SF community groups sue Trump over anti-trans executive orders
Local LGBTQ-serving community organizations are among nine nonprofits that sued the Trump administration Friday over executive orders targeting transgender and nonbinary people.
Why it matters: President Trump ran his campaign on an incendiary anti-trans platform that promoted false claims about the community, which make up 1.3% of U.S. adults.
State of play: One of his first actions in office was to direct the federal government to only recognize two sexes, male and female.
He has since ordered federal agencies to limit gender-affirming care for youth, restrict information about trans issues and bar trans women and girls in federally-funded schools from participating in sports that align with their gender identity.
Driving the news: Filed by Lambda Legal, the lawsuit alleges Trump's actions "pose an existential threat to transgender people and the organizations that ... provide them with life-saving services."
The plaintiffs, which include San Francisco AIDS Foundation (SFAF), GLBT Historical Society and San Francisco Community Health Center, are asking the district court to declare the orders unconstitutional and block their implementation.
The lawsuit also accuses the Trump administration of expressing "a disparaging, demeaning, idiosyncratic, and unscientific viewpoint about transgender people and gender identity."
That exponentially increases harm against trans people — who are already four times more likely to be victims of violent crime — and other marginalized populations, plaintiffs argue.
What they're saying: "These executive orders attempt to erase an entire community and enshrines blatant discrimination as national policy" while threatening to withdraw funds from organizations "simply because they acknowledge the reality of the people they serve," Lambda Legal's Jose Abrigo, the lead lawyer in the case, said in a press call Friday.
"Moreover, if these executive orders stand, they set a dangerous precedent where the government can dictate what private organizations, researchers and service providers can say and do, even when it contradicts established medical, legal and historical fact."
Zoom in: The legal challenge comes after federal agencies sent notices terminating federal funding to organizations that serve trans people and other underserved communities, according to Lambda Legal.
"We will not sit by and let this happen without a fight," SF Community Health Center CEO Lance Toma said in the press call.
Between the lines: Both SF Community Health Center and SFAF receive millions of federal dollars annually to provide its services. That includes free HIV testing and prevention work, mpox interventions, culturally competent care and programs that address disparities in health outcomes.
Taking away that funding would force them to reduce services and turn away clients, the lawsuit argues. SFAF alone serves roughly 27,000 clients per year.
The GLBT Historical Society, whose founding members included trans people, has similarly relied on federal funding to preserve materials related to LGBTQ+ communities for nearly 20 years.
Trump's orders would force potential cuts to staff and operations, leading to a loss of access to priceless archives that reflect "accurate representations of transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people throughout time," the lawsuit alleges.
Other nonprofits involved in the lawsuit include Prisma Community Care in Arizona, the NYC LGBT Community Center, Bradbury-Sullivan Community Center in Pennsylvania, Baltimore Safe Haven and FORGE in Wisconsin.
The other side: Trump has said his executive orders are an effort to defend women from "gender ideology extremism" and restore "biological truth."
On the campaign trail last year, he frequently lambasted what he called " transgender craziness" and falsely claimed that gender-affirming operations are being conducted in schools without parents' knowledge.
The White House did not immediately return our request for comment.
Go deeper: One month of fear for groups targeted by Trump's executive orders
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
20 minutes ago
- Business Insider
World Bank restores funding to Uganda despite controversial anti-gay law
The World Bank has restored funding to Uganda nearly two years after suspending new financing in response to the country's Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA). The World Bank has resumed funding to Uganda after a two-year suspension instigated by the Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA). The Bank justified resumption through effective mitigation measures within ongoing Ugandan projects to limit potential adverse impacts. While Uganda's AHA remains unchanged, the decision signals shifting geopolitical dynamics by international financial institutions. The World bank in 2023, suspended funding to Uganda after the country's parliament passed the Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA), saying the law contradicted its values. The legislation sparked international condemnation for imposing severe penalties on LGBTQ+ individuals, including life imprisonment and, in some cases, the death penalty. According to Reuters, the World Bank said it had developed a working relationship with Ugandan authorities to implement strong measures aimed at mitigating potential harm resulting from the law. " We have now determined the mitigation measures rolled out over the last several months in all ongoing projects in Uganda to be satisfactory," " Consequently, the Bank has prepared three new projects in sectors with significant development needs – social protection, education, and forced displacement/refugees, which have been approved by the Board." said a Bank spokesperson, who requested anonymity. The decision to resume funding signals a shift in the Bank's engagement strategy with Uganda and raises broader questions about how global institutions navigate the tension between promoting human rights and maintaining development partnerships. While there has been no indication of changes to Uganda's legal position on LGBTQ+ rights, the World Bank's renewed support may reflect wider geopolitical and economic considerations in the region. How the world reacted to Uganda's Anti-Gay Law Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA), signed into law in May 2023, imposed sweeping criminal penalties for same-sex relationships, including life imprisonment and, in cases of so-called 'aggravated homosexuality,' the death penalty. The law drew swift and widespread condemnation from Western governments, human rights organizations, and international institutions, and was widely regarded as one of the harshest anti-LGBTQ+ laws in the world. Beyond the World Bank's suspension of funding, several Western governments issued strong rebukes and implemented measures affecting Uganda's international standing. The United States led the diplomatic response, with the Biden administration describing the law as 'a tragic violation of universal human rights.' In turn, Washington imposed travel restrictions on Ugandan officials believed to be involved in the legislation and initiated a review of its financial assistance to the country. The European Union also condemned the law, emphasizing its incompatibility with international human rights norms and warning that it would reassess its relationship with Uganda. Similarly, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called the legislation 'shocking' and 'discriminatory,' urging its immediate repeal. Outside of official government action, Western-based human rights organizations, NGOs, and civil society groups amplified the global outcry. Advocacy campaigns were launched to pressure the Ugandan government, while some multinational corporations voiced concern about the law's potential impact on employees and business operations in the country. Despite this international backlash, Ugandan officials have welcomed the recent restoration of World Bank funding, portraying it as an endorsement of the country's sovereignty and development agenda.
