I often say that a lot of anti-trans anti-gay anti-LGBTQ+ people have their feelings because they don’t feel different from the cis straight majority so can’t understand or accept that such things because they simply don’t feel that way. If they don’t feel it it can’t be real which is the same with how many white people feel about racism. Remember the old question of how do you know you’re gay or trans or lesbian or nonbinary or what ever simply because the people who grew up straight and cis felt normal in society? But if you ask them when they knew or how they knew they were straight and / or cis they are confused. If a boy at 10 comes out as gay the parents freak out, but if that same kid starts showing interest in girls the parents are ecstatic about their boy growing up. Why the difference? Because one fulfills their expectations and the other … well it just is not like them. It simply comes down to tradition and what feels normal for them. Every person who asked me if I tried to change my sexual orientation and there have been so many, to them I ask have you? They act offended. Why would I do that and I reply, then why should I. Then if they persist for some reason that I should do conversion therapy I ask could they convert from their straight / cis desires to being LGBTQ+? Again they are stunned why they would do that and instantly claim not I couldn’t do that. Then again why ask me to do it? Hugs
Providing objective, nonpartisan, rigorous, original journalism that investigates America’s anti-LGBTQ landscape and elevates everyday American heroes. Expect two rigorously reported stories every weekend.
On Oct. 7, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, a case that challenges Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy.
Shortly after, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) sent an email to their supporters quoting Paul in Ephesians 6:12: “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”
The email goes on to say, “You might think that a law like this might be just a ‘Colorado problem.’ Sadly, laws like this exist in 22 other states,” referencing other parts of the U.S. that have instituted conversion therapy bans.
This sort of language about conversion therapy is nothing new for the Christian legal group representing Kaley Chiles. Unlike most legal organizations, ADF is sharply anti-LGBTQ. Since their inception over 30 years ago, the group has fought to maintain anti-sodomy laws, uphold the right to discriminate against gay couples and overturn Roe v. Wade.
In recent years, a major element of their fight has been to legalize the discredited practice of conversion therapy.
The Supreme Court appears poised to rule in favor of ADF, which could effectively invalidate conversion therapy bans for minors by licensed professionals across the U.S. This victory would add to the organization’s already-high win streak, which they say is around 80%.
“I don’t think anyone is undermining LGBTQ rights as relentlessly as ADF,” Peter Montgomery, research director at the advocacy group People for the American Way, told Uncloseted Media and GAY TIMES. “They’re shaping the culture for generations to come.”
Although nearly every major medical association has denounced conversion therapy, ADF is arguing that disallowing the practice is a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
“This case is part of its crusade to turn religious freedom into a license to harm others,” says Amy Tai, the co-author of an amicus brief in Chiles v. Salazar that is urging the Supreme Court to uphold the Colorado law. “It is part of a larger effort and movement to harm LGBTQ people and strip them of their constitutional rights.”
ADF, originally the Alliance Defense Fund, was founded by evangelical anti-gay activists in 1994. Alan Sears, their former CEO and president, co-authored “The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today.” The book calls homosexuality a “disordered sexual behavior” and equates it with pedophilia and states that gay people on college campuses are involved in “the promotion of sexual relations between adults and children.”
D. James Kennedy, another founder, has preached about “reparative” therapy for gay folks. In a 1993 fundraising letter for his Christian media organization Coral Ridge Ministries, he asked “Would you want your son, daughter, or grandchild sharing a shower, foxhole, or blood with a homosexual?”
A third founder was the late James Dobson, who advised several presidents and argued that conversion therapy could “cure” people.
Since ADF launched, many powerful political figures with anti-LGBTQ beliefs have worked for them. While working as an ADF spokesperson between 2002 and 2010, House Speaker Mike Johnson described gay folks as “destructive” and argued that support for homosexuality could lead to support for pedophilia.
Kristen Waggoner speaking at a press conference in 2018 (Groversawit)
And their current president, Kristen Waggoner, has delegitimized the harm conversion therapy causes by defining the practice as merely having conversations.
