Potential 2028 Democrats shy away from Supreme Court trans care ruling
But one group on the left has been quiet since the ruling sent shockwaves: Democratic leaders across the country eyed as potential 2028 White House picks.
The lack of response to the 6-3 ruling underscores what some political observers have called the party's continued nervousness over how to address an issue that became pivotal in the 2024 election. It also shows how fraught the topic may remain heading into the 2026 midterms that will decide control of Congress.
President Donald Trump campaigned heavily on a promise to ban gender-affirming care for youth and prevent transgender athletes from competing - and he's taken several executive actions impacting transgender Americans since the start of his second term.
Here's what to know about how prominent Democrats responded to the Supreme Court's ruling.
What happened?
The decision, in which the court said preventing minors from using puberty blockers and hormone therapy does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, was immediately criticized by liberal and progressive groups, like Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group.
The court's ruling comes after Trump and Republicans made transgender rights a key part of the final weeks of the 2024 campaign.
"Kamala supports tax-payer funded sex changes for prisoners," one of Trump's campaign ads alleged about then-Vice President Kamala Harris. "Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you."
Some Democrats called the ads among the most effective of the campaign, according to multiple reports last year. And in recent months some Democrats have worked to separate their party from elements of transgender rights efforts. For example, California Gov. Gavin Newsom made headlines in March when he suggested transgender athletes' participation in women's sports was "deeply unfair" and acknowledged the campaign ad was "devastating."
Since taking office in January, Trump has signed executive orders to ban transgender athletes from girls' and women's sports, end federal support for gender-affirming care and prevent transgender people from serving openly in the military. Trump also signed on his first day back in office an order declaring that the government recognizes only two sexes, male and female.
Governors quiet
Newsom of California, Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, and Gov. Wes Moore of Maryland, the three governors considered leading contenders to run for president in 2028, all kept quiet after the Supreme Court's decision this week.
Most forthcoming of the party's potential 2028 contenders was Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois, who has a transgender cousin, and who wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, that Illinois has protections to "meet this very moment."
"In a time of increasing overreach and hateful rhetoric, it's more important than ever to reaffirm our commitment to the rights and dignity of the LGBTQ+ community," he added. "You have a home here always."
Rank and file
Reaction among Democrats on Capitol Hill was largely quiet as well, though several members of Congress did make statements.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York denounced the decision on the Senate floor as part of a "cruel crusade against trans Americans." On social media he called it a distraction from issues impacting all people, regardless of gender identity.
His counterpart in the House, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York did not mention it in a news release or on social media.
Sen. Ed Markey, D-Massachusetts, pointed out in a statement that 24 other states have similar laws blocking some gender-affirming care for transgender youths.
"Today, hate won," he said, alleging the Supreme Court's conservative-leaning justices "endorsed hate and discrimination by delivering a win for Republicans who have relentlessly and cruelly attacked transgender Americans for years."
"Once again, politicians and judges are inserting themselves in exam rooms," Rep. Sarah McBride, D-Delaware, the nation's first openly transgender member of Congress, said Wednesday on X, formerly called Twitter. "This ruling undermines doctors in delivering care to some of the most vulnerable patients in our country."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
What's the point of the UK talking to Tehran? More than you might think…
Europe's frantic diplomatic mission in Geneva may go down as one of its most arduous ventures on the world stage – and also one of its most consequential. The foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany must persuade a battered Iranian regime to kow-tow to the US and Israel over its nuclear ambitions, or face likely annihilation. All three European powers would, of course, love to see the back of supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei's corrupt and brutal theocracy. But they rightly fear the regime's capacity to unleash death and destruction before it goes. If Trump joins Israel in the war on Iran with US bunker-busting bombs on nuclear sites, and it succeeds in killing Khamenei, there will still be plenty of Iranian hardliners left who will be willing to fight to the death. Previous inhibitions will not apply. That could mean use of a dirty bomb in the West, or chaos unleashed in the Strait of Hormuz, through which 90 per cent of the Gulf's oil passes. For the world at large, the stakes are that high. British foreign secretary David Lammy – after meeting his US counterpart, Marco Rubio, and presidential envoy Steve Witkoff in Washington on Thursday – said that the