Covering executive orders that target trans Americans
In his first 10 days, Trump issued multiple executive orders that seek to change government policy around gender. Resources, questions, and ideas to help reporters unravel the flood.
- What to know
- Coverage best practices
- Questions to ask
- Key terms and background
- Journalistic resources
- Reading to catch up
What to know
President Donald Trump issued a series of executive orders targeting transgender communities in the first weeks of the new administration. These seek to limit trans people’s access to health care and to legal documentation, and to redefine “sex” in restrictive terms, among other provisions. Beyond those orders, others — involving the military, workplace practices, law enforcement, citizenship, religion, and education — are nearly certain to impact trans people.
Journalists should not take their claims at face value. They are, at heart, expressions of political intent. These orders are also directives, not laws. The work of interpreting, enforcing, and adjudicating them will fall to federal agencies and the courts.
Despite that, Trump’s signing of these orders has already prompted immediate action on the part of hospitals, passport offices, and more. These ongoing actions merit coverage now — not just once more is known about their legality and scope.
Still, in the short term, and the absence of definitive detail, news organizations should resist the temptation to over-interpret the orders’ messaging or potential implications. Reporters should instead investigate their immediate, tangible consequences, as well as the broader purposes behind them. They raise many questions that remain unanswered.
These orders often use political rhetoric that reflects partisan bias. Some phrases should be treated similarly to terms like “pro-life” or “pro-choice.” The Associated Press Stylebook recommends avoiding these, even though they may appear in official documents. Journalists should take care not to strip this language of its context or meaning, if they choose to directly quote it.
More importantly, as with most political messaging, jargon often makes it harder for audiences to understand what is actually happening.
Do not let language obscure the facts.
Coverage best practices
Inform your audience. Trans communities are complex and broadly unfamiliar to the public. Walk them through what the government is doing and why, not just what is being said. Include and explain jargon only to the extent that it helps your audience understand the tangible effects of laws and policies. Be clear about what is and isn’t known.
Fact-check common shorthands. The language of orders may be at odds with the details in them. For example, the main provisions in the EO titled “Protecting children [emphasis added] from chemical and surgical mutilation” cover legal adults under the age of 19. It is inaccurate to describe the restrictions as limited to “minors” or “children.” Another order presents trans-inclusive policies as examples of “anti-Christian bias," even though many faith groups, including Christians, embrace trans people.
Report what you know. Do not extrapolate, fear-monger, or guess at the meaning of laws, orders, or regulations. Seek expert analysis. Be transparent with audiences when something is unclear — and follow up, again and again, until your questions are answered.
Talk to the people who are affected. Seek the perspectives of people at the center of a story — in this case, trans people, the parents of trans children, and their immediate circles. Stories are better, and audiences are better informed, when trans voices contribute to any narrative about trans people. This is a basic tenet of good journalism.
Look for the actual impact, not just the legal impact. Not all orders have to be legal, enforceable, or actually enforced to have consequences. For example, some clinics have already announced that they will cease to provide trans health care for minors, even though no federal health agencies have formally required them to do this.
Don’t get lost in the flood. Many government policies come with enforcement deadlines and reporting requirements. These generate public records that can lead to accountability stories later. Follow up on reporting about anti-trans policies. Breaking news stories are important, but their full effects will emerge over time.
Talk to us. The TJA is here to help you.
Interested in helping out? Want to send us a tip about a public record we might want to request?
Let us known at contact@transjournalists.org, or keep an eye on this newsletter.
Questions to ask
- Who does the order affect, and how does that change between provisions? The EO restricting trans health care covers under-19s in one provision; other provisions, such as the removal or revision of all policies that reference WPATH’s standards of care, could potentially affect trans people of any age. This distinction is not immediately explicit in the order and understanding the full consequences may require additional reporting. Another order defining U.S. citizenship requires a mother and father as “biological progenitor.” What implications could this have for trans parents and LGBTQ+ families more broadly? Watch for similar trends in other directives.
- Who does it exclude or leave in limbo? The EOs define and describe “sex” in starkly binary terms. That fails to account for the estimated 5 million intersex people in the U.S., as well as people who have medical conditions that contradict the definitions — not just trans people. How are those groups also affected by the order?
- What new legal and political tactics are being deployed? One EO references laws covering female genital mutilation and consumer fraud, for example. Where has that strategy appeared before? What legal theories underpin such strategies, and how do those arguments differ from existing tactics? How are groups opposed to the EOs planning to counter them?
