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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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?

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

In the late 19th century, America was buzzing with the thrill of innovation and exploration. However, amidst the technological advancements, an inexplicable phenomenon began to capture the imagination of many: mysterious airships sighted across the sky. This captivating mystery still puzzles historians and enthusiasts today, raising questions about whether they were mere figments of imagination, hoaxes, or something far more otherworldly.

The Birth of the Mystery

The saga of the mystery airships began in 1896 when reports of strange airships started to emerge from various locations in the United States. From California to Texas, witnesses described seeing cigar-shaped vessels flying through the night sky, illuminated by bright lights. Initial sightings created a flurry of excitement and speculation—newspapers quickly picked up the stories, printing illustrations and accounts that fueled the imaginations of readers.

Witness Accounts: Fact or Fiction?

Witnesses reported diverse descriptions of these airships. Some claimed the vessels hovered silently, while others insisted they produced loud noises that resembled the sounds of machinery or engines. People recounted instances of the airships being seen low enough to see their intricate details, leading many to ponder their origin.

One of the most famous sightings occurred in November 1896 when a newspaper reported that the airship was spotted over Sacramento, California. The pilot was said to have communicated with stunned citizens below, declaring his craft had been developed by a local inventor. Reports flooded in from other areas, each new sighting adding layers to the growing enigma.

Theories and Speculation

As excitement grew, so did the range of theories about the identity of the airships. Some suggested they were the result of secretive military testing, while others posited that they were experimental aircraft developed by inventors hoping to capitalize on the burgeoning aerospace industry. Conspiracy theories soon emerged, suggesting the airships were extraterrestrial craft, aliens visiting Earth long before modern UFO sightings became popular.

Another prevalent theory was that the airships were elaborate hoaxes created by pranksters or con artists. The media of the time jumped at the chance to sensationalize these stories, leading to speculation and possibly embellished accounts. Whether the sightings had factual bases in truth or were mere products of an imaginative society was a question many grappled with.

The Decline of the Phenomenon

By the turn of the century, reports of the mysterious airships began to wane. As the 20th century ushered in advancements in aviation technology, the public’s focus shifted toward real developments in flight, including the Wright brothers’ first powered flight in 1903. Interest in the mystery airships diminished, becoming a curious footnote in UFO and aviation history.

Legacy and Cultural Impact

Even today, the legacy of the mystery airships endures in popular culture. They have been the subjects of countless books, documentaries, and podcasts exploring the thin line between reality and imagination. The 1896 sightings continue to be cited in discussions about early UFOs, serving as a fascinating precursor to the modern fascination with unidentified flying objects.

As we unravel this historical enigma, we are reminded of humanity’s insatiable curiosity about the skies above. Whether rooted in fact or fictional fantasy, the mystery of the 1896 airships still invites exploration into the unexplained and provokes questions that resonate through time.

Advertisement

Conclusion

The saga of the mystery airships remains an intriguing chapter in history, defined by a blend of fact, fiction, and speculation. It serves as a timeless reminder of our quest for understanding the inexplicable mysteries that surround us. As we look to the future, it’s essential to keep questioning, exploring, and pondering, for who knows what other secrets the skies may hold?

If you’re intrigued by the mystery of the 1896 airships or have your own theories, please share your thoughts in the comments below! ✈️✨

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_airship

The science section of our news blog STM Daily News provides readers with captivating and up-to-date information on the latest scientific discoveries, breakthroughs, and innovations across various fields. We offer engaging and accessible content, ensuring that readers with different levels of scientific knowledge can stay informed. Whether it’s exploring advancements in medicine, astronomy, technology, or environmental sciences, our science section strives to shed light on the intriguing world of scientific exploration and its profound impact on our daily lives. From thought-provoking articles to informative interviews with experts in the field, STM Daily News Science offers a harmonious blend of factual reporting, analysis, and exploration, making it a go-to source for science enthusiasts and curious minds alike. https://stmdailynews.com/category/science/

The 16th Street Train Station in West Oakland, a historic landmark that has stood as a silent witness to over a century of cultural and industrial evolution, is now one step closer to restoration. Recently listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the station’s new status has ignited hope and momentum for its revival. This milestone, celebrated by preservationists and community members alike, could be the key to unlocking the funding and support needed to breathe new life into this iconic structure.