Today, their influence in the U.S. government is stronger than ever, with ties to all three branches. In addition to Speaker Johnson, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has been a paid speaker for ADF at least five times since 2011. And in May, President Donald Trump appointed Waggoner to the newly-formed Religious Liberty Commission.
All of these resources and connections are employed to advance an anti-LGBTQ agenda. “They want to see what they see as the God-defined order for gender and marriage be imposed into law,” Montgomery says. “They are trying to create a legal regime in which people can claim religious beliefs to opt out of laws that apply to everyone else.”
History of Fighting to Criminalize Homosexuality and Legalize Conversion Therapy
Over time, ADF has incorporated these viewpoints into their litigation to try and dismantle legal protections for LGBTQ people.
“Just 20 years ago, they were still arguing in court that states should be able to criminalize gay people,” says Montgomery.
In 2000, for example, ADF funded amicus briefs in Dale v. Boy Scouts of America, a case where an assistant scoutmaster sued the Boy Scouts after the organization revoked his membership for being gay. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of ADF.
In 2003, when support for gay marriage was still low in the U.S., they filed an amicus brief to uphold the criminalization of gay sex in Lawrence v. Texas, arguing that the state has a right to regulate “public health and morality.” The group lost the case and sodomy laws were banned nationwide.
As public opinion changed and gay marriage became legal across America in 2015, ADF shifted to more nuanced arguments. “Now, because they know that most Americans favor LGBTQ equality, they’ve really reframed their arguments [around] religious liberty and free speech,” says Montgomery.
The organization has since set its sights on overturning state bans on conversion therapy. In 2018, ADF Senior Counsel Matt Sharp argued against a California bill that classified conversion therapy as fraud. And in 2019, the group sued New York City for a similar law, which led the city to reverse the ban out of fear the case would reach the Supreme Court.
A few years later, in 2021, ADF fought to overturn a statewide conversion therapy ban in Washington, where they represented Christian therapist Brian Tingley. In this instance, they argued that Washington’s law censored Tingley from speaking about gender dysphoria.
A federal appeals court unanimously upheld Washington’s law, with Circuit Judge Ronald Gould shutting down ADF’s argument, writing that: “Washington, like other states, has concluded that health care providers should not be able to treat a child by such means as telling him that he is ‘the abomination we had heard about in Sunday school.’”
Learning from their mistakes, ADF tried again with Chiles v. Salazar, claiming the Colorado law discriminates against Chiles’ viewpoint. Chiles is an evangelical therapist who received her counseling training and education from a seminary.
In their arguments to the Supreme Court, ADF says the conversion therapy ban encourages therapists to help minors explore LGBTQ identities and condemns assisting patients to align with their assigned gender.
Though intended to ban conversion therapy for all LGBTQ people, ADF’s case focuses on gender identity, capitalizing on souring U.S. public opinion on trans rights.
“Chiles believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex,” ADF wrote in a petition to the Supreme Court.
“ADF has tried to draw a connection between laws prohibiting conversion therapy and states attempting to force mental health professionals or doctors to treat transgender youth,” Christopher Stoll, senior staff attorney at the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, told Uncloseted Media and GAY TIMES. But if the law passes, conversion therapy would become legal to practice on all LGBTQ people.
Another part of ADF’s success stems from manufacturing legal battles to advance cases that match their goals.
Chiles, for example, had not incurred any legal penalty from the Colorado district attorney. Instead, ADF filed a pre-enforcement lawsuit, claiming that she had censored herself and stopped accepting patients for conversion therapy following the law’s passage.
“All of these cases are, in a sense, made up cases. … They’re brought on behalf of therapists who have not actually been subject to any kind of investigation or penalty by either state or local governments,” says Stoll, who is representing Kansas City, Mo. as ADF and Missouri’s Attorney General challenge the city’s ban on conversion therapy.
This strategy is what makes ADF stand out. Montgomery says that unlike many other legal organizations, ADF also helps file lawsuits and writes the bills that directly challenge precedents and legislation they hope to change.