UK was 'determined that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon". He thinks a window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution, as Trump dithers over whether to attack the regime, as US neo-cons and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu are demanding – or whether to heed the no-more-wars mantra of his Maga base. And so, in search of a diplomatic solution, Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi is meeting with his European counterparts in Switzerland. But what can be achieved? For all their good intentions – French president Emmanuel Macron said the diplomats would make a "comprehensive, diplomatic and technical offer of negotiation" to Iran – the Europeans are unlikely to persuade the Iranians to pull back from the brink. At least not on their own. While one Iranian diplomat said Tehran was willing to pursue 'a balanced and pragmatic policy in its dealings with Europe, and engage rationally with both East and West', Araghchi said there will be 'no talks' with the US over Iran's nuclear programme while the Israeli bombardment continues: 'The Americans want negotiations and have sent messages several times, but we have clearly said that there is no room for dialogue.' But there is a useful point to holding talks on neutral ground with Tehran – and it's not simply to ask them nicely and face-to-face if they wouldn't mind stopping with their nuclear enrichment programme. Rather than relaying Trump and Netanyahu's demands to Iran, Geneva is about feeding back to the White House – translating Tehran's position for the US president. The Europeans aren't there to stop the war, they're Trump-whispering for the Ayatollah. It's not clear that European diplomats have the connections they need to have a greater role to play than this, useful though it will prove. But when it comes to a practical breakthrough, some of the Gulf states might, however. Behind the scenes, figures in what some dub 'Iran's deep state' – many of them members of the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – are talking to representatives of Oman and Qatar; it might be these Middle Eastern countries that can make the difference, in a second stage of dialogue. Qatar, for its part, will likely hold more sway over Washington than London or Paris. All the peacemakers, though, will be battling the plans of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Nothing less that the obliteration of the regime in Tehran will satisfy him. Worryingly, Israel's premier appears to have been joined by an increasingly pro-war Fox News, with Sean Hannity this week declaring that Iran 'is the biggest existential threat to the entire western world'. The West should have learnt by now – after the disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya – that enforced regime change in the Middle East is best avoided. Andreas Krieg, a leading Iran expert at King's College London thinks regime change in Iran would 'not be clean or peaceful'. If the current theocracy falls, there is no significant alternative political-social structure to lead this country of 92 million into the light. The IRGC, a ruthless military-industrial complex, would not easily cede control of the Iranian economy. Instead, with 190,000 personnel and a similar number of Basij paramilitaries to call on, it might well create a military dictatorship. The West and Israel would be back to square one. And the Iranian people would be no better off. Ironically, the last time the West brought about regime change in Iran – by booting out, in 1953, the democratically elected premier Mohammad Mosaddegh (for which we have British Petroleum and the CIA to thank) – it laid the groundwork for the emergence of the current Islamic Republic in the 1970s. In between rounds of golf, as he ponders his next steps in the Middle East, you can't help wishing Potus would be shown – by Lammy or anyone else – the relevant pages of a history book. It is within the president's power to unleash hell – or stop history repeating itself. After the Geneva talks, let's hope he listens to what the Trump-whisperers tell him.
Telegraph
33 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Has Trump ‘chickened out' on Iran? Five reasons for his two-week delay
On Tuesday evening, Donald Trump appeared poised to join Israel's war against Iran. Having left the G7 summit in Canada early, he convened an emergency meeting of his national security advisers. JD Vance, his vice-president and a staunch opponent of foreign military entanglements, signalled that the president was contemplating action. Mr Trump issued a series of increasingly bellicose warnings, demanding Iran's 'unconditional surrender'. 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding,' he wrote in a social media post. Yet within 48 hours, the president had pulled back. To some observers of US politics, this will seem like another instance of Mr Trump living up to his 'Taco' instincts – 'Trump Always Chickens Out', the acronym that so palpably infuriates him. There are, however, several plausible reasons for delay. Domestic disputes Mr Trump's flirtation with war has sharply divided his base. Maga loyalists, whose foreign policy instincts are overwhelmingly isolationist, are aghast at the prospect of their standard-bearer dragging them into a new conflict, especially after campaigning so forcefully against just such adventurism. 'Anyone slobbering for the US to become involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/Maga,' Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of Mr Trump's most ardent Congressional allies, posted on social media.
