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.
Advertisement
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.Transgender rights supporters and opponents rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court as the high court hears arguments in a case about Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care for minors on Dec. 4, 2024. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
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.
Advertisement
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.
DoorDash Driver Arrested After Claiming Sexual Assault: What Really Happened?
A DoorDash driver who claimed she was sexually assaulted during a delivery is now facing felony charges after police say her viral video showed an unconscious, partially nude customer without consent. Here’s what investigators found and why the case is sparking national debate.
DoorDash delivery driver involved in a viral video controversy after claiming sexual assault; police say no assault occurred, and the driver now faces felony charges.
DoorDash Driver Arrested After Claiming Sexual Assault: What Really Happened?
A Viral Accusation Turns Into a Criminal Case
A routine food drop-off turned into a national controversy this month after a DoorDash delivery driver claimed she was sexually assaulted during a delivery — only to later be arrested herself following a police investigation. The incident, which quickly spread across TikTok and other platforms, has generated fierce debate over privacy, personal safety, and the power of viral video culture.
The driver, identified as Livie Rose Henderson, posted a video on social media in mid-October claiming that when she arrived at a customer’s home in Oswego, New York, she found the front door open and discovered a man “half-naked and unconscious” on his couch. She publicly described the moment as a sexual assault, saying she felt endangered and traumatized.
Her posts went viral almost immediately, drawing attention from millions of viewers and sparking outrage over the safety risks faced by gig workers — particularly women — who make deliveries to unfamiliar homes.
But the narrative took a dramatic turn.
Police: No Sexual Assault Occurred
According to the Oswego Police Department, an investigation found no evidence that Henderson was sexually assaulted. Instead, authorities say that she:
Entered the home without consent
Recorded the unconscious customer, who was partially nude
Posted the footage online, identifying him
Made claims police say were “false and misleading”
Investigators concluded the man was intoxicated and unconscious, not acting with intent or awareness. As a result, Henderson was arrested and charged with:
Second-degree unlawful surveillance (felony)
First-degree dissemination of unlawful surveillance images (felony)
Police emphasized that recording a person who is nude or partially nude inside their home — regardless of context — constitutes a violation of New York’s surveillance and privacy laws if done without permission.
DoorDash Drops the Driver
Henderson also claimed that DoorDash deactivated her account, something she described as retaliation for “exposing her assaulter.” But following her arrest, DoorDash stated that recording customers inside their homes violates company policy and local laws.
DoorDash said it cooperated with investigators but declined to comment further on personnel matters.
A Complicated Public Reaction
Social media reaction has been sharply divided:
Advertisement
Sympathy for the driver
Many viewers initially supported Henderson, arguing that gig workers often deal with unsafe conditions and should not be forced to decide between finishing a delivery or backing away from a potentially threatening situation.
Backlash over privacy violations
Others argue that Henderson crossed legal and ethical boundaries by:
Entering a private residence
Recording a vulnerable, unconscious person
Posting it publicly
Accusing the individual of a crime without evidence
These actions, critics say, show the dangerous consequences of rushing to social media before police or professional investigators evaluate the facts.
The Larger Issue: Safety vs. Responsibility
This case highlights a broader tension in the era of app-based work and viral content:
Gig workers do indeed face unpredictable and sometimes unsafe situations.
Customers have a right to privacy in their homes.
Social media, meanwhile, rewards the fastest and most dramatic version of a story — even before the truth is known.
As the criminal process continues, Henderson’s case may set a new precedent for how privacy laws interact with the realities of delivery work and the instant visibility of online platforms.
Focuses on the legal perspective, privacy violations, and the potential consequences of posting sensitive content online.
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
How China cleaned up its air pollution – and what that meant for the climate
How China cleaned up its air pollution: Beijing’s air quality went from hazardous to good while Delhi and Lahore still struggle. Discover how China dramatically reduced pollution since 2013—and why cleaner air may have unintended consequences for global warming and climate change.
Delhi: 442. Lahore: 334. Beijing: 16. These are the levels of PM 2.5, one of the principle measures for air pollution, on November 19. As Pakistanis and Indians struggle with hazardous air quality, in Beijing – a city once notorious for its smog – the air quality is currently rated as good. Ahead of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the Chinese government was so concerned about pollution that it introduced temporary restrictions on cars, shut down factories and stopped work on some construction sites. The measures worked and one study later found that levels of air pollution were down 30% during the period when the temporary Olympic restrictions were in place. It would take a few more years before the Chinese government implemented a clean air action plan in 2013. Since then, China has achieved a dramatic improvement in its air quality. In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we speak to Laura Wilcox, a professor at the National Centre for Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading in the UK, to understand how China managed to clean up its air pollution. But Wilcox’s recent research uncovered some unintended consequences from this cleaner air for the global climate: the pollution was actually helping to cool the atmosphere and by taking it away, it may have accelerated global warming. Wilcox explains:
What we’re seeing is a removing of cooling that’s revealing warming that’s already there. So the air pollution isn’t the cause of the warming. It’s just letting us see stuff that we’ve already done.
