Listen to the article
States Suing Over Trump’s Transgender Healthcare Ban Fail to Produce Evidence of Harm, Records Request Shows
A Trump-aligned legal organization has revealed that states suing the Biden administration over Executive Order 14187, which prohibits sex-change procedures for minors, have been unable to produce records documenting the harms they claim in their lawsuit.
America First Legal (AFL) filed public records requests with the 15 states, the District of Columbia, and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s office after they collectively sued President Trump and the Department of Justice over the August 1 executive order. The order bans federal taxpayer dollars from funding or supporting gender transition procedures for individuals under 19 years old.
Only three states—Massachusetts, Illinois, and Nevada—have responded to AFL’s requests thus far. Notably, Massachusetts and Nevada reported having zero responsive records documenting any of the harms alleged in their lawsuit. Illinois provided limited documentation showing administrative adjustments but nothing substantiating claims of medical harm or patient crises.
“States suing the Trump Administration appear to lack evidence of actual harm supporting their allegations,” said Dan Epstein, Vice President of America First Legal. “The Trump Administration’s executive order sought to protect minors from permanent physical damage. Protecting children should not be subject to politics.”
The lawsuit challenging the executive order claims it has created “an atmosphere of fear and intimidation” affecting transgender individuals, their families, and medical professionals. However, AFL’s targeted records requests specifically sought documentation of actual harms, including evidence of prosecutions or penalties for providers, clinic closures, reduced services, and any documented increases in medical or mental health crises among transgender adolescents.
While a nationwide preliminary injunction was issued shortly after Trump’s executive order took effect, Epstein emphasized that plaintiffs must still demonstrate legal standing to bring their case.
“Because standing is necessary for any federal court to provide a remedy, plaintiffs must plead concrete evidence of harm in their complaint,” Epstein said. “Here, plaintiffs’ complaint failed to show an actual, traceable loss tied to the federal action, beyond merely speculative claims of harm or generalized concerns.”
The Illinois records that were produced showed primarily administrative adjustments rather than substantive patient harm. These included notifications to agency personnel about compliance with the executive order, temporary delays in grant releases, and one healthcare group’s concern about database registration issues potentially affecting HIV/AIDS services due to limitations on collecting gender identity information.
Legal experts note that to maintain standing in federal court, plaintiffs must demonstrate concrete harm directly attributable to the challenged policy. The apparent lack of documentation raises questions about whether the states can meet this threshold requirement as the case proceeds.
This isn’t AFL’s first effort to challenge state lawsuits against Trump administration policies. The organization previously investigated claims from Colorado, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and Arizona in cases related to Medicaid data sharing with the Department of Homeland Security, finding similar gaps between allegations and documented evidence.
Executive Order 14187 faces additional legal challenges, including a discrimination lawsuit against the Health and Human Services Department led by New York Attorney General Letitia James.
The executive order remains a flashpoint in the ongoing national debate over transgender healthcare for minors, with proponents arguing it protects children from irreversible medical procedures and opponents contending it interferes with necessary medical care and state autonomy.
Fox News Digital reached out repeatedly to the public health departments and Attorneys General offices involved for comment on AFL’s findings, but received minimal response. Massachusetts’ Department of Public Health referred inquiries to the state’s Attorney General office, while the other states did not provide substantive replies.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
It’s interesting that the states haven’t been able to produce more concrete documentation of the alleged harms. That could certainly weaken their legal case, though I’m sure they’ll continue to argue their position forcefully. These debates around healthcare policies for minors are always highly charged.
This is a challenging situation without easy answers. I’m curious to see how the courts ultimately rule on the evidence and claims made by both sides. Careful consideration of the impacts, both intended and unintended, will be important.
Well said. These are complex issues that require nuanced examination of the evidence and potential consequences. I hope the final decision is guided by a thorough, impartial assessment.
The lack of clear evidence from the states is intriguing. If they can’t substantiate the alleged harms, it could undermine their legal case. But these are highly charged political issues, so I’m sure the debate will continue.
Interesting to see the legal challenges around this executive order. It sounds like the states may be struggling to produce concrete evidence of the alleged harms. I wonder if this will impact the outcome of the lawsuit.
You raise a good point. Without clear documentation of the impacts, the legal case may be on shaky ground. It will be worth following how this unfolds.
This is a complex and sensitive issue. I appreciate the attempt to understand the nuances and look at the evidence, rather than simply taking sides. Careful analysis is important when dealing with policy changes that impact vulnerable populations.
I agree, nuance and objectivity are crucial here. It’s good to see an attempt to look past the political rhetoric and focus on the facts and evidence.