“As of this day, it will be the policy of the United States: there are only two sexes -male and female,” stated President Donald Trump in his inauguration address. Later that day, he signed an executive order recognizing only biological men and women, which – he claimed – would “defend women” and “ensure their safety.”
The President’s executive order, some believe, has deep, adverse impacts for the nation’s 1.6 million transgender people. It essentially erases transgender people’s existence in legal matters, healthcare, and education sites. The move comes amid a rise in hate crimes against transgender people.
In the wake of recent executive orders and policy shifts affecting transgender and non-binary individuals, leading scholar Ilan H. Meyer, Ph.D., has voiced deep concerns over the tangible and far-reaching impacts of these measures. Meyer, Williams Distinguished Senior Scholar of Public Policy at the Williams Institute and Professor Emeritus of Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia University, spoke about the ongoing challenges faced by these communities.
According to the Williams Institute, an estimated 1.6 million people aged 13 and older identify as transgender, while 1.2 million adults identify as non-binary. Additionally, about 5 million individuals are intersex. While many of the recent policies also affect intersex individuals, Meyer focused his discussion on the transgender and non-binary populations, stating, “The orders are quite brutal.”
Meyer characterized the recent wave of anti-trans policies as driven by “meanness,” rather than any scientific or legal justification. He specifically criticized the federal definition of biological sex at conception, calling it “biologically ridiculous,” noting that sex differentiation occurs later in fetal development.
Among the most concerning policies, Meyer highlighted the barring of transgender individuals from obtaining passports that align with their gender identity, restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors, and the revocation of non-discrimination protections. These policies also impact access to shelters, federal services, and prison accommodations.
“Anybody who knows transgender people’s experiences with traveling understands how stressful it is because of the harassment they can face,” Meyer said. “The transgender prisoners will be banned from being in prisons that align with their gender, as will those seeking homeless shelters and other federal services.”
Meyer also addressed California’s Transgender Respect, Agency, and Dignity Act (SB 132), which was designed to protect the rights of transgender inmates but has faced legal challenges, including a lawsuit from the Women’s Liberation Front. “There has been movement toward more dignity for transgender and non-binary people in prisons, but these efforts have been stalled,” he noted. “I’ve been trying for three years to conduct research in California prisons, but it has been blocked.”
Beyond legal and policy implications, Meyer underscored the broader societal impact of anti-trans rhetoric, citing research linking political rhetoric to increased violence against LGBTQ+ individuals. He pointed to a study analyzing violence following Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign rallies, which found an increase in attacks against LGBTQ+ people in counties where rallies occurred.
“After the 2016 presidential election, transgender and gender non-conforming people reported experiencing more hate speech and violence,” Meyer explained. “Our analysis shows that transgender people face violence at a rate five times higher than cisgender heterosexual individuals, with even greater risks for Black and Hispanic LGBTQ+ people.”
Meyer emphasized that the combination of stigma, discrimination, and policy setbacks takes a heavy toll on mental health, a phenomenon he has studied for decades. “I’ve described this as minority stress,” he said. “Transgender people are more likely to have experienced childhood bullying, sexual abuse, conversion therapy, and everyday discrimination. These experiences correlate with higher rates of psychological distress, suicide ideation, and self-harm.”
As policies targeting transgender and non-binary individuals continue to surface across the country, Meyer urged for further discussion and advocacy. “These acts have real and serious consequences,” he concluded. “They not only impact legal protections but also shape public attitudes, and that has life-or-death implications.”
For transgender and non-binary individuals seeking support, resources are available through organizations such as the Trevor Project, the National Center for Transgender Equality, and local LGBTQ+ advocacy groups.
Bamby Salcedo, President and CEO of the TransLatina Coalition, a representative from one of the largest transgender advocacy organizations in the U.S., opened the discussion by acknowledging the widespread anxiety and disappointment following the presidential election. “We knew this was coming,” Bamby stated, citing the wave of legislation targeting transgender rights across multiple states. However, they emphasized that the scale and speed of these executive actions exceeded expectations.
“What we were not anticipating was the results of the election,” Bamby said. “The feeling I had was rage.” Despite the setback, they reaffirmed their organization’s commitment to policy research, community empowerment, and cultural transformation efforts to counteract the new policies.
Jordan Willow Evans, a Republican political leader and a transgender woman, provided insight from within the party. She described the new policies as the culmination of years of groundwork laid by conservative lawmakers, referencing past efforts to limit transgender rights in Massachusetts.
“This is akin to watching a slow-moving train crash,” Evans said, expressing frustration at what she called “irresponsible governance” that leaves transgender Americans in legal limbo. She criticized the administration for creating policies that she believes will ultimately be decided in the courts, paralyzing governance and leaving many without clear protections.
Gael Urquia, Project TRANS Services Navigator at the San Diego LGBTQ Center, who provides healthcare services for transgender individuals, shared their firsthand concerns about how the new policies could restrict access to gender-affirming care.
“I learned about the president’s announcement at work, shortly after assisting a client on how to acquire HRT in San Diego,” Urquia said. The news raised immediate concerns about the future availability of treatments, particularly for vulnerable communities like intersex individuals.
Urquia emphasized that while advocacy efforts would continue, the uncertainty surrounding healthcare policy is already causing fear and instability among patients.
Sailor Jones, Associate Director, Common Cause North Carolina, another panelist, reflected on their personal experience navigating gender identity documentation under the shifting political landscape. They had rushed to update their passport gender marker before the administration took office, but they now worry whether those changes will remain valid.
“It is incredibly confounding to at once have our nation’s executive branch attempt to completely erase transgender people’s existence under the law while simultaneously blaming us for national issues,” Jones remarked.
They described feeling “incredible rage” but emphasized the importance of continuing to live openly and advocate for change. “Where folks feel safe to do so, it is now our charge to make our lives bigger and our voices louder.”
Jones also shared concerns about their upcoming gender-affirming surgery, which they fear could lose insurance coverage under new policies.
“Virtually all major insurance companies recognize that gender-affirming medical care is medically necessary and age-appropriate,” Jones noted. However, they pointed to the growing legal challenges to transgender healthcare protections as a cause for deep concern.
“In a world where years of reproductive health precedent can be reversed with the slamming of a gavel, and our personhood can be eliminated with the president’s pen, we are recognizing just how fragile our access can be.”
Despite the challenges ahead, panelists remained steadfast in their commitment to advocacy. Many called for increased community support, legal action, and continued public education efforts to counteract harmful policies.
“This work does not stop,” Urquia stated firmly. “We are here doing our best to serve our community.”