The Assault on Transgender Students

This article is part of a preview to the spring 2025 issue of Academe. The full issue will be published in May.

This article is part of a series, "Trump Is Revealing Our Higher Ed Crisis."

President Donald Trump’s recent barrage of anti-trans executive orders—which define sex as binary and immutable, bar transgender people from serving in the military, shut transgender women out of sports, and strip transgender and nonbinary people of identification documents and lifesaving medical care—all share a common aim: erasure. These executive orders dramatically increase the strain on transgender and nonbinary people who seek simply to exist in public space. As colleges and universities attempt to uphold countervailing commitments to the mental and physical well-being of students and to academic freedom, it is critical to distinguish policy noise from legal obligation and to avoid anticipatory overcompliance with executive orders of the Trump-Vance administration.

The three of these orders that bear most directly on institutions of higher education involve redefining sex, sports, and medical care and research. Let us say a word about the content of each, before considering their legal effects and what might come next as the administration seeks to compel compliance.

In the first hours following his return to office, President Trump signed an executive order that defines “sex” by reference to whether one “belong[s], at conception, to the sex that produces” either the “large” or the “small” reproductive cell—that is, ova or sperm. This novel definition is legally untested: It has never been used in a federal law or regulation, nor has it been adopted by any federal court. (While it recalls similar definitions in executive orders and recent enactments in conservative states, its language is less precise.) The order also instructs the US attorney general to roll back the Biden administration’s view that Title IX protects against discrimination on the basis of gender nonconformity and sexual orientation and, further, to take action to protect “sex-based distinctions.” It additionally directs agencies to “ensure grant funds do not promote gender ideology.”

A second executive order, signed two weeks later, seeks to oust transgender women from sports teams associated with educational institutions. It does so first by advancing a highly restrictive interpretation of Title IX’s guarantee of “equal opportunity” as barring transgender women from competing in women’s sports. Such participation, it states, deprives women of “fair athletic opportunities” and “results in the endangerment, humiliation, and silencing of women and girls and deprives them of privacy.” It then directs agencies to rescind grants and funding from educational programs and associations that violate this interpretation of Title IX. Several investigations have already been launched, though it is unclear how the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the Department of Education might dilute the strength of these enforcement threats.

Finally, a January 28 executive order aims to severely restrict nationwide access to gender-affirming care for young people by threatening to withhold research and education grants from institutions that provide gender-affirming hormone therapies or surgery to people under the age of nineteen. Two federal courts have issued orders temporarily blocking the executive order, but the Trump administration has rebuffed similar court orders, and students nineteen and younger may still struggle to access medical care. At the same time, the Trump administration has launched an offensive against medical research, imposing severe cuts to funding for the National Institutes of Health and threatening to withdraw funds for studies related to “DEI” (diversity, equity, and inclusion) and “gender ideology.” These actions have imperiled numerous studies and clinical programs involving transgender individuals, even as opponents of gender-affirming care claim that their concerns arise from the fact that such care is “experimental” and not supported by “long-term medical studies.”

The sweeping nature of these executive orders has left students and higher education institutions in a state of uncertainty regarding their rights and legal obligations. When one assesses the legal effect of an executive order, it is important to keep in mind that the president lacks authority to change the law by executive order. Instead, an executive order is essentially a directive from the president to executive branch officials and agencies to set certain priorities and direct particular actions. For example, the order that “defines” sex cannot, and does not, change the meaning of “sex” under federal law. Instead, it tells federal employees to use its definition when interpreting and applying federal law—as, for instance, when the Department of Education assesses whether a Title IX violation has occurred.

Litigants have already had some success challenging Trump’s trans-hostile executive orders in court, but continued success may be significantly curtailed by the Supreme Court’s pending decision in United States v. Skrmetti, where the court is positioned to rule on several issues with considerable bearing on trans rights. Onlookers predict that Skrmetti will come out unfavorably. Depending on how broadly the court rules, the decision could trigger a series of losses and weaken litigation efforts. Plaintiffs would be left to pursue procedural, statutory, and non–equal protection constitutional claims as they push back on potentially unlawful aspects of these executive orders.

As a practical if not a legal matter, however, colleges and universities are likely to come under immense pressure to comply with the administration’s demands in order to avoid disruptive and invasive investigations or threatened withdrawal of federal funds. While acknowledging these pressures, we urge college and university leaders to avoid the temptation to overcorrect their practices in reaction to these executive orders. Political attacks against transgender people increase risks of violence and hateful acts against them and have serious deleterious effects on their mental health. These risks may be especially acute as President Trump channels deep animus against gender-diverse people, lambasting them as anti-American, dangerous, dishonorable, and deceitful.

College and university leaders should aim to provide maximum support to gender-diverse students while remaining compliant with the letter of the law. Consider the policy of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), which changed its eligibility criteria for transgender athletes weeks after the executive order was signed. As of this writing, the NCAA’s position is that transgender women may still practice with their teams even though they cannot compete. This is a small token for transgender athletes, but it highlights how institutions can seek to preserve the broadest possible rights for students while remaining compliant with the law. Participation in sports enhances well-being and builds community, and it is worth considering how to foster these and other benefits for all student athletes—including through support for intramural and all-gender sports both within and beyond the university gates.

Trump administration policies also affect federal identification documents: Transgender people have reported receiving passports with reverted gender markers and having their passports and identification documents indefinitely withheld by the State Department. These issues may make it difficult for students to obtain identification documents that align with their identity. Colleges and universities can take immediate steps to offset the administrative burdens this is likely to cause by assisting affected students who face hurdles accessing student loans or student health insurance, signing up for student employment, or ensuring that diplomas, email addresses, and course lists reflect their preferred names. Clear guidance, systems, and training for administrative staff on how to navigate these issues will benefit the entire student body: As many as 36 percent of Americans and many international students use a name other than their legal first name.

LGBTQ+ students benefit significantly from supportive campus environments. Such support manifests itself in myriad ways, including institutional policies, staff interactions, student community groups, and inclusive curricula. When some of these avenues come under pressure, colleges and universities may wish to respond by placing greater emphasis on other support systems, such as staff training, continued investment in counseling and robust student services, and providing students with physical and administrative resources to foster spaces for community-based support.

The Trump administration has both education and gender-diverse people in its crosshairs, and colleges and universities may find themselves torn between competing legal and moral obligations. At the same time, these institutions can seek to ensure that students are not left to bear these burdens alone by remaining attentive to practical, day-to-day effects on students’ lives.

Alexander Chen is the founding director of the LGBTQ+ Advocacy Clinic at Harvard Law School. Dallas Estes is a third-year student at Harvard Law School and a student attorney in the LGBTQ+ Advocacy Clinic.