News
A federal policy expert weighs in on Trump’s efforts to stifle gender-affirming care for Americans under 19
Elana Redfield, University of California, Los Angeles
Amid a flurry of executive orders affecting transgender Americans, the Trump administration ordered restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors. Calling it “a stain on our Nation’s history,” the Jan. 28, 2025, order seeks to “end” this form of treatment for Americans under 19 years old.
The Conversation U.S. interviewed Elana Redfield, federal policy director at the Williams Institute, an independent research center at the UCLA School of Law dedicated to studying sexual orientation and gender identity law. She describes the aims of the executive order, how much weight it carries, and how it should be understood in the broader context of legal battles over access to gender-affirming care.
What’s the scope of the executive order?
Twenty-six states have already restricted gender-affirming care for minors or banned it outright. So the order seeks to extend restrictions to the rest of the country using the weight of the executive branch.
However, it’s not a national ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Instead, it’s directing federal agencies to regulate and restrict this form of care.
That being said, federal agencies have a tremendous impact on American life. Trans kids rely on publicly funded health insurance programs such as Medicaid and TRICARE, which is administered to the children of active duty service members via the Department of Defense. And a big part of the executive order is directing the federal agencies that administer these programs to review their own policies to ensure that they are not supporting gender-affirming care for minors.
So what we’re really seeing is the federal government trying to erect barriers to kids accessing this care.
Does the executive branch have the authority to unilaterally ban federal funding of certain medical treatments?
The answer is a little mixed. A president might be able to suspend or put a temporary pause on funding a particular type of treatment or service. But the actual parameters of a program – and how agencies should implement them – are determined by Congress and, to some extent, by the courts.
Ultimately, the president can only take actions in ways that are designated by the Constitution, or through some specific power that Congress has granted to the executive branch. I don’t see that authority granted for a lot of what’s contained in this executive order. But many of these directives will probably be litigated in court, where the president will likely argue that he has the power to direct agencies to do all they can to put a halt to gender-affirming care for minors.
Do private health insurers fall outside the scope of this executive order?
On the surface, yes. But it’s easy to see how directives from the executive branch can touch broader components of the country’s health care system, including private hospitals and private health insurance.
For example, Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act is a nondiscrimination provision. It says there can be no sex discrimination when it comes to approving health care treatments. This has been interpreted to mean that health insurance plans receiving federal funding cannot deny a policyholder gender-affirming care. However, this interpretation has been blocked by a federal court.
The question of whether this definition of sex discrimination encompasses gender identity is currently playing out in the courts. For example, there’s a pending U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors. Should the Supreme Court determine that Tennessee is able to ban gender-affirming care for minors, it’s possible to see how this could impact private health insurance coverage for gender-affirming care.
What else stood out to you from the executive order?
The executive order directs the Department of Justice to discourage doctors and hospitals from administering gender-affirming care to minors, characterizing it as genital mutilation, which is a heinous-sounding offense. Even though this is an inaccurate comparison, it could have a chilling effect even in states where this form of care is legal.
The order also contains a provision that asks Congress to extend the statute of limitations for gender-affirming care, so that someone who received gender-affirming care as a minor and decides they’re not happy with it decades later can sue their doctor. Some states have already extended the statute of limitations to 30 years for gender-affirming care.
Again, this could have a chilling effect in states where the care is legal. What doctor or hospital would want to expose themselves to this risk?
Of course, these two elements constitute directives from the executive branch, but we don’t know how they’ll be enforced. They do reveal, however, some of the ways in which the administration plans to direct its efforts.
Before Roe v. Wade was overturned, federal funding of elective abortion had been restricted for decades under the Hyde Amendment. You can’t receive coverage for an abortion under a Medicaid plan, for example. Do you see this executive order as Trump trying to simply enact – via fiat, of course – his own version of the Hyde Amendment, but instead applied to gender-affirming care for minors?
