Bend, OR – A federal judge in Seattle has ruled that a key element of former President Donald Trump’s plan to withdraw federal funding from institutions providing gender-affirming care for transgender youth will remain blocked on a long-term basis. U.S. District Court Judge Lauren King issued the ruling late Friday, extending a previous temporary restraining order and providing a significant victory to the states involved in the lawsuit.
The legal battle stems from a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, and later Colorado, challenging two of Trump’s executive orders aimed at limiting gender-affirming care. One of the executive orders, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism,” sought to strip federal funding from programs that “promote gender ideology.” The second, “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” called for the federal government to cut off research and educational grants for medical institutions providing gender-affirming treatments, such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy, to minors under the age of 19.
These orders raised significant concerns among medical professionals and advocacy groups, with many fearing that they would not only disrupt essential healthcare for transgender youth but also jeopardize the availability of necessary treatments for other minors, such as those undergoing cancer care. In her ruling, Judge King highlighted the potential consequences of the orders, stressing that the directives were too broad and could prevent healthcare providers from offering essential medical treatments to transgender youth.
“The inadequate ‘means-end fit’ would prevent federally funded medical providers from providing necessary medical treatments to transgender youth that are completely unrelated to gender identity,” Judge King wrote in her decision. She further explained that transgender teens, for instance, could be denied access to medical treatments like puberty blockers, even if they were needed as part of cancer care—a situation that would not apply to cisgender teens.
The ruling came after a Friday court hearing, during which Washington Assistant Attorney General William McGinty emphasized the urgency of the situation, warning that the restrictions could have dire consequences for transgender youth. “There are going to be young people who are going to take their lives if they can no longer receive this care,” McGinty argued.
Trump’s orders used strong and often inflammatory language to describe gender-affirming care, referring to treatments such as hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgeries as “maiming,” “sterilizing,” and “mutilating.” However, these descriptions are at odds with medical consensus. Prominent medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association, widely endorse gender-affirming care as essential for the mental and physical well-being of transgender individuals.
The case also centers on the broader question of federal versus state authority. The states suing Trump argue that the executive orders infringe upon states’ rights to regulate healthcare and violate equal protection principles. They contend that the directives disproportionately harm transgender youth by limiting their access to critical healthcare and reinforcing harmful stigmas.
In response, Justice Department attorney Vinita Andrapalliyal defended the Trump administration’s authority, asserting that the President had the constitutional right to direct federal agencies to implement his policies, subject to the agencies’ statutory authorities. However, when pressed by Judge King about the nature of gender dysphoria and its medical recognition, Andrapalliyal struggled to provide clear answers, fueling skepticism about the administration’s understanding of the issue.
The ruling is seen as a temporary win for the states involved in the lawsuit, but the legal battle is far from over. As Judge King’s decision remains in place for now, the future of Trump’s executive orders will continue to be determined in the courts. The outcome of this case could have lasting implications not only for transgender youth but also for the broader national debate surrounding gender identity, healthcare access, and the role of federal government in regulating medical practices.
The case is expected to continue to unfold in the coming months, with the potential for further appeals and additional rulings that could shape the landscape of healthcare for transgender individuals across the United States.
