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.
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Knowledge
How to avoid seeing disturbing video on social media and protect your peace of mind
How to avoid seeing disturbing video on social media and protect your peace of mind
Last Updated on January 29, 2026 by Daily News Staff
Annie Margaret, University of Colorado Boulder
How to avoid seeing disturbing video on social media and protect your peace of mind
When graphic videos like those of the recent shooting of a protester by federal agents in Minneapolis go viral, it can feel impossible to protect yourself from seeing things you did not consent to see. But there are steps you can take.
Social media platforms are designed to maximize engagement, not protect your peace of mind. The major platforms have also reduced their content moderation efforts over the past year or so. That means upsetting content can reach you even when you never chose to watch it.
You do not have to watch every piece of content that crosses your screen, however. Protecting your own mental state is not avoidance or denial. As a researcher who studies ways to counteract the negative effects of social media on mental health and well-being, I believe it’s a way of safeguarding the bandwidth you need to stay engaged, compassionate and effective.
Why this matters
Research shows that repeated exposure to violent or disturbing media can increase stress, heighten anxiety and contribute to feelings of helplessness. These effects are not just short-term. Over time, they erode the emotional resources you rely on to care for yourself and others.
Protecting your attention is a form of care. Liberating your attention from harmful content is not withdrawal. It is reclaiming your most powerful creative force: your consciousness.
Just as with food, not everything on the table is meant to be eaten. You wouldn’t eat something spoiled or toxic simply because it was served to you. In the same way, not every piece of media laid out in your feed deserves your attention. Choosing what to consume is a matter of health.
And while you can choose what you keep in your own kitchen cabinets, you often have less control over what shows up in your feeds. That is why it helps to take intentional steps to filter, block and set boundaries.
Practical steps you can take
Fortunately, there are straightforward ways to reduce your chances of being confronted with violent or disturbing videos. Here are four that I recommend:
- Turn off autoplay or limit sensitive content. Note that these settings can vary depending on device, operating system and app version, and can change.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/d1deR/2
- Use keyword filters. Most platforms allow you to mute or block specific words, phrases or hashtags. This reduces the chance that graphic or violent content slips into your feed.
- Curate your feed. Unfollow accounts that regularly share disturbing images. Follow accounts that bring you knowledge, connection or joy instead.
- Set boundaries. Reserve phone-free time during meals or before bed. Research shows that intentional breaks reduce stress and improve well-being.
Reclaim your agency
Social media is not neutral. Its algorithms are engineered to hold your attention, even when that means amplifying harmful or sensational material. Watching passively only serves the interests of the social media companies. Choosing to protect your attention is a way to reclaim your agency.
The urge to follow along in real time can be strong, especially during crises. But choosing not to watch every disturbing image is not neglect; it is self-preservation. Looking away protects your ability to act with purpose. When your attention is hijacked, your energy goes into shock and outrage. When your attention is steady, you can choose where to invest it.
You are not powerless. Every boundary you set – whether it is turning off autoplay, filtering content or curating your feed – is a way of taking control over what enters your mind. These actions are the foundation for being able to connect with others, help people and work for meaningful change.
More resources
I’m the executive director of the Post-Internet Project, a nonprofit dedicated to helping people navigate the psychological and social challenges of life online. With my team, I designed the evidence-backed PRISM intervention to help people manage their social media use.
Our research-based program emphasizes agency, intention and values alignment as the keys to developing healthier patterns of media consumption. You can try the PRISM process for yourself with an online class I launched through Coursera in October 2025. You can find the course, Values Aligned Media Consumption, on Coursera. The course is aimed at anyone 18 and over, and the videos are free to watch.
This story was updated on Jan. 25, 2026 to include reference to the recent shooting in Minneapolis.
Annie Margaret, Teaching Assistant Professor of Creative Technology & Design, ATLAS Institute, University of Colorado Boulder
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
News
Greenland’s Inuit have spent decades fighting for self-determination
The article highlights the Inuit communities in Greenland amid global discussions about the island’s ownership, particularly regarding U.S. President Trump’s interest. It chronicles the Inuit’s historical presence, their traditional lifestyles, and the ongoing struggle for self-determination. Despite colonial influences, modern Kalaallit strive for recognition and independence.