This was in part how they were effective in overturning Roe v. Wade. ADF drafted the Gestational Age Act, which banned abortion in Mississippi after 15 weeks of pregnancy. That law then became the central point of the Dobbs case, which overturned abortion rights nationwide.
“They’re just engineered to test these legal arguments, when really no dispute has arisen,” says Stoll.
When asked for comment, an Alliance Defending Freedom Media Relations Specialist redirected Uncloseted Media to a website criticizing the Southern Poverty Law Center, saying the group mischaracterizes ADF as a hate group.
How ADF Operates Globally
ADF’s efforts to dismantle conversion therapy and LGBTQ rights span far beyond the U.S. Alliance Defending Freedom International (ADFI) boasts about efforts in 70 countries, where they push anti-LGBTQ legislation as far as possible in each country.
In 2012, ADF’s then-legal counsel Piero Tozzi spoke at a conference in Jamaica, advocating for the prohibition of gay sex, stating that the “retention of the legislation prohibiting sodomy is a bulwark against this agenda.” And in 2013, members of ADF defended a statute in Belize that characterized LGBTQ sex as “carnal intercourse against the order of nature.”
“They’re one of the most powerful and influential Christian right religious extremist groups that we have operating in Europe,” Neil Datta, executive director of the European Parliamentary Forum on Sexual and Reproductive Rights, told Uncloseted Media and GAY TIMES.
Datta says with offices in six cities with international human rights centers, ADFI contacts political allies throughout the continent, feeding them legal briefs and direct arguments. Then, those partners take that information and rejig it to align with their country’s political discourse.
“They’re hiring Europeans, training them in the American model of social issues litigation from an anti-rights perspective, and then hoping that [they] will be running with this in European courts,” Datta says. “They bring know-how and capacity to the continent.”
Datta says the U.S. is where the organization conducts its litmus tests for anti-LGBTQ laws and legal arguments: “In the U.S., you have 50 little courts that you can try things out in,” he says. “[ADF] has their own range of different areas that they would like to be active in, and they hunt for opportunities where they can make some progress.”
That includes the defense of Finnish politician Päivi Räsänen, who in 2021 was tried for hate speech for condemning a Lutheran church for supporting a Pride event. With ADFI’s assistance, Räsänen was acquitted in 2023.
Making Headway to Ban Conversion Therapy Abroad
While ADFI has yet to succeed in overturning conversion therapy bans in Europe, Datta says some politicians with links to the group have promoted reintegrative therapy, another form of therapy that attempts to help folks suppress same-sex attraction. While the term attempts to distance itself from conversion therapy, it uses similar procedures to the condemned practice.
However, Datta says ADFI is taking steps to shift the discourse by lobbying against the Digital Services Act, a European Union regulation for online hate speech.
In October, ADFI penned a letter to the European Commission asking the organization to review the law. ADF has also posted various blogs on the legislation, one posing a hypothetical about gender identity, stating, “Let’s say you went on Facebook … to post something as common sense as believing that there are only two genders. … If someone were to report that as hate speech, the E.U. could pressure Meta … to remove the post lest it face those stiff financial penalties.”
ADFI has also expanded its horizons to Africa. In May, Bettina Roska, an ADFI legal officer based in Geneva, joined a consortium of anti-LGBTQ advocates in a Pan-African conference on “family values” in Nairobi, Kenya.
“They are trying to do the same thing in Africa, around the African Union, and the African human rights system,” Jamie Vernaelde, senior researcher at Ipas, a non-governmental organization that focuses on reducing the harm of U.S. foreign policy, told Uncloseted Media and GAY TIMES.
Back in the U.S., the Supreme Court will rule on Chiles v. Salazar before the end of its current term next year. Their decision will potentially clear the way for conversion therapy to be practiced nationwide and abroad.
Vernaelde says that if Chiles v. Salazar is successful, ADF is hoping to bring their fight against conversion therapy worldwide in the same way they are expanding their anti-abortion lawsuits. Today, the group is attempting to undo abortion protections in the U.K. with the help of allies in the country’s right-wing Reform party.