The Guardian
39 minutes ago
- The Guardian
We're on the brink of a disastrous, illegal conflagration in the Middle East. Trump must be stopped
Like the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, Israel's war on Iran is neither legal nor just. It is a war of choice, not of necessity – and should the US or its European allies, particularly Britain, join in, they risk being dragged into another disastrous and unlawful conflict in the Middle East. A US military intervention would be in direct contravention of international law. Already, the US, once the architect and guardian of the international order, is now among its chief violators. Instead of pressuring Benjamin Netanyahu to end his siege and destruction of Gaza, Donald Trump has fully sided with Netanyahu and called Israel's attacks on Iran 'excellent'. He has demanded Iran's 'unconditional surrender'. Trump is considering military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. Doing so is explicitly prohibited under article 56 of the additional protocol to the Geneva conventions because of the danger of nuclear contamination. Britain, meanwhile, must tread carefully. The attorney general has reportedly warned that any UK military involvement beyond defensive support would be illegal. Richard Hermer, the government's top legal adviser, is said to have raised internal concerns about the legality of joining a bombing campaign. The foundation of Israel's justification for launching pre-emptive strikes and of Washington's quiet complicity is alarming. The core claim is that Iran was rapidly taking steps to 'weaponise its uranium', with Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, repeatedly warning that Tehran is approaching a point of no return in developing a nuclear bomb. But Netanyahu's narrative flatly contradicts the US intelligence assessment, which found that not only is Iran not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, it remains at least three years away from having the capability to do so. The CIA disputes the Israeli claim that Iran is close to crossing a nuclear threshold. Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified in March that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and that the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, had not authorised a nuclear programme, one that was in fact suspended in 2003. Even if Iran was making a bomb, international law doesn't give Israel and the US the right to bomb Iran. The UN charter is clear on the use of force in international relations. Yet, when pressed about this contradiction, Trump dismissed the intelligence outright. 'I don't care what she said,' he told reporters. 'I think they were very close to having it.' Netanyahu and Trump's narrative also stands in direct opposition to findings by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose director general, Rafael Grossi, confirmed on 17 June that there was 'no proof' Iran was systematically developing nuclear weapons. Set against this backdrop, US military intervention would rupture the rules-based international order further and make future conflicts more unpredictable and dangerous. Other powerful states could launch offensive wars under the pretext of pre-empting real or imagined threats to their national security. Today, it's Israel and the US. Tomorrow, China could use the same rationale to justify attacking Taiwan. The echoes of the Iraq war should also raise alarm bells. Then, as now, war was sold on manufactured intelligence. Netanyahu was a vocal supporter of the neoconservative movement that led the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq and justified it with claims about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorism. George W Bush sold that war with the now-infamous line about Hussein's 'massive stockpile' of biological weapons, despite the CIA stating it had 'no specific information' on quantities or types. Bush went further, claiming: 'We do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon,' contradicting his own intelligence. He knew, and he lied. Trump, for his part, publicly criticised that very deception, saying Bush's decision to invade Iraq was 'the worst decision any president has made in the history of this country [the US]', adding: 'There were no weapons of mass destruction, and they knew there were none.' Yet Trump today appears to borrow a page from Bush's playbook. Although there is no plan for a US ground invasion of Iran, any attack on Tehran risks spiralling into a full-blown regional war. Iran has repeatedly threatened to retaliate against US bases in Iraq, Bahrain and the wider Gulf. A mission creep could easily escalate, triggering a cycle of strikes and counterstrikes. For example, Iran could mine the strait of Hormuz, a critical choke point for global energy flows. The effects could reverberate globally, hitting energy markets and causing an inflationary cycle, weakening confidence in the US dollar, and potentially plunging the US economy into stagflation. Even the Houthis, with far fewer military capabilities than Iran, have managed to severely inflict damage and disrupt shipping in the Red Sea. If the US joins Israel's war, Iran could cripple global trade routes and send oil prices soaring. If the US joins Israel's war on Iran, it could backfire spectacularly, and potentially strengthen the regime rather than weakening it. One likely outcome is that the clerics will dash forward towards making a nuclear bomb, pointing to Israel's attack and attempt at regime change as justification. Meanwhile, in the UK, Keir Starmer would do well to remember the bitter legacy of Tony Blair, who led Britain into Iraq alongside the US. Fawaz Gerges is professor of international relations at the London School of Economics. His most recent book is The Great Betrayal: The Struggle for Freedom and Democracy in the Middle East