I think there’s a key difference between the two. The Hyde Amendment, which has been repeatedly reenacted by Congress, prohibits federal funding of abortion care, but it doesn’t prohibit states from allowing or permitting abortion. It’s always operated as a sort of compromise: It says providers can’t use federal funding for an abortion, but they can use their own funding to administer abortions – and oh, by the way, they can still receive federal funding for other health services.
This executive order, on the other hand, takes a much more uncompromising position: It tells agency heads to stop directing any and all federal funds to institutions that research or provide gender-affirming care.
Again, it’s important to remember that executive orders aren’t established policy. They’re simply directing agencies to craft certain policies and encouraging lawmakers to enact legislation.
So far, much of the legislation restricting gender-affirming care – whether it’s at the state level or in the executive branch – has centered on minors, or individuals under 19. Are there any threats to gender-affirming care for adults?
Only one state, Florida, has enacted a law that specifically regulates gender-affirming care for adults. That law basically sets some compliance standards and restricts who can prescribe the care. Florida also banned the use of state funds for gender-affirming care for everyone, adults and children. So that means, for example, those who are incarcerated in state prisons can’t receive gender-affirming care.
Florida isn’t the only state that has enacted a state funding ban. Depending on your insurance, this could mean you’re forced to pay out of pocket for your procedures and treatment, which can be prohibitively expensive.
What are you going to be watching for in the coming weeks?
I’m sure someone’s going to sue to challenge the order. The problem, though, is that an executive order is an expression of policy ideas. You need something to actually happen before lawyers and activists can react to it. So I’ll be tracking federal agencies to see how they specifically try to enact some of these directives.
Is there anything else you’d like to add?
This executive order contains language that characterizes the science around gender-affirming care as junk science. It’s repeatedly described as chemical and surgical mutilation, or as maiming and sterilizing kids. There’s talk of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, which has been discredited.
So it rejects the idea that gender-affirming care has health benefits, even though there’s robust, extensive evidence supporting access to gender-affirming care. Self-reporting by transgender individuals is overwhelmingly positive: 98% of trans people who had hormone therapy said it made their lives better, according to the 2022 U.S. Transgender Survey.
There are also rigorous standards of practice, including for how you support and treat minors, that are intended to prevent overprescription or overutilization of services.
In other words, there are already barriers in place and checks and balances for minors if they want to access gender-affirming care.
Elana Redfield, Federal Policy Director at the Williams Institute, University of California, Los Angeles
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
STM Daily News
Woman Charged With Felony Animal Cruelty in Santa Ana Puppy Killing
Santa Ana Puppy Killing: Prosecutors have filed felony charges against a 75-year-old Anaheim woman accused of deliberately running over and killing her puppy, Blackey, in Santa Ana.
Last Updated on October 3, 2026 by Daily News Staff
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A 75-year-old Anaheim woman accused of deliberately running over and killing her puppy on a Santa Ana street has now been formally charged with felony animal cruelty, marking a major development in a case that drew widespread attention after surveillance video was released by police.
The Orange County District Attorney’s Office announced Friday, October 2, that Hanh Minh Nguyen, 75, of Anaheim, has been charged with one felony count of animal cruelty, one felony count of animal abuse by a caretaker, and a felony enhancement alleging the personal use of a weapon — a vehicle — to kill the animal.
Nguyen was arrested by Santa Ana police on Thursday, October 1, after investigators used automated license plate reader technology to identify the green Honda Odyssey seen in surveillance footage from the September 8 incident. Police subsequently located Nguyen and found the minivan at her Anaheim residence.
According to the District Attorney’s Office, Nguyen was released from custody after posting $20,000 bail. She is scheduled to appear at the Central Justice Center in Santa Ana on November 2, 2026, in Department C55.
Surveillance video led to investigation
The case began on September 8 at approximately 9:15 a.m., when Santa Ana Animal Services officers responded to a report of a dead black-and-white male pit bull-mix puppy on West Park Lane.