A Moment of Celebration and Reflection

“I am ecstatic,” said Feleciai Favroth, treasurer of the Oakland Heritage Alliance, which spearheaded the station’s nomination for historic designation. “This could be the key to make the station a viable rehab project.” Favroth’s enthusiasm is shared by many who have long advocated for the station’s preservation, recognizing its profound historical and cultural significance.

The listing on the National Register of Historic Places not only honors the station’s legacy but also makes it eligible for a 20% federal income tax credit for restoration costs. Similar incentives have played a crucial role in reviving other Bay Area landmarks, such as Oakland’s Fox Theater and Richmond’s Ford Assembly Plant. “The bottom line of the tax credit is it just makes things much more financially feasible and attractive for developers,” said Kara Brunzell, an architectural historian who worked on the nomination.

A Daunting Financial Challenge

Despite this significant achievement, the road to restoration remains steep. The station requires an estimated $50 million for seismic retrofitting and restoration—a daunting sum that has stymied previous efforts to save the building. “Just because we’re on the registry doesn’t mean the station is saved,” Favroth cautioned. Over the decades, multiple owners have attempted to restore the station, but none have secured the necessary funding.

The current owner, City Ventures, has proposed a 77-unit townhome-style development called “Signal House” around the station site. However, the plan, under review since May 2023, does not include the station’s rehabilitation. City Ventures has hired OE Consulting to explore fundraising options for the station’s repairs. According to OE Consulting, the search is on for an “anchor funder”—a major donor willing to provide the initial funds to kickstart the restoration and allow the community to decide the station’s future use.

A Vision for the Future

The Oakland Heritage Alliance is now focused on securing funding for a feasibility study to explore the station’s potential. “You have to do something that’s financially viable because that’s the big thing nowadays with historical preservation. ‘Can the asset financially sustain itself?’” Favroth explained. Proposed ideas for the station’s reuse include an event venue, offices, a technology hub, or a business incubator.

Brunzell emphasized the station’s architectural and historical significance, comparing it to Grand Central Station in its grandeur and solidity. Designed in the Beaux Arts style by renowned architect Jarvis Hunt and opened in 1912, the station was a key hub for both local and long-distance trains during the heyday of rail travel. “You could come into the station from distant parts on the Southern Pacific, get off on the ground floor, walk upstairs, and get on a local streetcar to take you to your hotel. That was really important and unusual for the time,” Brunzell said.

Advertisement

Honoring African American History

The 16th Street Train Station is also one of the first to be designated under a new category that recognizes the history of African Americans in California. For Favroth, the station holds deep personal significance. Like many African Americans, her family has a direct connection to the station. Her aunts passed through it when they migrated to Oakland from Louisiana in the 1940s during the Great Migration. “I wanted to be able to honor their history and their memory,” Favroth said. “And this station has a strong tie to our history.”

The station served as a gateway for thousands of Black families seeking new opportunities in the West, and its surrounding neighborhood became a vibrant center of African American culture, commerce, and activism. Restoring the station is not just about preserving a building—it’s about reclaiming a piece of history that reflects the resilience and contributions of the Black community.

A Community Effort

The push to restore the 16th Street Train Station is a testament to the power of community advocacy and collaboration. From preservationists and historians to local officials and developers, a diverse coalition is working to ensure the station’s future. While challenges remain, the historic designation has provided a critical boost, offering both recognition and financial incentives to support the restoration effort.

As the project moves forward, the focus will be on balancing historical preservation with modern needs, ensuring that the station becomes a sustainable and inclusive space for the community. For West Oakland, the restoration of the 16th Street Train Station represents more than just the revival of a building—it’s a chance to honor the past, inspire the present, and build a brighter future.

https://www.kqed.org/news/12024819/historic-landmark-status-boosts-push-restore-iconic-west-oakland-train-station

The Bridge is a section of the STM Daily News Blog meant for diversity, offering real news stories about bona fide community efforts to perpetuate a greater good. The purpose of The Bridge is to connect the divides that separate us, fostering understanding and empathy among different groups. By highlighting positive initiatives and inspirational actions, The Bridge aims to create a sense of unity and shared purpose. This section brings to light stories of individuals and organizations working tirelessly to promote inclusivity, equality, and mutual respect. Through these narratives, readers are encouraged to appreciate the richness of diverse perspectives and to participate actively in building stronger, more cohesive communities.

https://stmdailynews.com/the-bridge

Advertisement