Susan A. Kaplan, Bowdoin College and Genevieve LeMoine, Bowdoin College
Amid the discussion between U.S. President Donald Trump and Danish and European leaders about who should own Greenland, the Inuit who live there and call it home aren’t getting much attention.
The Kalaallit (Inuit of West Greenland), the Tunumi (Inuit of East Greenland) and the Inughuit (Inuit of North Greenland) together represent nearly 90% of the population of Greenland, which totals about 57,000 people across 830,000 square miles (2.1 million square kilometers).
We are Arctic anthropologists who work in a museum focused on the Arctic and its people. One of the areas we study is a land whose inhabitants call it Kalaallit Nunaat, or land of the Kalaallit. Known in English as Greenland, it is an Indigenous nation whose relatively few people have been working for decades to reclaim their right to self-determination.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/WqWx2/1
Arrivals from the west
For nearly 5,000 years, northwestern Greenland – including the area that is now the U.S. Space Force’s Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Force Base – was the island’s main entry point. A succession of Indigenous groups moved eastward from the Bering Strait region and settled in Siberia, Alaska, Canada and Greenland.
Approximately 1,000 years ago, the ancestors of the Inuit living in Greenland today arrived in that area with sophisticated technologies that allowed them to thrive in a dynamic Arctic environment where minor mishaps can have serious consequences. They hunted animals using specialized technologies and tools, including kayaks, dog-drawn sleds, complex harpoons, and snow goggles made from wood or bone with slits cut into them. They dressed in highly engineered garments made from animal fur that kept them warm and dry in all conditions.
Their tools and clothing were imbued with symbolic meanings that reflected their worldview, in which humans and animals are interdependent. Inughuit families who live in the region today continue to hunt and fish, while navigating a warming climate.
Arrivals from the east
At Qassiarsuk in south Greenland, around the time Inuit arrived in the north, Erik the Red established the first Norse farm, Brattahlíð, in 986, and sent word back to Iceland to encourage others to join him, as described in an online exhibit at the Greenland National Museum. Numerous Norse families followed and established pastoral farms in the region.
As Inuit expanded southward, they encountered the Norse farmers. Inuit and Norse traded, but relations were sometimes tense: Inuit oral histories and Norse sagas describe some violent interactions. The two groups maintained distinctly different approaches to living on the land that rims Greenland’s massive ice sheet. The Norse were very place-based, while the Inuit moved seasonally, hunting around islands, bays and fjords.
As the Little Ice Age set in early in the 14th century, and temperatures dropped in the Northern Hemisphere, the Norse were not equipped to adjust to the changing conditions. Their colonies faltered and by 1500 had disappeared. By contrast, the mobile Inuit took a more flexible approach and hunted both land and marine mammals according to their availability. They continued living in the region without much change to their lifestyle.
A center of activity
In Nuuk, the modern capital of Greenland, an imposing and controversial statue of missionary Hans Egede commemorates his arrival in 1721 to establish a Lutheran mission in a place he called Godthåb.
In 1776, as trade became more important, the Danish government established the Royal Greenland Trading Department, a trading monopoly that administered the communities on the west coast of Greenland as a closed colony for the next 150 years.
By the 19th century some Kalaallit families who lived in Nuuk/Godthåb had formed an educated, urban class of ministers, educators, artists and writers, although Danish colonists continued to rule.
Meanwhile, Kalaallit families in small coastal communities continued to engage in traditional economic and social activities, based on respect of animals and sharing of resources.
On the more remote east coast and in the far north, colonization took root more slowly, leaving explorers such as American Robert Peary and traders such as Danish-Greenlandic Knud Rasmussen a free hand to employ and trade with local people.
The U.S. formally recognized Denmark’s claim to the island in 1916 when the Americans purchased the Danish West Indies, which are now the U.S. Virgin Islands. And in 1921, Denmark declared sovereignty over the whole of Greenland, a claim upheld in 1933 by the Permanent Court of International Justice. But Greenlanders were not consulted about these decisions.