Surveillance footage obtained during the investigation showed a woman removing the puppy from a minivan and placing food near the driver’s side of the vehicle. Authorities allege the woman then slowly drove forward as the puppy approached the food, running over the animal with the vehicle’s rear tire before leaving the scene.
The puppy, identified by authorities as Blackey, died.
The District Attorney’s Office describes Blackey as a 9-week-old puppy. Earlier statements and local news reports described him as approximately 9 months old.
Santa Ana police released surveillance footage of the incident on September 30 and appealed to the public for help identifying the driver.
Within a day, investigators said automated license plate reader technology helped them trace the Honda Odyssey to Nguyen. Police found the vehicle in her garage and took her into custody.
Police previously said Nguyen acknowledged owning and abandoning Blackey. According to the Los Angeles Times, a Santa Ana Police Department spokesperson said Nguyen told detectives she had left the puppy because he had been annoying her boyfriend by biting his shoes and belongings. Police said she acknowledged abandoning the dog but did not admit to intentionally running him over.
Prosecutors file felony charges
The filing of felony charges moves the case beyond the initial police investigation and into the Orange County court system.
Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer condemned the alleged killing in announcing the charges and said his office intends to prosecute acts of violence against animals.
Deputy District Attorney Danica Drotman of the Orange County District Attorney’s Animal Cruelty Unit is prosecuting the case.
Nguyen is accused of the offenses and has not been convicted. The allegations against her will now be addressed through the court process.
Her next scheduled court appearance is November 2.
STM Daily News will continue following the case and provide updates as additional information becomes available.
Source and Related Links
- Orange County District Attorney — October 2 charging announcement
- The DA’s release is the strongest source for this update. It provides case number 26CF4923, the exact charges, $20,000 bail, November 2 court date and the prosecutor assigned to the case. Orange County District Attorney
- For corroborating coverage, CBS Los Angeles reports the arrest, use of automated license-plate readers and the subsequent felony charges. CBS News
- CBS Los Angeles — arrest and charges update
- NBC Los Angeles — felony charges update
College Life
Is College Worth It? New U.S. News Rankings Put More Weight on What Graduates Earn
Is college worth it? MIT has taken the No. 1 spot in the 2027 U.S. News Best Colleges rankings, ending Princeton’s 15-year run. But a new Earnings by Major metric could be even more important for families asking whether college is worth the investment.
For millions of students and families, choosing a college increasingly comes down to a basic question: Is college worth it?
The latest U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges rankings are attempting to provide another piece of information to help answer that question.
The 2027 rankings place the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) at No. 1 among National Universities, ending Princeton University’s 15-year run at the top. But perhaps the bigger story for prospective students isn’t which university occupies the No. 1 position.
It’s a significant change in how U.S. News measures the value of attending college.
For the first time, the rankings include an Earnings by Major factor designed to examine what graduates earn after leaving school — and to compare those earnings with graduates who studied the same subjects elsewhere.
Is College Worth It? U.S. News Looks Beyond Graduation
College has traditionally been promoted as an investment in a person’s future. But as families confront tuition, housing expenses and the possibility of student debt, simply earning a degree may no longer be enough information when deciding where — or whether — to attend.
Students increasingly want to know what happens after graduation.
The new U.S. News Earnings by Major metric examines graduate earnings four years after graduation using data from the U.S. Department of Education’s College Scorecard.
Importantly, the system doesn’t simply compare the average salary of graduates from one university with another.
Instead, earnings are compared within specific academic disciplines.
That distinction matters.
A university graduating large numbers of engineers, computer scientists or students entering other relatively high-paying occupations could otherwise appear to produce stronger financial outcomes simply because of the subjects its students choose to study.
Comparing graduates within similar fields is intended to provide a clearer picture of how graduates from different institutions fare financially.
From Student Debt to Graduate Earnings
The new Earnings by Major metric replaces the Graduate Indebtedness factor previously used by U.S. News.
That represents an important shift in perspective.
Instead of focusing primarily on how much debt students accumulate, the new measure looks at one aspect of what students may receive financially from their education after entering the workforce.
