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.
Daily News
Major Construction Begins on Metro’s East San Fernando Valley Light Rail Line
LA Metro has moved the East San Fernando Valley Light Rail Transit Project into major construction. The 6.7-mile Van Nuys Boulevard line will add 11 stations, connect with the G Line and regional rail services, and is now targeted for completion in early 2032.
After years of utility relocation and planning, LA Metro is moving into major construction on a new rail line along Van Nuys Boulevard. The milestone also comes with a revised early-2032 completion target.
LA Metro has officially marked the beginning of major construction on the East San Fernando Valley Light Rail Transit Project, moving one of the region’s most important rail projects from preparatory work into full-scale construction.
Metro held a groundbreaking ceremony on October 19, 2026, for the 6.7-mile line, which will run along Van Nuys Boulevard from the G Line busway north to San Fernando Road in Pacoima. The project will add 11 light-rail stations serving Van Nuys, Panorama City, Arleta and Pacoima.
This was not the project’s first groundbreaking. Metro held an earlier ceremony in December 2022 when crews began relocating utility infrastructure. The new milestone is more consequential for riders: the major-construction phase covers the guideway, stations, traction-power substations, rail systems and a maintenance and storage facility.
From utility work to a new rail corridor
The project has spent several years in utility relocation, property acquisition, design and other early work. Metro’s current construction timeline shows major work continuing from 2026 through 2032, with phased traffic changes and K-rail installations expected along Van Nuys Boulevard.
When completed, trains are expected to operate every seven to 10 minutes during peak periods. The line will connect directly with the G Line and provide access to the Van Nuys Metrolink and Amtrak station. It is also expected to become an important transfer point for the future Sepulveda Transit Corridor and a planned Metrolink station in Pacoima.
The corridor already has a substantial transit market. Metro reported that bus Lines 233 and 761, which serve Van Nuys Boulevard, recorded nearly 20,000 boardings in September 2026. The agency also says approximately 19 percent of households in the project area lack access to a car, compared with about 8 percent countywide.
Those figures help explain why this project matters beyond its construction footprint. It is intended to give residents in some of the Valley’s most transit-dependent communities more reliable access to jobs, schools, healthcare and the wider regional transit network.
The opening target has moved to 2032
Metro’s current project page lists an estimated completion date of early 2032. That is later than the 2031 opening forecast the agency publicized when it celebrated an $893-million federal grant in September 2024. Earlier plans were more optimistic still: when utility work began in 2022, Metro said the first segment could open between 2028 and 2030.
The project’s financial scale has also grown clearer. In May 2026, the Metro Board established a life-of-project budget of approximately $3.999 billion and authorized the next phase of its progressive design-build contract with San Fernando Transit Constructors, a joint venture of Skanska and Stacy and Witbeck.
That authorization increased the construction contract’s value to roughly $2.431 billion. Funding for the larger project combines federal, state and local sources, including revenue from Los Angeles County’s Measure M transportation sales tax.
Rail returns to Van Nuys Boulevard
The East San Fernando Valley line will restore passenger rail to Van Nuys Boulevard for the first time since Pacific Electric ended streetcar service there in 1952. It will also become the first major new Metro rail project in the San Fernando Valley since the subway reached North Hollywood in 2000.
The historical parallel is significant. Van Nuys Boulevard once developed around electric railway service before the region shifted heavily toward automobiles and buses. Metro is now rebuilding rail in the same broad corridor, but as part of a modern network designed to connect local riders with bus rapid transit, regional rail and future high-capacity projects.
The current project ends in Pacoima. Metro continues to study a separate 2.5-mile northern extension that would reach the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink station. That extension is not included in the segment now entering major construction.
For riders, the October groundbreaking does not mean trains are imminent. Several years of disruptive and technically complex work remain, and the schedule has already moved beyond earlier forecasts. Still, it represents a tangible transition: the East San Fernando Valley line is no longer primarily a planning exercise or utility-relocation program. Metro has begun building the infrastructure that will carry trains.
That makes this a major step in Los Angeles County’s long effort to restore frequent rail transit to communities that lost it generations ago—and another chapter in The Long Track Back.
Primary sources
- LA Metro: Major construction will soon be underway
- LA Metro project page: East San Fernando Valley Light Rail Transit
- LA Metro Board meeting, May 28, 2026 — project budget and contract authorization
- LA Metro: $893 million federal grant announcement, September 6, 2024
- LA Metro: Advanced utility-work groundbreaking, December 2, 2022
This article is part of The Long Track Back, STM Daily News’ continuing coverage of how Los Angeles is rebuilding and expanding a passenger-rail network after decades of automobile-centered grow
For generations, the Santa Monica Pier sign has marked the start of a day at the beach. Now, the familiar blue neon landmark is preparing for a journey of its own.
Santa Monica scheduled removal of the 1941 sign for October 20–22, with shipment to Las Vegas anticipated October 26. The timetable is subject to change, according to the city’s October 19 announcement.
The temporary removal accompanies replacement of the aging bridge connecting Ocean Avenue to the pier. It also creates an opportunity to preserve the historic sign.
YESCO will restore it at its Las Vegas facility. The company’s experience includes work on the “Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas” sign.
Crews will repair neon tubing, treat rust, repaint components and address structural needs while retaining historic features. The sign will remain in secure storage during bridge construction.
Once the project is finished, it will return above the new bridge at a slightly greater height for visibility and vehicle clearance. The city’s latest announcement targets project completion by 2028, ahead of the Los Angeles Olympics and Paralympics.