“This is a template that they can use in other places that they can spread as widely as they want through their networks,” says Vernaelde.
If objective, nonpartisan, rigorous, LGBTQ-focused journalism is important to you, please consider making a tax-deductible donation through our fiscal sponsor, Resource Impact, by clicking this button:
A bag of tiny chocolate chip cookies from the company who was here a few weeks ago working in my bathroom. I’m off cookies until my jeans are looser again like they were in November, so these will go into the freezer, but anyway, they still brightened the day!
Next, a cool Substack post from Worriedman. I’ve shared his posts here before. Today’s is extra cool.
February
by Margaret Atwood
Winter. Time to eat fat
and watch hockey. In the pewter mornings, the cat,
a black fur sausage with yellow
Houdini eyes, jumps up on the bed and tries
to get onto my head. It’s his
way of telling whether or not I’m dead.
If I’m not, he wants to be scratched; if I am
He’ll think of something. He settles
on my chest, breathing his breath
of burped-up meat and musty sofas,
purring like a washboard. Some other tomcat,
not yet a capon, has been spraying our front door,
declaring war. It’s all about sex and territory,
which are what will finish us off
in the long run. Some cat owners around here
should snip a few testicles. If we wise
hominids were sensible, we’d do that too,
or eat our young, like sharks.
But it’s love that does us in. Over and over
again, He shoots, he scores! and famine
crouches in the bedsheets, ambushing the pulsing
eiderdown, and the windchill factor hits
thirty below, and pollution pours
out of our chimneys to keep us warm.
February, month of despair,
with a skewered heart in the centre.
I think dire thoughts, and lust for French fries
with a splash of vinegar.
Cat, enough of your greedy whining
and your small pink bumhole.
Off my face! You’re the life principle,
more or less, so get going
on a little optimism around here.
Get rid of death. Celebrate increase. Make it be spring.
Presented complete for educational purposes. And because no page celebrating the work of the great Margret Catwood is complete without the phrase "Cat, enough of your greedy whining and your small pink bumhole."
It's the last Saturday before February. It's wicked cold - 2 degrees with a breeze.
It's Caturday, though Hello Barncat!
Sam, in repose
Amos , paying attention!
Cold assed….ass.
One more !
Soon ...
That's all I got room for - Thanks for dropping by !
There is a video at the link below. But when the law breaks the law is there a rule of law? In nearly 100 court cases ICE just ignores the rulings against them. But nothing changes, no contempt. Do you think you could just ignore the orders of a court? But ICE and DHS / tRump admin have been doing this since they were told during the Cecot issue to just say fuck you to the courts. Total dictatorship authoritarian rule. The only recourse the people have is the US court system and the republican right along with Stephen Miller say to their thugs, Ignore court rulings you don’t like as they restrict your the civilian’s personal civil rights / liberties. Hugs
In a court order, Judge Patrick Schiltz wrote that 96 court orders were violated in 74 cases.
MINNEAPOLIS — In a court order, Minnesota’s chief judge wrote that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has violated nearly 100 court orders this month.
“The extent of ICE’s noncompliance is almost certainly substantially understated, ” the order reads. “This list is confined to orders issued since January 1, 2026, and the list was hurriedly compiled by extraordinarily busy judges. Undoubtedly, mistakes were made, and orders that should have appeared on this list were omitted.”
Lyons was scheduled to appear in court to face contempt charges after he failed to provide a bond hearing for a man who was detained. Schiltz, who was appointed by George W. Bush in 2006, ordered Lyons to testify unless the man was released. The man was released late Tuesday, and the hearing was canceled.
Schiltz wrote, however, that it didn’t end the court’s concerns.
“This list should give pause to anyone—no matter his or her political beliefs—who cares about the rule of law,” Schiltz’s order reads. “ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.”
