Donald Trump’s renewed focus on transgender issues has reignited a contentious debate, raising questions about civil rights and political strategy. During his campaign, Trump leveraged transgender access to sports and bathrooms to galvanize conservative support. Now, back in office, he’s doubled down, removing references to transgender individuals from government websites and passports, and attempting to reinstate a ban on their military service.
This focus on a minority group—transgender people constitute less than 1% of the US population—highlights a significant cultural divide. Transgender individuals and their advocates view these actions as an assault on civil rights. This difference in perspective has transformed the issue into a key piece on Trump’s political chessboard.
Trump’s actions have faced legal challenges, with several judges ruling against his administration’s policies. These rulings underscore the ongoing legal battle over transgender rights and the clash between differing interpretations of equality and inclusion.
The president’s spotlight is giving Monday’s Transgender Day of Visibility a different tenor this year.
“What he wants is to scare us into being invisible again,” said Rachel Crandall Crocker, the executive director of Transgender Michigan who organized the first Day of Visibility 16 years ago. “We have to show him we won’t go back.”
So why has this small population found itself with such an outsized role in American politics?
Trump’s actions reflect a constellation of beliefs that transgender people are dangerous, are men trying to get access to women’s spaces or are pushed into gender changes that they will later regret.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and other major medical groups have said that gender-affirming treatments can be medically necessary and are supported by evidence.
Zein Murib, an associate professor of political science and women’s, gender and sexuality studies at Fordham University, said there has been a decades-old effort “to reinstate Christian nationalist principles as the law of the land” that increased its focus on transgender people after a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling recognizing same-sex marriage nationwide. It took a few years, but some of the positions gained traction.
One factor: Proponents of the restrictions lean into broader questions of fairness and safety, which draw more public attention.
Sports bans and bathroom laws are linked to protecting spaces for women and girls, even as studies have found transgender women are far more likely to be victims of violence. Efforts to bar schools from encouraging gender transition are connected to protecting parental rights. And bans on gender-affirming care rely partly on the idea that people might later regret it, though studies have found that to be rare.
Since 2020, about half the states passed laws barring transgender people from sports competitions aligning with their gender and have banned or restricted gender-affirming medical care for minors. At least 14 have adopted laws restricting which bathrooms transgender people can use in certain buildings.
In February, Iowa became the first state to remove protections for transgender people from civil rights law.
It’s not just political gamesmanship. “I think that whether or not that’s a politically viable strategy is second to the immediate impact that that is going to have on trans people,” Fordham’s Murib said.
