State attorneys general sue Trump over targeting of medical professionals who provide gender identity care to trans youth
The complaint filed at a federal court in Boston argues that an executive order signed by Trump in late January and subsequent actions taken by the DOJ to investigate doctors around the country involved in administering such care are unlawful and must be permanently blocked.
Trump's order specifically took aim at medical procedures intended to alter sex or gender that involve surgical interventions or the use of puberty blockers or sex hormones in those under 19-years-old.
The administration's actions, the attorneys general argue, 'have had the intended effect of chilling providers from (administering) gender-affirming care to individuals under 19 years old – care that is lawful and protected in plaintiff States.'
'The administration has explicitly threatened civil and criminal prosecution of providers of this care and launched criminal investigations into children's hospitals,' they continued, 'Without any reason to believe those hospitals have violated the statutes being invoked.'
The lawsuit comes as advocates for trans youth have turned to federal courts in an attempt to stave off a slew of steps Trump has taken since returning to the White House to end access to gender identity care in the US and rollback trans rights more broadly.
Among other matters, Trump's order directed his Justice Department to investigate states that allow the procedures and 'review' the enforcement of the US legal code that criminalizes female genital mutilation on minors. The department said earlier this month that it had 'sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics involved in performing transgender medical procedures on children,' though it didn't specify which individuals or entities it had subpoenaed.
'These threats have no basis in law. No federal law prohibits, much less criminalizes, the provision or receipt of gender-affirming care for transgender adolescents,' the attorneys general argued.
More than two dozen states have passed bans on transgender care for children and teenagers, according to a CNN analysis of data from the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit think tank that advocates for LGBTQ rights. Those bans cover everything from puberty blockers and hormone therapy to surgeries, which are rarely performed on minors. But other states, including some that brought Friday's lawsuit, have enacted laws seeking to protect access to such care for their residents.
The lawsuit argues in part that Trump's actions are trampling over states' 'authority to regulate the practice of medicine and their considered judgment that access to this medical care for adolescents should be protected.'
The attorneys general behind the lawsuit are from New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and Washington, DC. Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro is also a plaintiff in the case.
Major mainstream medical associations — including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the Endocrine Society, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry — continue to advocate the practice of gender identity care and agree that it's clinically appropriate care and can provide lifesaving treatment for children and adults.
CNN's Alejandra Jaramillo and Jen Christensen contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fancy Farm returns to west Kentucky with barbecue, political zingers. See updates
Grab some pork and popcorn. Kentucky's annual Fancy Farm Picnic is back, with several high-profile Senate candidates ready to lob shots at their competitors before a rowdy crowd. The event has become known for its fiery political speeches, laced with zingers. And while event organizers typically limit speakers to those holding state office or running in a general election, they've extended invitations to primary candidates running in 2026. That includes Andy Barr, Daniel Cameron and Nate Morris, who've all accepted slots as candidates campaigning to take U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell's seat. Thousands of pounds of barbecue will also be served through the hot summer day. And The Courier Journal will be there to see it all. Here's are the highlights. Stay in the know: Sign up for our On Kentucky Politics newsletter Prominent Democrats join dinner, skip Fancy Farm Picnic Democrats joined the 28th annual Mike Miller Memorial Bean Dinner on Aug. 1 in Marshall County ahead of 145th Fancy Farm Picnic. The event, held at the Kentucky Dam Village Convention Center, featured prominent speakers including Lt. Gov. Jacqueline Coleman and Kentucky Democratic Party Chairman Colmon Elridge. During her speech, Coleman touted how she and the Beshear administration broke "historic tourism records in the last three years" and have created new jobs for Kentuckians. 'We created 65,000 new jobs and $35 million worth of private sector investments,' Coleman said. 