USA Today
24 minutes ago
- USA Today
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. | Opinion The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that way of thinking? Show Caption Hide Caption Trump rescinds Biden-era emergency abortion care guidance The Trump administration rescinded guidance clarifying that hospitals in abortion-ban states must treat pregnant patients during medical emergencies. unbranded - Newsworthy Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? Having a baby in America is dangerous. Republicans aren't helping. The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. None of this is surprising from Republicans. It's just sad. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno
USA Today
24 minutes ago
- USA Today
Will Trump's big bill kill people? Here's the truth about Medicaid cuts.
Will Trump's big bill kill people? Here's the truth about Medicaid cuts. | Opinion Republicans are doing what's right, morally and fiscally. They're requiring able-bodied adults to work as a condition of receiving Medicaid benefits. Show Caption Hide Caption Disabled protesters removed from House committee hearing Disabled demonstrators protesting a Republican proposal to cut benefits were forced to leave a House committee hearing and arrested. Perhaps you've heard: Republicans are about to kick millions of people off health insurance. That claim is all over the news media as Congress debates the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Advocates on the left even say the proposed changes will kill people. Such claims have no basis in reality. The point is to frighten Republican lawmakers into giving up on necessary reforms. Instead, the GOP should double down. Congressional Budget Office is biased, and often wrong The source for this fearmongering is the Congressional Budget Office. As the Foundation for Government Accountability shows in our new research, CBO staff consists largely of registered Democrats and the agency is often wrong in its projections. Washington elites and their media allies like to hold up the CBO as an all-seeing oracle. In theory, it's a nonpartisan federal agency inside Congress that accurately predicts how legislation will play out in the real world. In reality, CBO is overwhelmingly staffed by Democrats and its findings are less than trustworthy. We painstakingly analyzed the voter registration of every CBO employee. Our finding: A staggering 79% of CBO staff are Democrats. A mere 12% are Republicans. That's actually worse than senior bureaucrats at the most liberal federal agencies, including Housing and Urban Development, the State Department and Health and Human Services. And when you look at key CBO departments, the liberal bias is even more stark. The Health Analysis Division is 93% Democrat and zero Republican. That's the department now driving the news about the dangers of the Republican bill. In other words, CBO may well be the most liberal government outfit in all of Washington. And surprise, surprise: It does Democrats' bidding. Tell us: Republicans want massive cuts to Medicaid. What do you want? | Forum Opinion That fact should persuade Republicans to ignore CBO's analysis of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. In May, CBO asserted that about 10 million people would lose their Medicaid coverage by 2034 if the bill passed. CBO blames Republican reforms like Medicaid work requirements, more frequent eligibility checks and the removal of illegal immigrants from Medicaid. But think about what's really happening. A group of Democratic bureaucrats are criticizing Republican efforts to roll back Democratic priorities. This isn't nonpartisan policy analysis. It's political damage control. CBO projections were wrong on 'Obamacare' And wouldn't you know: The leftist CBO is frequently wrong. The agency has a long history of underestimating the benefits of Republican policies like tax cuts and health care reforms. The CBO also routinely minimizes the damage of Democratic policies, especially the soaring cost of government expansions. In 2010, when the Affordable Care Act passed, the CBO said only 13 million able-bodied adults would be covered under the law's Medicaid expansion in all 50 states. But within a decade, 50% more able-bodied adults had jumped onto Medicaid, even though only two-thirds of states had expanded the program. Opinion: GOP must cut Medicaid now. Or risk debt crisis and devastating cuts later. CBO's error made "Obamacare" look more affordable than it is, and taxpayers have spent tens of billions of additional dollars on able-bodied adults who push vulnerable Americans and individuals with disabilities back in line. For more than a decade, CBO has been consistently wrong on Medicaid expansion's real-world impact, underestimating enrollment and the cost to taxpayers. But when CBO analyzed the Republican repeal of Obamacare's individual mandate in 2017, it overestimated how many people would lose coverage. It said 4 million people would lose private health coverage and Medicaid in the first two years alone. But by 2020, about 13 million people had gained coverage. CBO could hardly have been more wrong. And the agency is still in charge of making predictions. Now, the CBO is once again warning about massive coverage losses, and their media allies are dutifully repeating the assertion. But congressional Republicans should see through the charade. Case in point: CBO's predictions about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act include 1.6 million people enrolled in Medicaid in multiple states. They won't lose coverage in the state where they live, but CBO still counts them among those losing coverage. In addition, 200,000 'losses' are people who aren't even on Medicaid. CBO just assumes they'll join in the years ahead. GOP is doing the right thing with Medicaid The truth is that Republicans are doing what's right, morally and fiscally. They're requiring able-bodied adults to work as a condition of receiving Medicaid benefits. That will allow states to focus on Medicaid's intended recipients such as individuals with disabilities. Republicans are also removing ineligible people and illegal immigrants from Medicaid rolls. CBO makes it sound like those coverage losses are wrong, but what's really wrong is letting millions of people take advantage of taxpayers. Republicans are looking out for Americans − taxpayers, individuals with disabilities and future generations. The Congressional Budget Office, on the other hand, is looking out for the Democratic agenda of growing government at any cost. Republicans in the Senate should ignore the fearmongering and move forward with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as soon as possible. Hayden Dublois is data and analytics director at the Foundation for Government Accountability, where Addison Scherler is a data investigator.