- How do these measures subjectively describe specific groups of people? What do these descriptions imply? One order aims to disqualify transgender people from serving in the military on the grounds that they, as a class, do not maintain an “honorable, truthful, and disciplined” lifestyle. What is the basis of this characterization? What are the implications of characterizing entire groups in this fashion? How have similar characterizations been used politically in the past, and how might they be used towards other groups?
- How will these provisions be implemented? EOs are often unspecific. A memo on freezing federal funding, which cited an EO, created chaos as agencies scrambled to comply; meanwhile, judges blocked it. Similarly vague state legislation around gender has led to inconsistent interpretation, including overcompliance and confusion. Some orders may contradict existing law. What will the federal government do to implement any provisions? How will entities subject to federal regulation attempt to comply without clear instruction?
- How does the strategy and legal reasoning behind the EOs relate to other areas of law and other groups of people? One order seeks to withhold federal funding from K-12 schools if used to teach “discriminatory equity ideology” or “gender ideology.” Though the order does not use the phrase “critical race theory,” the text is similar to several state laws that have sought to limit teaching about racism and sexism. Another order defines “male” and “female” based on attributes “at conception,” mirroring language in “fetal personhood” legislation that seeks to restrict reproductive health care, including abortion. How does the language in these orders mirror language in other legal or policy documents?
Key terms and background
gender ideology/transgenderism — These and similar terms frame a person’s transgender status as a political affiliation rather than a demographic characteristic, in the same way that “gay agenda” politicizes an entire identity group. “Gender ideology,” like “woke agenda” or “critical race theory,” is jargon that obscures the speaker’s specific meaning. Quoting these terms without context brings little insight to audiences.
rapid-onset gender dysphoria — Sometimes referred to as the “social contagion” theory, this is the debunked idea that young people suddenly decide to transition after interacting with trans peers, especially on social media. It comes from a study that has been extensively corrected by its publisher, and it has been consistently discredited by academics, scientists, and subsequent research.
chemical and surgical mutilation, genital mutilation, sterilization — Language that erroneously equates evidence-based gender health care with chemical castration (a punishment for sex offenders), surgical malpractice, and medical or sexual abuse. Gender-related surgery performed with informed consent is no more mutilation than any other widely performed surgery under the care of a physician. Hormone treatment does not guarantee either temporary or permanent sterility; it is not sterilization or mutilation. Additionally, fewer than 0.1% of youth on private insurance have received gender-related medications, according to a peer-reviewed research letter. Fewer still — just 0.002% or 2 in 100,000 teenagers age 15 to 17 — have received any sort of surgical intervention, according to a Harvard review of national data. When seeing these terms, reporters should ask critical questions about how pseudoscientific claims and misinformation are informing public policy.
social transition — The aspects of a person’s gender transition that are not medical, such as choosing a new name and pronouns and dressing differently. A majority of transgender people only undergo social transition, according to data; fewer receive medical care. Social transition is also the only form of transition possible for prepubescent trans children.
sex — What precise set of characteristics defines a person’s “sex” lies at the heart of these executive orders. Legal definitions of sex already vary from country to country, state to state, and agency to agency. The orders advance new and extremely narrow — and scientifically inaccurate — definitions of sex, gender, and their relationship. One requires all federal agents to refer to “sex” and cease to acknowledge “gender” or “gender identity.” Reporters should examine detailed definitions of “sex” with a critical eye, as their consequences can range from banal data systems inconsistencies to serious legalized discrimination.
For clarity amid these shifting definitions, the TJA recommends journalists specify what is meant by “sex” in any given situation: A person’s assigned sex at birth may differ from their legal sex, and their legal sex marker in turn may be listed differently on different documents (such as someone with an X marker on their passport but an M or F marker on their drivers’ license). All of these, in turn, may differ from their gender, their gender presentation or their apparent “sex” according to any number of attributes, like chromosomes, hormones, or anatomy. It remains to be seen how “sex” will be adjudicated in each policy area the executive orders seek to affect.
Journalistic resources
Poynter Staff
snaseer
Rebecca Hamilton
Reading to catch up
Orion Rummler, Kate Sosin
Lil Kalish
Andrea González-Ramírez
Chris Geidner
Dell Cameron
The Associated Press
Tatyana Tandanpolie
Eden Turner
Nico Lang
Lil Kalish,
James Salanga
Vivian McCall
Orion Rummler
Phoebe Petrovic / Wisconsin Watch
Stay in touch
👀 Want to read more? View past newsletters
✉️ Want to partner with us? Get in touch
💼 Hiring? Post your job on our jobs board or email our listserv
📣 Want to promote a job, event, or awards? Check our rates
