A transgender military pilot filed a defamation lawsuit Wednesday against a conservative influencer who falsely claimed on social media that she was flying the helicopter that collided with a commercial jet near Reagan National Airport in January, killing 67 people.
“I want to hold this person accountable for what they did to me,” Jo Ellis, a pilot who has served more than 15 years in the Virginia Army National Guard, said in a statement to NBC News. “It’s become too common that people can say horrible things about someone, profit at their expense, and get away with it.”
Jo Ellis created a “proof of life” video after false claims on social media linked her to the plane crash near Reagan National Airport in January.Jo Ellis
On Jan. 30, less than 24 hours after the crash, conservative influencer Matt Wallace, who has 2.2 million followers on the social media platform X, shared a post from another account he operates stating that the helicopter pilot was transgender, according to the lawsuit. Wallace included a photo of Ellis, and the post went viral, the lawsuit states.
Wallace deleted that original post, according to the lawsuit, and then shared two others linking Ellis to the crash. One referred to an interview that Ellis did with The Smerconish Podcast, in which she said President Donald Trump’s executive order barring trans people from serving and enlisting in the military made her nervous.
The second post included photos of Ellis and said she might have participated in “another trans terror attack,” according to the lawsuit. That post received 4.8 million views on X, the suit states.
Wallace did not immediately return a request for comment regarding the allegations in the lawsuit.
“I understand some people have associated me with the crash in D.C., and that is false,” Ellis said in the Facebook video. “It is insulting to the families to try to tie this to some sort of political agenda. They don’t deserve that. I don’t deserve this. And I hope that you all know that I am alive and well, and this should be sufficient for you all to end all the rumors.”
Soon after Ellis’ statement on Facebook, Wallace shared another X user’s post with Ellis’ video, writing that it was an “Important Update!” and adding that Ellis was not piloting the helicopter and is still alive. Wallace also wrote in another X post that the original rumor that Ellis had been flying the helicopter involved in the crash came from another account with the handle @FakeGayPolitics, which is no longer active. Wallace said the rumor “seemed credible” because Ellis, whom Wallace misgendered in his posts, “wrote an article calling out Trump’s trans military ban only a few days ago.”
Ellis was not involved in the midair collision, the lawsuit states, did not write an article “calling out” Trump’s trans military ban and did not engage in “another trans terror attack.”
Equality Legal Action Fund, an LGBTQ legal organization representing Ellis, argues in the complaint that Wallace “concocted a destructive and irresponsible defamation campaign” against Ellis.
“The damage caused to Plaintiff by Defendant was instantaneous and immense,” the lawsuit continues. “Prior to Defendant’s campaign, Plaintiff was a private citizen who led a private life away from social media and the limelight. When Plaintiff awoke on January 31, 2025, she discovered she was the second most-trending topic in the United States on X with more than 90,000 posts mentioning her name or her likeness. Plaintiff was forced into the public sphere and can no longer remain a private citizen due to Defendant’s lies.”
Ellis said her life was “turned upside down” by Wallace’s posts.
“I feared for the safety of my family and myself and had to arrange private armed security,” she said in her statement to NBC News. “I’m now recognized in public and forever associated with that terrible tragedy over the Potomac. When I go out in public I have to look over my shoulder now.”
Ellis’ suit seeks damages for the injury to her reputation, though Ellis said she plans to donate any money that she wins from the suit to the families of the people who died in the crash.
Trans people have increasingly been falsely blamed for tragedies and violence in recent years, particularly after mass shootings. Since 2022, false or unconfirmed claims have linked trans people to mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas; Nashville, Tennessee; Philadelphia; Madison, Wisconsin; and Des Moines, Iowa.
In addition, since January, the Trump administration has enacted several policies targeting trans people, including the trans military ban, which states that being openly trans “is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.” Two judgeshave temporarily blocked that policy from taking effect.
The organizers of several of the country’s premier Pride celebrations told NBC News they have also lost funding from corporate sponsors this year, to the tune of $200,000 to $350,000 each. For some larger organizations — like those in New York City and San Francisco — the shortage makes up about 10% of their total Pride event budget, while for others, like St. Pete Pride in Florida, it could be about half.