The world arrives
World War II brought the outside world to Greenland’s door. With Denmark under Nazi control, the U.S. took responsibility for protecting the strategically important island of Greenland and built military bases on both the east and west coasts. The U.S. made efforts to keep military personnel and Kalaallit apart but were not entirely successful, and some visiting and trading went on. Radios and broadcast news also spread, and Kalaallit began to gain a sense of the world beyond their borders.
The Cold War brought more changes, including the forced relocation of 27 Inughuit families living near the newly constructed U.S. Air Force base at Thule to Qaanaaq, where they lived in tents until small wooden homes were built.
In 1953, Denmark revised parts of its constitution, including changing the status of Greenland from a colony to one of the nation’s counties, thereby making all Kalaallit residents of Greenland also full-fledged citizens of Denmark. For the first time, Kalaallit had elected representatives in the Danish parliament.
Denmark also increased assimilation efforts, promoting the Danish language and culture at the expense of Kalaallisut, the Greenlandic language. Among other projects, the Danish authorities sent Greenlandic children to residential schools in Denmark.
In Nuuk in the 1970s, a new generation of young Kalaallit politicians emerged, eager to protect and promote the use of Kalaallisut and gain greater control over Greenland’s affairs. The rock band Sumé, singing protest songs in Kalaallisut, contributed to the political awakening. https://www.youtube.com/embed/qe-f6jleXFs?wmode=transparent&start=0 Sumé, a rock band singing in Kalaallisut, the Greenlandic language, helped galvanize a political movement for self-determination in the 1970s.
In a 1979 Greenland-wide referendum, a substantial majority of Kalaallit voters opted for what was called “home rule” within the Danish Kingdom. That meant a parliament of elected Kalaallit representatives handled internal affairs, such as education and social welfare, while Denmark retained control of foreign affairs and mineral rights.
However, the push for full independence from Denmark continued: In 2009, home rule was replaced by a policy of self-government, which outlines a clear path to independence from Denmark, based on negotiations following a potential future referendum vote by Greenlanders. Self-government also allows Greenland to assert and benefit from control over its mineral resources, but not to manage foreign affairs.
Today, Nuuk is a busy, vibrant, modern city. Life is quieter in smaller settlements, where hunting and fishing are still a way of life. While contemporary Greenland encompasses this range of lifestyles, Kalaallit are unified in their desire for self-determination. Greenland’s leaders have delivered this message clearly to the public and to the White House directly.
Susan A. Kaplan, Professor of Anthropology, Director of Peary-MacMillan Arctic Museum and Arctic Studies Center, Bowdoin College and Genevieve LeMoine, Curator, Peary-MacMillan Arctic Museum and Arctic Studies Center, Bowdoin College
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.
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Local News
Why Arizona Republicans Are Pushing Back on Light Rail to the State Capitol — and What It Means for the West Valley
Arizona’s debate over a proposed light rail extension to the State Capitol has intensified. Supporters argue it promotes connectivity and equity, while Republicans oppose it due to cost concerns and a preference for car-centric infrastructure. The outcome will impact future west-side transit expansions and shape regional transportation priorities.
Arizona’s long-running debate over public transit has flared up again, this time over a proposed Valley Metro light rail extension that would bring rail service closer to the Arizona State Capitol complex. While Phoenix and Valley Metro leaders argue the project is a logical next step in regional mobility, Republican leaders at the state Capitol have mounted strong opposition — creating uncertainty not just for this segment, but for future west-side expansions.
The Case for the Capitol Light Rail Extension
Supporters of the project, including Valley Metro officials, Phoenix city leaders, transit advocates, and many west Phoenix residents, argue that extending light rail toward the Capitol area is both practical and symbolic.
From a planning standpoint, the Capitol is a major employment center that draws thousands of workers, visitors, and students. Transit planners say rail access would reduce congestion, improve air quality, and provide reliable transportation for residents who already depend heavily on public transit.