The metric examines employed federal financial aid recipients whose highest degree is a bachelor’s degree.
According to U.S. News, the approach is intended to reduce the influence of family financial advantages and provide a better indication of the economic value institutions may contribute to graduates.
That doesn’t mean earnings alone determine whether a college education is worthwhile.
But for a student potentially investing tens of thousands of dollars — and several years of their life — knowing how graduates in a particular major perform economically can be an important part of the decision.
MIT Takes the No. 1 Spot
Against that changing methodology, MIT moved into the No. 1 position among National Universities in the 2027 rankings.
The top three are:
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- Princeton University
- Harvard University
Princeton’s move to second place ends a run at No. 1 that began with the 2012 edition of the rankings.
Among National Liberal Arts Colleges, Williams College remained No. 1, followed by Amherst College at No. 2. Bowdoin College, Claremont McKenna College, Pomona College and Swarthmore College tied for third.
Nearly 1,700 institutions were evaluated in the 2027 edition.
Outcomes Are Becoming a Bigger Part of the Equation
The addition of graduate earnings is part of a broader emphasis on student outcomes in the U.S. News methodology.
U.S. News says outcomes now account for more than half of a school’s total score.
Institutions can be evaluated using as many as 17 weighted measures, including graduation and retention rates, social mobility for lower-income students, post-graduate earnings, faculty resources and academic peer assessments.
The shift reflects a changing conversation surrounding higher education.
For generations, students were often encouraged to focus heavily on getting into the most prestigious college possible. Today’s students may also be asking more practical questions:
How much will it cost?
How much financial aid will I receive?
How much debt might I have when I graduate?
What do graduates in my intended major earn?
And perhaps most importantly:
Will the investment pay off for me?
College Value Isn’t Just About Salary
Graduate earnings can provide useful information, but salary shouldn’t be treated as the sole measurement of the value of higher education.
Different careers have dramatically different compensation structures.
A graduate pursuing teaching, public service, social work, the arts or nonprofit work may earn less than someone entering engineering, finance or technology while still considering their education worthwhile.
There are also benefits of higher education that are difficult to capture in a salary statistic.
That’s why students comparing schools may want to look beyond an institution’s overall ranking and examine factors such as net price after financial aid, scholarships, graduation rates, student debt, internship opportunities, career placement, location and the strength of the program they actually intend to study.
The best-known university isn’t automatically the best financial or educational choice for every student.
Economic Diversity Also Gets Attention
The 2027 rankings also highlight economic diversity among highly ranked institutions.
According to U.S. News, MIT and Princeton rank third and fourth, respectively, among the top 25 National Universities in the percentage of students receiving federal Pell Grants.
Pell Grants generally assist undergraduate students with significant financial need and typically do not have to be repaid.
Among the top 25 National Liberal Arts Colleges, Amherst College ranked highest for economic diversity under the U.S. News measure.
A New Ranking Looks at In-State Value
U.S. News is also placing additional attention on affordability for students considering public universities.
The 2027 edition introduces a Best Value Schools for In-State Students ranking, which evaluates public universities based on academic quality and affordability for residents.
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill took the No. 1 position in the inaugural ranking.
That category could be particularly relevant to families deciding whether the prestige associated with attending a private or out-of-state university justifies potentially higher costs compared with attending a public institution in their home state.
The Rankings Look Different This Year
There is another important caveat when comparing the 2027 results with previous years.
Changes to the Carnegie Classification framework resulted in approximately 20% of previously ranked institutions moving into different U.S. News categories.
Because some colleges are now being compared against different groups of institutions, their 2027 rankings may not be directly comparable with previous years.
The changes also expanded eligibility, allowing additional institutions specializing in areas such as engineering, business and health to enter the rankings.
U.S. News also introduced an undergraduate economics specialty ranking while continuing rankings covering areas such as social mobility, innovation, historically Black colleges and universities, artificial intelligence programs, internships, undergraduate research and study-abroad opportunities.