Dive into “The Knowledge,” where curiosity meets clarity. This playlist, in collaboration with STMDailyNews.com, is designed for viewers who value historical accuracy and insightful learning. Our short videos, ranging from 30 seconds to a minute and a half, make complex subjects easy to grasp in no time. Covering everything from historical events to contemporary processes and entertainment, “The Knowledge” bridges the past with the present. In a world where information is abundant yet often misused, our series aims to guide you through the noise, preserving vital knowledge and truths that shape our lives today. Perfect for curious minds eager to discover the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything around us. Subscribe and join in as we explore the facts that matter. https://stmdailynews.com/the-knowledge/
The Hong Kong high-rise fire shows how difficult it is to evacuate in an emergency
Hong Kong High-Rise Fire: The deadly Hong Kong fire exposes critical challenges in evacuating tall buildings. Learn why stair descent is slower than expected, how human behavior causes delays, and what modern safety features can save lives.
Evacuations of high-rises don’t happen every day, but occur often enough. And when they do, the consequences are almost always severe. The stakes are highest in the buildings that are full at predictable times: residential towers at night, office towers in the day. We’ve seen this in the biggest modern examples, from the World Trade Center in the United States to Grenfell Tower in the United Kingdom. The patterns repeat: once a fire takes hold, getting thousands of people safely down dozens of storeys becomes a race against time. But what actually makes evacuating a high-rise building so challenging? It isn’t just a matter of “getting people out”. It’s a collision between the physical limits of the building and the realities of human behaviour under stress.
It’s a long way down to safety
The biggest barrier is simply vertical distance. Stairwells are the only reliable escape route in most buildings. Stair descent in real evacuations is far slower than most people expect. Under controlled or drill conditions people move down at around 0.4–0.7 metres per second. But in an actual emergency, especially in high-rise fires, this can drop sharply. During 9/11, documented speeds at which survivors went down stairs were often slower than 0.3 m/s. These slow-downs accumulate dramatically over long vertical distances. Fatigue is a major factor. Prolonged walking significantly reduces the speed of descent. Surveys conducted after incidents confirm that a large majority of high-rise evacuees stop at least once. During the 2010 fire of a high-rise in Shanghai, nearly half of older survivors reported slowing down significantly. Long stairwells, landings, and the geometry of high-rise stairs all contribute to congestion, especially when flows from multiple floors merge into a single shaft. Slower movers include older adults, people with physical or mobility issues and groups evacuating together. These reduce the overall pace of descent compared with the speeds typically assumed for able-bodied individuals. This can create bottlenecks. Slow movers are especially relevant in residential buildings, where diverse occupants mean movement speeds vary widely. Visibility matters too. Experimental studies show that reduced lighting significantly slows down people going down stairs. This suggests that when smoke reduces visibility in real events, movement can slow even further as people hesitate, misjudge steps, or adjust their speed.
Human behaviour can lead to delays
Human behaviour is one of the biggest sources of delay in high-rise evacuations. People rarely act immediately when an alarm sounds. They pause, look for confirmation, check conditions, gather belongings, or coordinate with family members. These early minutes are consistently some of the costliest when evacuating from tall buildings. Studies of the World Trade Center evacuations show the more cues people saw – smoke, shaking, noise – the more they sought extra information before moving. That search for meaning adds delay. People talk to colleagues, look outside windows, phone family, or wait for an announcement. Ambiguous cues slow them even further. In residential towers, families, neighbours and friend-groups naturally try to evacuate together. Groups tend to form wider steps, or group together in shapes that reduce overall flow. But our research shows when a group moves in a “snake” formation – one behind the other – they travel faster, occupy less space, and allow others to pass more easily. These patterns matter in high-rise housing, where varied household types and mixed abilities make moving in groups the norm.
Why stairs aren’t enough
As high-rises grow taller and populations age, the old assumption that “everyone can take the stairs” simply no longer holds. A full building evacuation can take too long, and for many residents (older adults, people with mobility limitations, families evacuating together) long stair descents are sometimes impossible. This is why many countries have turned to refuge floors: fire- and smoke-protected levels built into towers as safe staging points. These can reduce bottlenecks and prevent long queues. They give people somewhere safe to rest, transfer across to a clearer stair, or wait for firefighters. Essentially, they make vertical movement more manageable in buildings where continuous descent isn’t realistic. Alongside them are evacuation elevators. These are lifts engineered to operate during a fire with pressurised shafts, protected lobbies and backup power. The most efficient evacuations use a mix of stairs and elevators, with ratios adjusted to the building height, density and demographics. The lesson is clear: high-rise evacuation cannot rely on one tool. Stairs, refuge floors and protected elevators should all be made part of ensuring vertical living is safer.Milad Haghani, Associate Professor and Principal Fellow in Urban Risk and Resilience, The University of Melbourne; Erica Kuligowski, Principal Research Fellow, School of Engineering, RMIT University, and Ruggiero Lovreglio, Professor in Digital Construction and Fire Engineering, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
Gemma Ware, Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