He continued: “The Court warns ICE that future noncompliance with court orders may result in future show‐cause orders requiring the personal appearances of Lyons or other government officials. ICE is not a law unto itself. ICE has every right to challenge the orders of this Court, but, like any litigant, ICE must follow those orders unless and until they are overturned or vacated.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday laid out his party’s demands for voting for Homeland Security funding: End roving patrols by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); tighten rules governing use of warrants by officers targeting migrants; establish a universal code of conduct governing federal law enforcement officers’ use of force; prohibit federal officers from wearing masks; and require officers to wear body cameras and proper identification.
Well I had hoped to hear from Schumer but at least he is demanding the reforms be in writing. He is getting a lot of pressure to do something this time. But he wanted to end the last shut down with a loss because he was afraid the republicans would destroy the filibuster. He settled for a vote that meant nothing and was totally performative. Will he do the same here? Hugs
Well at least he can articulate the points that need to be made in a strong manner. I liked him better clean shaven. My view on a beard is either grow one big, bushy, and long or don’t grow it. Scruffy is a sad look I think and reminds me of teenagers getting their first facial hairs. I wonder what political job he will run for next. I think Senate, or governor. Hugs
House Majority Leader Chris Croft suspended rules to force an emergency vote immediately after the Jan. 28, 2026, House debate on a bathroom bill forcing people to use facilities aligned with their biological sex at birth. The move pushed the bill through immediately instead of waiting one day as is usually required. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)
TOPEKA — The GOP-led Kansas House and Senate on Wednesday approved a “bathroom bill” targeting transgender people after House Democrats delayed passage by six hours, proposing multiple amendments to set the stage for a possible legal challenge.
House Majority Leader Chris Croft, an Overland Park Republican, called for emergency action to take the vote immediately after debating the bill instead of waiting a day as rules require. House Substitute for Senate Bill 244 passed on an 87-36 vote along party lines, with one Republican opposed.
The Senate concurred with the bill Wednesday evening, voting 30 to 9, also along party lines. The bill will go to Gov. Laura Kelly, who is expected to veto the legislation. It passed both chambers with the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.
Democrats fought the bill’s passage in the House, basing their arguments on two primary concepts — that the bill was rushed through the legislative process, giving little time for public input, and that it is an inhumane attack on transgender people.
“This bill spits on basic human decency, and I’m embarrassed we had to spend the entire day trying to defeat this thing,” said Rep. Susan Ruiz, D-Shawnee.
Ruiz also said she believed the bill was targeted at a specific legislator, referring to Rep. Abi Boatman, a Wichita Democrat who is a transgender woman. Boatman was selected to fill a vacant seat in early January.
“I have sat here for five and a half hours and listened to this entire room debate my humanity and my ability to participate in the most basic functions of society,” Boatman said at the close of debate. “From the bottom of my heart, I hope none of you have to ever sit through something like that.”
The legislation would require people to use the bathroom in government buildings that matches their biological sex at birth, rather than their gender, and requires governments to enforce the rule. Both the governmental body and individuals could face steep fines for violating the law.
The bill also requires that the sex listed on a driver’s license and birth certificate match the person’s biological sex at birth.
House Minority Leader Brandon Woodard, D-Lenexa, said in an interview after the House adjourned that the amendments and testimony presented by Democrats throughout the day “gave a lot of fodder” to Kansas courts to make a decision when the case is revived.
During debate, Democrats repeatedly referenced Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach failed attempt in court to ban gender marker changes on driver’s licenses. Woodard said he didn’t think this bill would hold up in court, either.
“As long as Kris Kobach’s our attorney general, I think he’s going to continue to lose in court,” he said.
Rep. Alexis Simmons, D-Topeka, talks about her experience with sexual assault during a Jan. 28, 2026, House debate on a bill to regulate who can use a bathroom in a government building. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)
Emotional testimony
It was a long debate full of emotion, sometimes anger, often frustration. Several times legislators were accused of impugning another legislator, and loud exclamations resonated from both sides of the chamber, including emphatic shouts of “oh, baloney.”
Rep. Alexis Simmons, D-Topeka, said she hadn’t planned to talk about a personal trauma but felt compelled to speak up when she heard others testify about how difficult it would be for women who have been raped to share a bathroom with a man.
