedents from taking root and stop the infrastructure of destruction from becoming operational.
GLAD Law’s approach is clear: stop what we can, delay what we can’t stop, and grow harm reduction resources so they can be made more readily available along the way. Every injunction we win, every harmful regulation we block, and every enforcement mechanism we challenge helps preserve the democratic structures that must survive this systematic approach. The administration is counting on us being overwhelmed by the daily chaos. With queer eyes trained on their real strategy and our community standing strong together, GLAD Law is determined to prove them wrong.
GLAD Law 跨性別者和酷兒權利高級總監 珍妮佛·萊維 和 NCLR法律總監 香農·明特，首席律師 塔爾博特訴美國案（以前 塔爾博特訴川普案) 本身也是跨性別者，並且各自擁有超過三十年處理具有里程碑意義的 LGBTQ+ 案件的訴訟經驗。 Levi 和 Minter 也共同領導了 2017 年針對美國跨性別者參軍禁令的法律鬥爭。 多伊訴川普案 和 斯托克曼訴川普案，並獲得了阻止該禁令實施的初步禁令。 Levi 和 Minter 對今天的最後期限做出了回應：
“強制分離不屬於自願行為，” GLAD Law 跨性別者和酷兒權利資深總監 Jennifer Levi「尊敬而忠誠的跨性別軍人正被迫根據一項總統法令精心策劃自己的解僱，這項法令以虛假信息誹謗他們的人格，而政府自己也在法庭上承認這些描述是不真實的。這些軍人功勳卓著，服役數十年，僅僅因為跨性別就強迫他們退役，這是對美國價值觀的可恥背叛。」
Expelling courageous servicemembers who have put their lives on the line for this country is beneath contempt.
Following the Supreme Court decision to allow the Trump administration’s transgender military ban to take effect while legal challenges continue, transgender servicemembers find themselves having to make unfathomable decisions. They must tell the military whether they will leave “voluntarily” or wait to be forced out.
Active-duty transgender servicemembers have until today, June 6, to accept what the military has termed “voluntary” separation. Transgender servicemembers in the reserves have until July 7 to do the same. These are people who have served honorably, many for decades, earning medals and distinctions. Yet they’re being forced to choreograph their own dismissal, simply for being transgender.
I recently spoke to a couple of our plaintiffs, who shared that many trans servicemembers can barely sleep trying to make this devastatingly difficult, life-altering decision. “It is really happening, thousands of us, many of whom have spent the majority of our lives working towards or in military service, are about to lose everything and have to start all over again from square one. It’s a very heavy feeling.”
Servicemembers are left moving in directions that lead to the same unfavorable outcome: the end of their military careers. They are caught between a rock and a hard place – the carrot or the stick. On one hand, they take “voluntary” separation, which coerces them with “incentives” to end their career, like forgiven repayment of bonuses. On the other hand, they stay for now and face being pushed out later under even harsher terms.
This isn’t really a choice at all. Take Hunter Marquez for example. Hunter is a cadet who just graduate from the United States Air Force Academy. Recently, he completed the demanding physical and academic requirements required by the military but because he is transgender, he was not commissioned as an officer. On graduation day, he was presented with his “choice”—leave the career he’d worked toward, or face potentially repaying the full cost of his military education, a debt that would devastate his ability to launch his professional life.
Regardless of each individual’s personal decision, honor and principle are drivers of service for each of our plaintiffs, and for thousands of other transgender servicemembers. History will record the unfairness of their expulsion.
I can’t begin to understand the profound “sense of institutional betrayal,” as one plaintiff told me, that these servicemembers are feeling. I’m outraged by the abusive maltreatment these decorated servicemembers are receiving simply because of who they are. As the world continues to teeter between authoritarianism and freedom, I worry that this treatment is being normalized.
We should, at all costs, fight being desensitized to the abnormal treatment of servicemembers who have historically exemplified the American values of integrity, honor, and courage. Our sense of the common good and collective well-being rests on our ability or inability to sense the chilling ripple effect of discriminatory practices aimed at our most vulnerable communities.
Today is a heartbreaking and shameful day, as the implementation of Trump’s transgender military ban goes into effect in the short term. But our fight doesn’t end. We have many tools to challenge the hostile attacks coming our way, litigation chief among them. We are still awaiting an appellate court decision in our challenge to the transgender military ban that could yet allow these servicemembers to continue serving while our constitutional case moves forward. Whatever happens to transgender service members in the short-run, GLAD Law will keep fighting to protect them.
We are in it for the long haul. Our plaintiffs, and our entire community, deserve no less.
需要了解什麼，需要做什麼：
Send a message of support and thanks to transgender servicemembers.
Read this powerful op-ed from Wayne Maines: “I didn’t think transgender kids were real. My love for my daughter changed that.”
Tell senators to say no to ripping healthcare away from millions of Americans, including thousands of LGBTQ+ adults, who are twice as likely to have Medicaid as their primary insurance.
香港中文 
Español de México 
Português 
简体中文 
Français 
Tiếng Việt 
العربية 
Polski 
Русский 
Deutsch 
Kreyòl Ayisyen