'We secured raises for law enforcement, for state employees, for social workers, but ironically, the one group of people that the Republicans in the General Assembly don't think deserve a raise is our educators.' Coleman previously confirmed she would not participate in the political speaking portion of the picnic, saying she believes that time should be reserved for candidates on the ballot. She touched on her absence during her speech, saying she will not be at the event 'partly because there are so many obvious jokes, but not much worth laughing about at this moment.' '… Although I do hear of some races, like in 2027, that might bring me back to the Fancy Farm stage,' Coleman said, potentially alluding to the upcoming gubernatorial election. John 'Drew' Williams, who announced he plans to run against Republican U.S. Rep. James Comer in 2026, will be the lone Democrat speaking at Fancy Farm. When asked how it feels to be the only Democrat on stage, Williams told The Courier Journal, 'I don't mind it at all.' 'It's become a hate fest in a lot of ways, the picnic,' Williams said. 'We should treat it like a church picnic. Quips are fine. Jokes are fine. But we're getting really hateful in the way we talk about each other.' Williams added he feels 'pretty confident' about his first time speaking at Fancy Farm and is 'ready to be in front of (his) community." 'Even if there are hecklers there, all they're doing is getting me prepared to go up there and get heckled and yelled at in Congress,' Williams said. Who's speaking at Fancy Farm 2025? The speaking order for the event, with allotted times, is as follows: Fancy Farm Political Chairman Steven Elder, welcome Bishop William Medley, invocation Campbellsville University President Joseph Hopkins, national anthem Emily and Austin Lamb, "My Old Kentucky Home" Kentucky Chamber of Commerce President Ashli Watts, emcee, 5 minutes State Rep. Kim Holloway (R), 4 minutes State Sen. Jason Howell (R), 4 minutes U.S. Rep. James Comer (R), 6 minutes Congressional candidate John "Drew Williams (D), 6 minutes U.S. Senate candidate Daniel Cameron (R), 6 minutes U.S. Senate candidate Andy Barr (R), 6 minutes U.S. Senate candidate Nate Morris (R), 6 minutes Attorney General Russell Coleman (R), 5 minutes Agriculture Commissioner Jonathan Shell (R), 5 minutes State Treasurer Mark Metcalf (R), 5 minutes U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell is listed as pending on the most recent speaker list. How to watch political speeches at Fancy Farm Political speaking will begin at 3 p.m. ET/2 p.m. CT. KET will begin live coverage of the event at 2:30 p.m. ET/1:30 p.m. CT. Host Renee Shaw and political commentators Trey Grayson and Bob Babbage will provide pre-event analysis. Watch the coverage at Fancy Farm 2025 schedule Barbecue by the pound goes on sale bright and early at 8 a.m. But the picnic's official kickoff doesn't start until a little later. Here's the schedule for the day. 10 a.m. CT: Official picnic start time 10:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.: Music by Harold Daniels 11 a.m. - 7 p.m.: Meals served in parish hall 1:30 p.m.: Pioneer Award presentation at political stand 2 p.m.: Political speaking 4:30 - 5:30 p.m.: Music by Louisville Orchestra 7 - 10 p.m.: Music by Seeing Red band 10 p.m.: Raffle drawing This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: Fancy Farm picnic 2025: Updates from Kentucky's annual political event Solve the daily Crossword
CNN
14 minutes ago
- CNN
The Trump administration takes a very Orwellian turn
Back in March, President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeted at the Smithsonian Institution that began as follows: 'Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation's history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth.' Despite the high-minded rhetoric, many worried the order was instead a thinly veiled effort to rewrite history more to Trump's liking. The order, for example, cited a desire to remove 'improper ideology' – an ominous phrase, if there ever was one – from properties like the Smithsonian. Those concerns were certainly bolstered this week. We learned that some historical information that recently vanished from the Smithsonian just so happens to have been objective history that Trump really dislikes: a reference to his two impeachments. The Smithsonian said that a board containing the information was removed from the National Museum of American History last month after a review of the museum's 'legacy content.' The board had been placed in front of an existing impeachment exhibit in September 2021. Just to drive this home: The exhibit itself is about 'Limits of Presidential Power.' And suddenly examples of the biggest efforts by Congress to limit Trump's were gone. It wasn't immediately clear that the board was removed pursuant to Trump's executive order. The Washington Post, which broke the news, reported that a source said the content review came after pressure from the White House to remove an art museum director. In other words, we don't know all the details of precisely how this went down – including whether the removal was specifically requested, or whether museum officials decided it might be a good way to placate Trump amid pressure. The Smithsonian says an updated version of the exhibit will ultimately mention all impeachment efforts, including Trump's. But it's all pretty Orwellian. And it's not the only example. Trump has always been rather blatant about his efforts to rewrite history with self-serving falsehoods and rather shameless in applying pressure on the people who would serve as impartial referees of the current narrative. But this week has taken things to another level. On Friday, Trump fired the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This came just hours after that agency delivered Trump some very bad news: the worst non-Covid three-month jobs numbers since 2010. Some Trump allies have attempted to put a good face on this, arguing that Dr. Erika McEntarfer's removal was warranted because large revisions in the job numbers betrayed shoddy work. But as he did with the firing of then-FBI Director James B. Comey eight years ago, Trump quickly undermined all that. He told Newsmax that 'we fired her because we didn't believe the numbers today.' To the extent Trump did lay out an actual evidence-based case for firing McEntarfer, that evidence was conspiratorial and wrong, as CNN's Daniel Dale documented Friday. And even some Republican senators acknowledged this might be precisely as draconian and self-serving as it looked. Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, for one, called it 'kind of impetuous' to fire the BLS head before finding out whether the new numbers were actually wrong. 'It's not the statistician's fault if the numbers are accurate and that they're not what the president had hoped for,' said Lummis, who is not often a Trump critic. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina added that if Trump 'just did it because they didn't like the numbers, they ought to grow up.' Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska both worried that Trump's move would make it so people can't trust the data the administration is putting out. And that's the real problem here. It's not so much that Trump appears to be firing someone as retaliation; it's the message it sends to everyone else in a similar position. The message is that you might want that data and those conclusions to be to Trump's liking, or else. It's a recipe for getting plenty of unreliable data and conclusions. And even to the extent that information is solid, it will seed suspicions about the books having been cooked – both among regular Americans and, crucially, among those making key decisions that impact the economy. What happens if the next jobs report is great? Will the markets believe it? We've certainly seen plenty of rather blunt Trump efforts to control such narratives and rewrite history before. A sampling: He engaged in a yearslong effort to make Jan. 6 defendants who attacked the Capitol in his name out to be sympathetic patriots, even calling them 'hostages,' before pardoning them. His administration's efforts to weed out diversity, equity and inclusion from the government often ensnared things that merely celebrated Black people and women. He and his administration have at times taken rather dim views of the free speech rights of those who disagree with them, including talking about mere protests – i.e. not necessarily violence – as being 'illegal.' A loyalist US attorney at one point threatened to pursue people who criticized then-Trump ally Elon Musk even for non-criminal behavior. Trump has repeatedly suggested criticism of judges he likes should be illegal, despite regularly attacking judges he doesn't like. His term began with the portraits of military leaders who clashed with him being removed from the Pentagon. It also began with a massive purge of independent inspectors general charged with holding the administration to account. All of it reinforces the idea that Trump is trying to consolidate power by pursuing rather heavy-handed and blatant tactics. But if there's a week that really drove home how blunt these efforts can be, it might be this one.
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's plan for White House ballroom sparks outrage from his critics
President Trump's plans to add a massive $200 million ballroom to the White House is angering critics, who see him moving forward with the long-sought project as part of his desire to leave a lasting mark not only on the office of the presidency but the first house as well. The construction of the ballroom, the cost of which the White House says will be covered by Trump and other donors, will begin in September. Trump is also paving the White House Rose Garden (though the rose bushes will be saved), which the White House says is necessary so people can walk more easily for events held in the space. And he's added his personal gold touch to the Oval Office. Trump says he sees the ballroom as a way to add to his legacy. And while detractors say his decorative and more substantial changes are out of touch and ostentatious, he says they are necessary. 'I always said I was going to do something about the ballroom because they should have one,' he told reporters Thursday. 'So we'll be leaving it, it will be a great legacy project. And, I think it will be special.' When asked if any government funds will be used to construct the 90,000 square foot facility, Trump replied, 'no government dollars, no.' The White House said the sprawling event space will be built adjacent to the White House where the East Wing sits. The goal is to complete construction before the end of Trump's term in January 2029. Trump's vision is for a space where he and future presidents can host state dinners, large gatherings with business leaders and other ritzy parties or functions. 'We've been planning it for a long time,' Trump said. 'They've wanted a ballroom at the White House for more than 150 years. There's never been a president that was good at ballrooms. I'm really good.' Democrats and regular Trump critics offered a sharp pushback on his plans. 