Public Universities, HBCUs and Social Mobility
Among public National Universities, the University of California, Berkeley and UCLA tied for the No. 1 position, followed by the University of Michigan–Ann Arbor.
The top three Historically Black Colleges and Universities were:
- Spelman College
- Howard University
- Tuskegee University
For social mobility among National Universities, Florida International University and the University of California, Riverside tied for No. 1, with Oakland City University ranked third.
These categories illustrate another reason students may want to look deeper than a school’s overall national position. Different rankings can reveal institutions performing particularly well in areas that may matter more to an individual student.
So, Is College Worth It?
There isn’t one answer that applies to every student.
The cost of attending, financial aid, chosen major, career goals, likelihood of graduating and potential debt can dramatically change the financial equation.
A college with a famous name and high national ranking could be a poor financial choice for one student while a less prominent public university with generous financial aid could be an excellent investment for another.
That’s what makes the addition of Earnings by Major noteworthy.
Instead of asking only “Which college ranks highest?”, prospective students now have another reason to ask a much more personal question:
“What am I paying for — and what could I realistically get in return?”
MIT replacing Princeton at No. 1 makes the headline.
But for students and parents trying to decide whether college is worth the cost, the growing emphasis on outcomes, affordability and post-graduation earnings may ultimately be the more important story.
Source: U.S. News & World Report, 2027 Best Colleges rankings, released September 22, 2026.
U.S. News & World Report press release:
MIT Claims No. 1 Spot in U.S. News 2027 Best Colleges Rankings PR Newswire
Stay Informed with STM Daily News
From education and personal finance to technology, lifestyle, transportation and the stories shaping our everyday lives, STM Daily News keeps you informed about what matters — and why it matters. Get more news, useful insights and the latest updates by visiting STM Daily News and subscribe to stay connected to the stories worth knowing.
Forgotten Genius Fridays
Sarah Boone Improved the Ironing Board by Thinking About the Sleeve
Sarah Boone didn’t invent the first ironing board. The New Haven dressmaker patented a clever improvement shaped for pressing sleeves and fitted clothing.
Forgotten Genius | STM Daily News
Try ironing a sleeve on a wide, flat board. The fabric bunches, the seams curve, and pressing one side can leave a crease on the other. For dressmaker Sarah Boone, that everyday frustration presented a problem she could solve.
Working in New Haven, Connecticut, Boone designed an ironing board shaped for sleeves and fitted garments. Her board was narrow enough for a sleeve to slip over it, allowing one side to be pressed without flattening the other. Its curved edges followed the lines of a sleeve’s seams, while its supports helped position the board for different uses.
Boone filed her patent application in 1891. On April 26, 1892, she received U.S. Patent No. 473,653 for her improvement.
Boone did not invent the first ironing board. What she patented was a thoughtful redesign for a particular task. That distinction makes her achievement more interesting: she understood how the tool was used, recognized where it fell short, and changed its shape to make the work easier.
The patent drawing brings her idea to life. Instead of the broad surface most people picture when they hear “ironing board,” Boone’s design looks almost like the part of a garment it was meant to support. It is a practical solution from someone who knew the job firsthand.
That is the heart of Sarah Boone’s story. Invention does not always begin with an entirely new machine. Sometimes it begins when a person doing familiar work asks a better question: What would this tool look like if it truly fit the task?
Boone answered with a design—and secured a place in the history of Black innovation.
References:
Sarah Boone’s Original Ironing Board Patent — U.S. Patent No. 473,653, granted April 26, 1892. Includes her description, construction details, and original drawings.
USPTO: Beyond Baker’s List—Black Innovation Then and Now — Identifies Boone as a New Haven dressmaker who patented an improved ironing board shaped for bodices and sleeves.
USPTO: Found on Baker’s List — Background on Henry Baker’s work documenting Black patent holders, providing historical context for the Forgotten Genius series.
Explore more inventors and innovators in STM Daily News’ Forgotten Genius series.
Sources: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; Sarah Boone’s original 1892 patent, available through Google Patents.