She referred to testimony by Rep. Charlotte Esau, R-Olathe, who said the bill protected the “silent” women who are unwilling to speak up about being assaulted and who need women-only spaces to feel safe.
“I’m a victim of a sexual assault and never once did I think it was somebody else’s responsibility to manage my trauma,” Simmons said. “I feel enormous sympathy for victims of trauma, that goes without saying, but I do not appreciate my trauma being used to justify legislation that we know will cause harm to people.”
Simmons said she felt more threatened by men than she had ever felt by a transgender person.
“Here in this building, as an intern, as a committee assistant, as staff and as a legislator, I have been sexually harassed more than you would believe,” she said. “If we’re going to talk about women’s safety, we should address the real trauma, which is how women are treated, not putting the spotlight on one new member of our Legislature.”
Rep. John Carmichael, D-Wichita, rejected claims made by Rep. Susan Humphries, R-Wichita, and Rep. Bob Lewis, R-Garden City, who argued the bill would protect women.
The bill instead will force transgender men, who live as and look like men, to use a woman’s restroom, Carmichael said.
“He is going to sit down at the stall next to your granddaughter,” Carmichael said. “Is that what you really want? Not only that, there are other facilities which have locker rooms or the like. That hairy-faced man will be standing naked, showering next to your daughter. That’s what this bill requires.”
Other legislators spoke about concerns that the bill would embolden people to attack transgender individuals.
Rabbi Moti Rieber, with Kansas Interfaith Action, watched all six hours of debate, his face often grim.
“This bill is a combination of a culture war-obsessed supermajority and a broken legislative process, using every process trick in the book to get unnecessary and harmful legislation into law with no public input,” he said.
Rep. Dan Osman, D-Overland Park, opposes a bathroom bill during a six-hour House debate on Jan. 28, 2026. The bill forces people to use the bathroom that matches their sex at birth. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)
Process problems
Throughout the day, Democrats pointed to process problems surrounding the bill. The Judiciary Committee revealed a hearing on House Bill 2426 with less than 24-hour notice. At a later hearing, the bathroom portion of the bill was added with no advance notice and no chance for public input.
Then, in a procedure referred to as “gut and go,” the committee dumped the contents of HB 2426 into Senate Bill 244, which allowed the Senate to simply concur without ever holding a hearing on the overwritten bill.
“Procedurally, it is the absolute worst bill I have ever heard in the Kansas Legislature,” said Rep. Dan Osman, D-Overland Park, who also serves on the Judiciary Committee. “It was done with one purpose and one purpose only — to ensure that the absolute least number of people were available as opponents to this bill and that they were unaware that there would even be a hearing.”
Additionally, there is no fiscal note — a formal notice provided by budget analysts and researchers about how much a bill will cost — for the bathroom provision. That means it is unclear how much local governments could have to pay to ensure they are complying with the law.
Rep. Kirk Haskins, D-Topeka, said he was upset about the rushed schedule and the lack of a fiscal note.
“It upsets me when we rush things through that deal with my constituents, and my constituents, they don’t get a say. That’s what happened here,” he said. “This is a trend. I don’t know what’s going on. Yesterday, we had committee meetings without information. We heard a bill, we didn’t have a proponent, just because we have the power to do it.”
Some legislators focused on details, such as how enforcement would be handled and what would happen if someone violated the bathroom restrictions. Humphries, the Wichita Republican who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said complaints would be made to the governing body if someone suspected a person was using a bathroom that didn’t match their sex at birth.
The bill outlines fines for individuals and also that governing bodies could be held accountable — to fines as high as $25,000 — if they don’t require people to use bathrooms as outlined.
In an interview after the House adjourned, Haskins said he would be comfortable seeing Boatman, as a transgender woman, in the men’s restroom at the Statehouse.
“I’m comfortable with anybody in the restroom,” he said. “I think the bill is based upon fearmongering on issues that are not critical to Kansas, and wherever she wants to go, Rep. Boatman, I’ve got her back.”