'This is what DOGE was all about, folks,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a video posted to social media hours after the White House announcement, referring to the president's Department of Government Efficiency. 'Cutting things from you, and giving it not to some place that needed it, giving it to the big shots who run the show, Donald Trump at the top of the list.' Others suggested Trump and his White House were planting an intentional distraction. 'You gotta hand it to MAGAs, for about a week they really did have everyone convinced they cared about kids and The Epstein Files,' journalist and pundit Seth Abramson wrote on social platform X. 'On to more important things! Did you hear Trump is building a $200M ballroom at the White House? Wowee!' The White House pushed back on those criticisms in a Friday statement to The Hill, saying 'as President Trump has said, for over 150 years, many presidents, administrations, and staff have all wanted a ballroom, and now we have a president who will accomplish building it.' 'President Trump is the best builder and developer in the entire world and the American people can rest well knowing that this project is in his hands,' a West Wing spokesperson said. 'Many future presidents and American citizens will enjoy it for generations to come.' The president, a longtime real estate mogul who is known for a hands-on approach in the design and construction of his resorts, golf courses and skyscraper office buildings, has long lamented the lack of sufficient event space at the White House. 'When it rains it's a disaster, and the tent's 100 yards, that's more than a football field away from the main entrance,' Trump said as part of his remarks to the press about the project. 'And people are shlopping down to the tent; it's not a pretty sight. The women with their lovely evening gowns, their hair all done, and they're a mess by the time they get [there].' There is longstanding precedent for presidents and first ladies putting their spin on the White House and its grounds. President Harry Truman oversaw a massive renovation from 1948 to 1952 that required he and his wife to move into the Blair House at the time and saw the White House completely gutted. Former first lady Jackie Kennedy, however, championed the historic preservation of the home and advocated that extreme renovations require oversight from the Committee for the Preservation of the White House. 'Every president and first family does make a mark on the White House — they already are a part of history and that snapshot in time,' said Anita McBride, former chief of staff to then-first lady Laura Bush. 'Since the cornerstone was laid, there have been additions, there have been changes that, at the time those happened, raised concerns.' The White House Historical Association welcomed Trump's planned ballroom. 'The history of the White House has evolved over 233 years since the cornerstone was laid in 1792. The South Portico, the North Portico, the East Wing, the West Wing, and the Truman Balcony all raised concerns at the time — but today, we can't imagine the White House without these iconic elements,' Stewart D. McLaurin, president of the association, told The Hill. He added, 'Since our founding by First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy in 1961, we have supported and partnered with every president and first lady caring for and adding to the White House and its Collection. We work to preserve the history of this remarkable museum, home, and office for generations to come.' Some agree with the president that a bigger events space at the White House is long overdue. 'I can understand why someone who thinks on a grand scale, as obviously President Trump does, would want this ballroom added,' said Barbara Perry, a presidential historian and co-chair of the Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia's Miller Center. 'That being said, the optics for people who disagree with this president, it will probably have an impact on how they view this.' McBride agreed that the tents on the lawn, which have been constructed during more recent administrations, are not ideal. 'That doesn't come without challenges, putting up staging, putting up a covered structure, getting people to the actual location; dealing with inclement weather. And you're not really having your event in the White House,' she said. 'So you can see where that makes sense.' There are lingering questions about what the new ballroom location will mean for the staffers who work in the East Wing, which is where first lady's staff works. The East Wing is also where tours of the White House for the public are conducted. 'Betty Ford always called the East Wing the 'heart' of the White House,' McBride said. 'All the business and policy gets done in the West Wing, that's critically important. But the heart of the White House is the East Wing. And so what, what will be the new East Wing?' Others see the construction of an opulent addition to the president's residence as a matter of bad timing and poor optics given sluggish jobs reports and fears about how global tariffs might hurt the U.S. economy. 'This isn't something that's going to make or break another election, but it does add another page to the catalog of hypocrisy that these people read from when they want to lecture Americans about fiscal responsibility,' said Antjuan Seawright, a Democratic political strategist. 'It's a visible middle finger to working class Americans, many of whom voted for him.'