Proponents also emphasize equity. West Phoenix has historically received fewer infrastructure investments than other parts of the metro area, despite strong transit ridership. For supporters, extending rail service westward is about connecting communities to jobs, education, and government services — not politics.
There is also a broader regional argument: light rail lines function best as part of a connected network. Leaving a gap near a central civic destination, supporters say, undermines long-term system efficiency.
Why Republican Lawmakers Are Opposed
Republican leaders in the Arizona Legislature see the project very differently.
One major issue is cost. GOP lawmakers frequently point to the rising price of light rail construction, which has increased significantly over the past decade. They argue that rail projects deliver limited benefit compared to their expense and that bus service or roadway improvements could move more people at lower cost.
Usage is another concern. Critics note that light rail serves a relatively small percentage of total commuters in the Phoenix metro area and requires ongoing public subsidies to operate. From this perspective, expanding rail further — especially into politically sensitive areas like the Capitol — is viewed as fiscally irresponsible.
There is also a political and legal dimension. In recent years, Republican lawmakers passed legislation restricting light rail construction near the Capitol complex. While framed as a land-use and security issue, critics argue it reflects deeper ideological opposition to rail transit and urban-oriented infrastructure.
Finally, some GOP leaders simply prefer different transportation priorities. Arizona remains a car-centric state, and many Republican officials believe future investments should focus on highways, autonomous vehicle technology, or flexible transit options rather than fixed rail.
A Political Standoff with Real Transit Consequences
The dispute has become a high-stakes standoff between the Republican-controlled Legislature and Democratic leaders at the city and regional level. While lawmakers may not be able to directly cancel the project, they have significant leverage through funding approvals, oversight committees, and future legislation.
This uncertainty creates challenges for Valley Metro, which relies on long-term planning, federal funding commitments, and voter-approved local taxes. Transit systems work best with predictability — and political volatility can drive up costs or delay construction.
What This Means for West Valley Light Rail Expansion
The biggest question is what happens next for west Phoenix and the broader West Valley.
If the Capitol-area extension is altered or blocked, Valley Metro may be forced to redesign routes that avoid the restricted area, potentially making service less direct or less useful. That could weaken the case for future westward expansions toward areas like Maryvale or even farther west.
On the other hand, the controversy has also drawn renewed attention to west-side transit needs. Some advocates believe the political fight could energize local support, leading to stronger community backing and clearer messaging about why rail matters in west Phoenix.
Long term, the outcome may set a precedent. If state lawmakers successfully limit rail construction through legislative action, it could signal tighter constraints on future expansions. If cities push forward despite opposition, it may reaffirm local control over transportation planning.
The Bigger Picture
At its core, the debate over light rail to the Arizona State Capitol reflects a broader clash of visions for the region’s future: one focused on dense, transit-oriented growth, and another centered on fiscal restraint and automobile mobility.
For residents of the West Valley, the stakes are tangible. The decision will shape access to jobs, education, and public services for decades. Whether the project moves forward as planned, is rerouted, or delayed entirely, it will leave a lasting imprint on how — and for whom — the Valley’s transit system grows.
As Phoenix continues to expand westward, the question remains unresolved: will light rail be allowed to follow?
Further Reading & Context
- KJZZ Phoenix – State Politics & Transportation Coverage
In-depth reporting on Arizona legislative actions, Valley Metro planning, and Capitol-area transit disputes. - Valley Metro – Capitol / West Extension Project Page
Official project updates, maps, timelines, and explanations from the regional transit authority. - City of Phoenix Public Transit Department
City-level planning documents and policy perspectives on light rail expansion and transit equity. - Arizona State Legislature – Transportation & Infrastructure Bills
Primary source for legislation affecting light rail construction near the Capitol and statewide transit policy. - Cronkite News (Arizona PBS)
Nonpartisan reporting on Arizona infrastructure, urban growth, and political power dynamics. - Axios Phoenix
Concise breakdowns of Phoenix City Council decisions and regional transportation debates. - Federal Highway Administration – Public Transportation Planning
Federal perspective on transit funding, cost comparisons, and long-term mobility planning.
Authors
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
