On Monday, the Trump Administration took two major actions against the persistent demand by Democrats for privileges for transgender persons. While some conservatives hoped that the transgender issue was decided by the last presidential election, which Trump won in part by campaigning against “transgender lunacy,” liberals continue to make gains for their agenda with the help of activist judges.
Moments after his inauguration on January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order to straighten out the transgender mess embraced by the Biden Administration. Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” established that the two sexes, male and female, “are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.”
Yet here we are, more than a year and a half later, and the transgender movement has grown in political power and influence in the courts. Activist judges continue to defy President Trump and the will of the people by granting new rights and privileges to transgender persons, such as the ruling in June partially blocking enforcement of Idaho’s new good law safeguarding restrooms against access by opposite-gendered persons.
The federal district court in D.C., presiding in a local culture that is heavily pro-LGBTQ, recently blocked the sensible policy of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to decline requests for transgender surgeries by inmates. This ruling flies in the face of President Trump’s executive order on Inauguration Day requiring that the term “sex” in federal law shall mean “an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female.”
In faithful implementation of President Trump’s executive order, the BOP adopted a policy of addressing gender dysphoria through mental-health treatment, and not surgeries, hormone interventions, or social accommodations. Scientific assertions that surgeries and hormonal treatments are beneficial have largely been discredited, and many in Europe have been outspokenly critical of these approaches in children.
But D.C. federal district judge Royce Lamberth, who imposed particularly harsh prison sentences against J6 protesters, issued a broad injunction against the BOP. Yesterday, Trump’s Solicitor General John Sauer filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court to stay this activist ruling.
“In nullifying BOP’s exercise of its statutorily conferred authority to adopt a policy that prison administrators have determined is necessary to maintain institutional security, the court’s order causes irreparable harm to the government and to the public,” Trump’s top attorney told the Supreme Court in his application.
“Indeed, this Court has emphasized the importance of allowing politically accountable officials to make decisions about the permissible forms of treatment for gender dysphoria, and the need for such policymaking flexibility is even greater in the context of prison administration,” he added.
The second action taken on Monday by the Trump Administration against preferences for transgender people came from the Education Department. It issued a rule rescinding the pro-transgender mandates by Biden in higher education under Title IX, which is the landmark provision enacted as part of the Education Amendments of 1972 to protect women, not transgender, college students.
“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance,” states the 54-year-old Title IX. Over 20 years later, it was reinterpreted by feminists in the Clinton Administration to pressure colleges to provide athletic opportunities for women in proportion to their share of undergraduate enrollment, despite the fact that women are generally far less interested in competitive sports than men.
Then came the transgender movement, and the Biden Administration twisted Title IX further to require preferential treatment for transgender students. Biden redefined “sex” in Title IX to include gender identity and gender attraction, thereby granting new rights to transgender persons and homosexuals.
Lawsuits seeking many millions of dollars are filed against colleges for alleged violations of Title IX, and most colleges cannot afford this lawfare against them. By removing preferential rights for transgender students under Title IX, Trump’s Education Department frees colleges to focus on improving their academic and sports programs without pandering to demands for inclusion by transgender activists and their attorneys.
Title IX was enacted when women were a minority on college campuses, to expand their educational and sports opportunities rather than to arm disgruntled students for alleging discrimination or harassment by others. But women today have a commanding 60-40% majority at college, including holding most positions of authority, so Title IX has little continuing value.
In light of the vast demographic changes in colleges, men are the ones who should be encouraged to attend and be comfortable at college, and it is obviously harmful to women that the matriculation by men has dwindled. Repealing Title IX would be a bold step that Republicans could propose at a time when they need to attract more young men to the Republican Party.
John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) and lead the continuing Phyllis Schlafly Eagles organizations with writing and policy work.