I really like the reporting of this person. I strongly suggest everyone subscribe to her substack and support her efforts if you can. But even though this is 7 days old it is really important as it shows how feelings are changing on protecting trans people. Hate won’t win if we and our politicians fight back. When they had the right takes advantage to attack the rights of the LGBTQ+. Hugs
Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.
Early Tuesday morning, final appropriations bills for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education—and related agencies—were released, marking the last major funding measures to be negotiated in the aftermath of the record-breaking government shutdown fight in 2025. That standoff featured multiple appropriations bills loaded with anti-transgender riders and poison pills for Democrats, ultimately ending in a short-term continuing resolution that punted many of those provisions to the end of January. While other “minibus” packages funding individual agencies moved forward, the Education and HHS bills were conspicuously absent, as they contained some of the most sweeping and consequential anti-trans riders ever proposed in Congress. Now, with the final bills released, it is clear that no anti-transgender riders were included—meaning transgender people will largely be spared new congressional attacks through most of 2026 should they pass as-is.
As the government shut down on Oct. 1, the state of appropriations bills needed to reopen the federal government for any extended period was extraordinarily dire for transgender people. Dozens of anti-transgender riders were embedded across House appropriations bills, even as those provisions were largely absent from the Senate’s versions. The riders appeared throughout nearly every funding measure, from Commerce, Justice, and Science to Financial Services and General Government. The most extreme provisions, however, were concentrated in the House HHS and Education bills, including language barring “any federal funds” from supporting gender-affirming care at any age and threatening funding for schools that support transgender students. Taken together, those measures would have posed a sweeping threat to transgender people’s access to education and health care nationwide.
Those fears eased somewhat when the government reopened under a short-term continuing resolution funding operations through the end of January. In the months that followed, Democrats notched a series of incremental victories for transgender people, advancing multiple appropriations “minibus” packages that stripped out anti-trans riders as the government was funded piece by piece. As amendment after amendment fell away, those wins grew more substantial, including the removal of a proposed ban on gender-affirming medical care from the NDAA—even after it had passed both the House and Senate. Still, the most consequential question remained unresolved: what would ultimately happen to the high-impact anti-trans provisions embedded in the HHS and Education bills.
Now, the package has been released—and for the moment, transgender people can breathe again. The final HHS and Education bills contain no anti-transgender provisions: no ban on hospitals providing gender-affirming care to transgender youth, no threats to strip funding from schools that support transgender students or allow them to use the bathroom, and no mandate forcing colleges to exclude transgender students from sports or activities like chess or esports. The bills are strikingly clean. As such, they avert yet another protracted shutdown fight in which transgender people are once again turned into political bargaining chips—and, at least for now, remove Congress as the immediate vehicle for new federal attacks, should they pass as-is.
When asked about the successful stripping of anti-trans provisions, a staffer for Representative Sarah McBride tells Erin In The Morning, “Rep. McBride works closely with her colleagues every day to defend the rights of all her constituents, including LGBTQ people across Delaware. In the face of efforts by the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress to roll back health care and civil rights, she was proud to work relentlessly with her colleagues in ensuring these funding bills did not include anti-LGBTQ provisions. It takes strong allies in leadership and on committees to rein in the worst excesses of this Republican trifecta, Rep. McBride remains grateful to Ranking Members DeLauro, Murray, and Democratic leadership for prioritizing the removal of these harmful riders.”
This does not mean that transgender people will not be targeted with policies and rules that affect them in all areas of life. The Trump administration has acted without regard to law in forcing bans on sports, pulling funding from schools and hospitals, and banning passport gender marker updates. The Supreme Court has been increasingly willing to let the office of the presidency under Trump do whatever it would like to transgender people. However, the lack of passage of bills targeting transgender people means that these attacks will only last for as long as we have Trump in the White House, and a future president should hopefully be easily able to reverse the attacks.
Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.
from Florida, too! I’m not sure how liberal he’ll be, but there’s a lot of work to get done before worrying about that, and we know this guy can do the work.
Scottie's Playtime 