Meanwhile, visitors can photograph a lighted, half-scale replica near Pier Burger.
For anyone who associates that glowing arch with Southern California memories, its absence will be noticeable. The restoration is intended to ensure future generations can make memories beneath it, too.
Source: City of Santa Monica — October 19, 2026 announcement
Related Links
- City of Santa Monica: Official sign restoration announcement — October 19, 2026. Primary source for removal dates, shipment to Las Vegas, YESCO’s restoration work and the sign’s planned return.
- Santa Monica Daily Press: Sign restoration during bridge rebuild — October 20, 2026. Additional local reporting on the project and visitor access.
- LAist: Sign removal and how to watch — Reporting on the removal schedule and public viewing opportunities.
Follow more Southern California stories at STM Daily News.
Automotive
Slate Truck Gets Real: First Experience Center Opens Ahead of Planned Deliveries
Slate Auto’s first permanent Experience Center gives consumers an up-close look at its customizable electric truck ahead of planned customer deliveries.
Slate Auto’s new Chicago location gives prospective buyers a permanent place to see the minimalist electric pickup, explore customization options and learn about demo opportunities—but it is not yet proof that customer deliveries have begun.
CHICAGO — October 20, 2026 — The Slate Truck is moving out of computer renderings and temporary roadshow stops and into a permanent retail setting. Slate Auto opened its first Experience Center on October 15 at 1053 W. Grand Avenue in Chicago, giving consumers a year-round location to get an up-close look at the company’s highly anticipated electric pickup.
The Near West Side facility occupies a former Tesla location and includes showroom, retail and garage space, along with electric-vehicle charging infrastructure. For Slate, the opening represents an important step in turning strong online interest into a more tangible buying experience as the startup works toward launching its first vehicle.
Visitors can examine the truck’s compact dimensions, deliberately simple cabin and accessory-driven design in person. The center also showcases Slate’s personalization strategy, including exterior wraps, add-on accessories and digital design tools intended to let owners configure the truck around their needs.
Slate has also promoted demonstration opportunities connected with the location, although availability may be limited or appointment-based as the company continues to prepare its fleet. Early media access included passenger rides rather than unrestricted customer test drives, so prospective visitors should confirm current availability before making a special trip.
Why the Chicago opening matters
Until now, most consumers have encountered the Slate Truck through online reservations, media coverage or temporary appearances. A permanent showroom gives buyers a chance to judge details that are difficult to evaluate on a screen, including seating position, bed access, cabin materials and the overall size of the vehicle.
That is especially important for a product built around an unconventional value proposition. Slate is promoting a basic two-seat, two-door electric truck with manual crank windows and no factory-installed infotainment screen or stereo. The company’s strategy is to keep the starting price low and let buyers add features later through accessories and conversion kits.
The physical location also gives Slate a place to explain that approach directly. Rather than presenting the truck as an unfinished vehicle, the company can demonstrate how its modular accessories, wraps and planned SUV-style conversion components are meant to expand the vehicle’s usefulness over time.
Chicago is a logical first market for that effort. The city offers access to a large Midwestern customer base and is within the broader region of Slate’s planned manufacturing operation in Warsaw, Indiana. Reusing a former Tesla store also gives the startup a space already suited to displaying and servicing electric vehicles.
The roadshow continues beyond Chicago
The Experience Center is opening as Slate expands its public demonstration schedule. The company’s events calendar lists a Boston-area demo ride event from October 21 through October 25 at The Shops at Chestnut Hill, followed by an appearance at RADwood in Alameda, California, on October 24 and a New Jersey demo ride event in Freehold from October 28 through October 31.
Slate also lists future stops in Washington, D.C., Raleigh, Atlanta, Miami and Orlando. Together, the permanent Chicago center and the traveling events suggest the company is moving into a broader customer-education phase ahead of planned deliveries.
What has—and has not—changed
The showroom opening does not change Slate’s headline pricing or range claims. The truck is still advertised with a base price of $24,950 before taxes, registration and destination charges. With the currently listed $1,450 destination fee, the entry price would be approximately $26,400 before other costs or optional equipment.
Slate also continues to advertise an estimated range of up to 205 miles. That figure remains an estimate rather than a final EPA-certified rating.
Most importantly, Slate has not publicly confirmed that regular customer production has started or that the first retail deliveries have occurred. Limited deliveries have been reported as possible before the end of December 2026, while many reservation holders may receive later delivery windows in 2027. The Chicago opening is therefore a commercialization milestone, not a manufacturing milestone.
For customers and industry observers, the next major signals will be the start of production at the Warsaw factory, final specifications and EPA range ratings, and confirmed handoffs to paying buyers.
The bottom line
Slate Auto now has a permanent place where consumers can see and evaluate its unusually simple electric truck. That makes the product feel more real and gives the company a platform to explain a customization-heavy business model that may be unfamiliar to traditional truck buyers.
Still, the biggest questions remain unanswered. Opening a showroom demonstrates progress in marketing and customer engagement; producing vehicles at scale, holding the promised price and delivering a 205-mile truck to reservation holders will determine whether Slate can convert enthusiasm into a viable automotive business.
Sources and more information
- Slate Auto events and demo schedule
- Electrek: Slate opens its first Experience Center in Chicago
- Autoblog: Slate opens its first U.S. showroom
- Slate Auto
Category: Consumer Corner / Automotive
