Federal judge extends halt on enforcement of Trump order on gender-affirming care

Almost immediately upon taking office in January, President Donald Trump set about fulfilling promises made on the campaign trail regarding gender theory and the transitioning of minors.

Trump's initiative hit another obstacle on Friday, however, when a federal judge extended a prior temporary injunction blocking the administration from pulling funds from institutions that offer “gender-affirming” treatments for transgender youth, as The Hill reports.

Trump issues executive order

At the heart of the ruling issued by U.S. District Court Judge Lauren King is a Jan. 28 executive order signed by Trump, titled, “Protecting Children From Chemical And Surgical Mutilation.”

The order declared, “Across the country today, medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child's sex through a series of irreversible medical interventions. This dangerous trend will be a stain on our Nation's history, and it must end.”

“Countless children soon regret that they have been mutilated and begin to grasp the horrifying tragedy that they will never be able to conceive children of their own or nurture their children through breastfeeding,” the order continues.

As such, the order explains, “it is the policy of the United States that it will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called “transition” of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.”

Legal battles ensue

It was not long after the issuance of that order that Washington Attorney General Nick Brown spearheaded a multi-state lawsuit challenging the order, which encompassed care related to anyone under the age of 19, as KOMO noted.

Brown, arguing against the Trump order, contended that it was “part of a larger political effort to strip away civil rights from entire communities,” adding his belief that the “president's cruelty is on full display.”

On Feb. 14, Judge King issued a temporary restraining order blocking the implementation of Trump's order, one which applied to the “plaintiff states,” a group that included Washington, Oregon, and Minnesota.

On Feb. 28, King extended her initial injunction, stating that the order violates the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which requires equal protection under the law and declaring that the administration's stance would “prevent federally funded medical providers from providing necessary medical treatments to transgender youth that are completely unrelated to gender identity.”

King offered an example in which “a cisgender teen could obtain puberty blockers from such a provider as a component of cancer treatment, but a transgender teen with the same cancer care plan could not.”

What comes next?

There is no indication that the Trump administration has any intention of abandoning the fight to uphold the president's executive order, declaring in court filings that his “authority to direct subordinate agencies to implement his agenda, subject to those agencies' own statutory authorities is well established.”

Given the substantial mandate Trump received from voters last fall, that principle appears to have already garnered the support of a large segment of the American electorate, but whether the relevant judicial authorities will agree, only time will tell.