On August 13, 2025, a pair of sweeping developments reignited the national debate over transgender rights and the scope of government authority, as Kansas and Michigan found themselves at the center of two closely watched controversies. In Kansas, a new state budget directive forced state and university employees to strip pronouns from their email signatures, while in Michigan, Attorney General Dana Nessel joined a coalition of states in a federal lawsuit challenging Trump-era executive orders that threaten access to transgender health care for youth.
These parallel stories—one set in the heartland, the other in the courts—underscore the sharply diverging paths states are taking when it comes to LGBTQ+ rights, and the growing role of both legislatures and the judiciary in shaping the lives of transgender Americans.
In Kansas, the controversy began when lawmakers inserted a provision into the state budget requiring all state agencies to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programming, training, and positions. The same directive went a step further, mandating the removal of any so-called "gender ideology" from work communications, including a specific ban on listing pronouns in email signatures. As reported by the Kansas Reflector, this policy applies to all state and university employees, with the University of Kansas giving its staff until July 31 to comply.
The move has prompted a wave of concern and criticism from university officials, advocacy groups, and civil liberties organizations. Rep. Mike Amyx, a Democrat from Lawrence and ranking minority leader on the higher education budget committee, expressed deep misgivings. "I don’t know what was going to be accomplished by this," Amyx told the Kansas Reflector. "I couldn’t see a positive outcome on it. The potential for somebody to get in trouble because of this bill is real." He also noted the lack of clear guidance for university faculty and staff now caught in a difficult position.
KU Chancellor Doug Girod issued a statement outlining the new rules, but emphasized that the university community remains "founded on respect and support for one another." Yet, for many, the directive feels like a step away from those values. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) sent a letter to the Kansas Board of Regents on July 28, arguing that the guidance infringes on employees' First Amendment rights. "We offered to work with the Board to craft alternative guidance that clarifies the scope of the law consistent with the First Amendment," FIRE wrote, but noted that Board leadership appeared unwilling to reconsider.
On the other side of the political spectrum, Senate President Ty Masterson, a Republican from Andover and gubernatorial hopeful, celebrated the legislation. He drew a direct line to former President Donald Trump’s efforts to cut DEI programming, stating, "‘DEI’ programs promote divisive environments that pressure students and faculty to adopt specific viewpoints, undermining academics and setting Kansas universities back."
For Rep. Heather Meyer, a Democrat from Overland Park, the new law is a clear attack on minority and LGBTQ+ communities. "It’s just deplorable," Meyer told the Kansas Reflector. "It’s codifying hatred. Universities have typically been beacons of free speech. To turn into this is awful. We just have to keep fighting." She pointed out that many employees may feel compelled to comply to protect their jobs, especially given the ambiguity around enforcement and consequences. "For people who are actively removing their pronouns and don’t feel safe in keeping them on there and protest, there’s absolutely no judgment about that. Everybody needs to support their family and feel safe speaking out."
The Lawrence Trans Coalition was among those most vocal in its opposition, urging "overwhelming pushback" and suggesting alternative forms of protest, such as wearing pronoun pins or drawing attention to the new policy in creative ways. Isaac Johnson, the coalition’s politics and public relations chair, said, "It is genuinely harrowing to see them so quickly comply with an anti-trans bill that has no explicit enforcement mechanisms spelled out within the text. The implication here is that the Kansas Legislature views the mere concept of disclosing pronouns as political extremism that must be oppressed." Johnson also highlighted a key inconsistency: while the bill bans pronouns, it doesn’t restrict other signature elements like "Mr." or "Mrs.," a distinction critics say unfairly targets transgender employees.
Meanwhile, more than 800 miles northeast, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel was leading a very different kind of fight. On the same day as the Kansas news, Nessel announced that Michigan had joined 16 other states and the District of Columbia in a federal lawsuit challenging two executive orders—14168 and 14187—signed by former President Trump. These orders seek to restrict federal grants and funding to institutions that provide transgender health care to anyone under 19, even where such care is legal and protected under state law.
"The Trump administration is attempting to strip away lawful, essential health care from vulnerable youth," Nessel said in a statement from the Michigan Department of the Attorney General. "These orders are illegal and dangerous and have no medical or scientific basis. I will continue to protect families, defend doctors and stop politicians from putting our kids' lives at risk."
The first executive order, signed on Trump’s inaugural day, declared that the U.S. would only recognize two sexes and called for ending federal support for "gender ideology." The second order, more targeted, restricts medically necessary health care for youth, defining anyone under 19 as a child—despite most states, including Michigan, considering 18-year-olds legal adults. The orders also describe recognized medical treatments as "chemical and surgical mutilation." The Michigan Department of the Attorney General noted that since the orders were issued, the Department of Justice has begun issuing subpoenas to health care providers, a move the coalition of attorneys general says is meant to intimidate providers from offering care that remains lawful under state law.
Advocates and medical professionals say the pressure campaign is already having real-world effects: some providers have reduced or eliminated services, and patients in cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., have canceled appointments amid confusion and fear. Dr. Patricia Wells, medical director of The Corner Health Center, warned that the federal actions "do not protect children; they endanger them. They undermine trust in the medical system and place affirming providers in an impossible position, forcing hospitals to close clinics and providers to stop offering the very care that helps young people survive and thrive."
Medical experts and national associations overwhelmingly agree that gender-affirming care can be lifesaving for transgender youth. Research consistently shows that denying such care leads to higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide. Tess Miller, a mid-Michigan parent, stressed the threat to parental rights: "In the state of Michigan, it is my fundamental right to make decisions about 'the care, teaching, and education of my child.' Unfortunately, the current administration is actively working to eliminate my parental rights through overreaching executive orders."
Michigan’s own Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act explicitly prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression, making denial of care a civil rights violation. Erin Knott, executive director of Equality Michigan, praised the attorney general’s action: "Health care decisions for kids should be made by parents and doctors, not by politicians. The federal government is using funding as a weapon to force providers to abandon their patients and override parents' rights to make health care decisions for their own children. We commend Attorney General Nessel for protecting Michigan families from devastating threats to cut essential health care."
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, seeks to block enforcement of the executive orders, arguing they violate the Constitution and exceed federal authority. The legal action is led by attorneys general from New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Connecticut, with broad participation from across the country.
As Kansas and Michigan chart such different courses, the future of transgender rights and the boundaries of government power remain deeply contested—both in the workplace and in the doctor’s office. The coming months will reveal whether legislatures or the courts will have the final say.