The ongoing clash between the Trump administration and advocates for transgender rights has reached a fever pitch this summer, with federal actions targeting both medical institutions and schools across the United States. The latest developments reveal a sweeping federal effort to limit gender-affirming care for minors and restrict the participation of transgender girls in school sports, igniting fierce debate and raising questions about privacy, legality, and the future of civil rights protections.
On June 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a sweeping subpoena to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHP), demanding access to all records related to young transgender patients. According to The Washington Post, the subpoena covered every imaginable “writing or record of whatever type” made by doctors—including emails, Zoom recordings, texts, and even sensitive personal details such as names, birth dates, and Social Security numbers. This move startled healthcare providers and patient advocates, especially since gender-affirming care remains legal in Pennsylvania.
The subpoena’s existence became public on August 18, 2025, as part of a lawsuit filed by Washington state Attorney General Nicholas W. Brown against the Trump administration. Brown is seeking to block an executive order that threatens to end federal funding for medical institutions providing gender-affirming care to anyone under 19. In court filings, Brown argued that the DOJ’s requests for information from CHP have “only escalated” since a judge blocked Trump’s executive orders earlier in the year.
Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed that the DOJ had issued more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics across the country, not only in states with bans on gender-affirming care but also in those where such care remains legal. “The DOJ had issued more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics that it claimed ‘mutilated children in the service of a warped ideology,’” Bondi stated, echoing the administration’s sharply critical rhetoric.
Healthcare providers have expressed alarm at the breadth of the subpoenas and the chilling effect they are having on care. According to an independent review by HuffPost, 25 hospitals have ended gender-affirming care services since July 2025, and notably, none of these hospitals are located in states with active bans. Providers are increasingly concerned that offering hormone therapy, puberty blockers, or surgeries could expose them to felony charges, even in jurisdictions where such care is still legal.
Donald Trump has taken credit for these changes, boasting in July 2025 that his administration had ended gender-affirming care at specialized adolescent programs in states including Arizona, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia. This claim, while difficult to independently verify in every instance, underscores the administration’s aggressive approach and willingness to claim victory in the ongoing cultural battle over transgender rights.
While the federal government’s reach into hospital records has sparked outrage among privacy advocates and medical professionals, another front in the conflict has opened up in the nation’s schools—most notably in California, a state known for its progressive stance on LGBTQ+ rights. The latest flashpoint came on August 21, 2025, when President Trump threatened to pull federal funding from California school districts that do not comply with his administration’s transgender policies. This threat was issued via Trump’s official Truth Social account, following California’s refusal to ban transgender girls from competing in female sports.
“Any California school district that doesn’t adhere to our Transgender policies, will not be funded. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump wrote, leaving little ambiguity about his administration’s intentions. The move marks the latest escalation in a long-running feud between the Republican president and California’s Democratic Governor, Gavin Newsom, over trans inclusion policies.
The immediate catalyst for this escalation was the case of AB Hernandez, a 16-year-old transgender junior at Jurupa Valley High School, who qualified for the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) State Track and Field Championships. Hernandez’s participation triggered protests from right-wing activists and drew direct criticism from Trump. On August 21, Trump described Hernandez as a “transitioned Male athlete” who is “practically unbeatable,” declaring, “THIS IS NOT FAIR, AND TOTALLY DEMEANING TO WOMEN AND GIRLS.” He further warned, “Please be hereby advised that large scale Federal Funding will be held back, maybe permanently, if the Executive Order on this subject matter is not adhered to.”
The executive order in question, signed by Trump in February 2025 and titled Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports, mandates that federal funding be withdrawn from educational institutions that do not segregate sports based on “biological sex.” The order asserts that it is now the “policy of the United States […] to oppose male competitive participation in women’s sports more broadly, as a matter of safety, fairness, dignity and truth.”
California, however, has pushed back. In July 2025, after the state’s Department of Education and the CIF refused to comply with the executive order, the Trump administration announced it would be suing the state. Rather than ban transgender athletes, California changed its rules to support their inclusion. The new policy offers cisgender athletes who narrowly missed out on qualifying for an event—allegedly due to the participation of a transgender athlete—the chance to compete as well.
The DOJ’s lawsuit claims that California’s policies violate Title IX, the landmark federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in education. The lawsuit argues, “California’s policies are not only illegal and unfair but also demeaning, signalling to girls that their opportunities and achievements are secondary to accommodating boys.” The department further contends that the rules “ignore undeniable biological differences between boys and girls, in favor of an amorphous ‘gender identity.’”
These federal actions have drawn sharp criticism from civil rights groups, LGBTQ+ advocates, and medical organizations, who warn that targeting hospitals and schools puts vulnerable youth at risk and undermines decades of progress. Advocates argue that gender-affirming care is supported by major medical associations and is often lifesaving for transgender youth, while participation in sports fosters inclusion, health, and well-being.
At the same time, the Trump administration and its supporters maintain that their policies are necessary to protect the integrity of women’s sports and to prevent what they describe as irreversible medical interventions on minors. The clash has become a defining issue in the broader national debate over transgender rights, parental authority, and the role of federal government in shaping health and education policy.
With lawsuits pending and the future of federal funding for hospitals and schools in the balance, the outcome of these battles will have far-reaching consequences for transgender youth, their families, and the institutions that serve them. For now, the standoff continues, with both sides digging in and the stakes for civil rights and public policy growing ever higher.
As the legal and political fights play out, families, students, and healthcare providers across the country are left navigating an increasingly uncertain landscape—one where the rules can change overnight, and where the next subpoena or executive order could upend lives and livelihoods in ways both immediate and profound.