Some organizers said past sponsors that are not returning or are reducing their sponsorship amounts this year have cited the political climate and the Trump administration’s hostility toward DEI and the LGBTQ community, while others have cited fear of an economic recession. Some didn’t provide any reasons at all, organizers said.
Bob Witeck, president of Witeck Communications, a firm specializing in LGBTQ marketing, said he isn’t surprised that corporations are reducing or withdrawing Pride sponsorships this year, because many of them are feeling vulnerable to “unfair and uninvited attacks.” He said publicly regulated businesses and those that work directly with federal agencies and under contracts “are more vulnerable to possible litigation as well as facing potential losses.”
Dykes on Bikes kicks off the annual San Francisco Pride march in 2019.Gabrielle Lurie / San Francisco Chronicle via AP file
Ford said several companies that had agreed to sponsor this year’s San Francisco Pride march had withdrawn: Anheuser-Busch, Comcast, Diageo and Nissan. Those sponsorships add up to about $300,000, Ford estimated.
The total budget for this year’s celebration, she said, is $3.2 million, and the nonprofit had hoped to raise about $2.3 million of that through corporate sponsorships, with the remainder coming from individual donations, beverage sales and other means. So far, corporate sponsors have committed $1.25 million, Ford said, adding that San Francisco Pride is still waiting to hear back from several large companies that have sponsored in the past.
Lloryn Love-Carter, a spokesperson for Nissan, said the company is “currently reviewing all marketing and sales spending, including auto shows, sports properties and other entertainment activations, to maximize both efficiency and breakthrough effectiveness.” Love-Carter added that “Nissan remains committed to promoting an inclusive culture for employees, consumers, dealers and other key stakeholders.”
A spokesperson for Diageo said there were some changes to the company’s sponsorships budget in California, but that the company was still going to be active around San Francisco for Pride Month in June and would be involved in Pride events around the country through its Smirnoff vodka brand.
A spokesperson for Comcast, which owns NBC Universal, the parent company of NBC News, declined to comment on why the company isn’t sponsoring San Francisco Pride this year. The spokesperson said local teams make their own sponsorship decisions and noted the company’s California team is sponsoring other Pride celebrations in the state including Silicon Valley Pride, Oakland Pride and events associated with San Francisco Pride that are hosted by other nonprofits.
Navigating a political and economic ‘tightrope’
Corporations began increasingly supporting Pride festivities in the years following the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in favor of same-sex marriage. A few years ago, large companies had become so ubiquitous at major Pride events — with their logos emblazoned on everything from floats to paper fans — that some revelers began to lament the so-called corporatization of Pride, or what became known as “rainbow capitalism.”
However, over the last two years — as dozens of states have passed legislation restricting LGBTQ rights and conservative influencers have targeted pro-LGBTQ companies — the landscape has shifted, and some companies are leaning away from publicly supporting the community.
President Donald Trump further fueled the corporate retreat from Pride initiatives with a series of executive orders from his first day in office. In one order, Trump declared DEI initiatives “illegal and immoral” and barred the government from funding them. In another, he prohibited federal funds from promoting “gender ideology,” which has become a right-wing term to refer to transgender people and their rights.
At the same time, many big corporations are facing economic headwinds, including the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce government spending and the implementation of tariffs that have roiled the markets.
Byron Green, the board president of St. Pete Pride in St. Petersburg, Florida, said no sponsors have officially pulled their support for the annual event, though he hasn’t yet heard from many of them. Some have had to significantly reduce their sponsorships, Green said, including one major donor who previously gave $40,000 to $60,000 and is only donating about $10,000 this year.
“They have all said, ‘We get government funding, and we have to be very careful, because we don’t know if that funding is going to go away,’” Green said, adding that companies are worried about being able to pay their staff.
In the past, the nonprofit has relied entirely on corporate sponsors to cover the $600,000-$700,000 budget for Pride events held throughout the month of June, including its annual parade, which draws hundreds of thousands of attendees. So far, the nonprofit has received about half of that, according to Green.
“We are navigating what feels like a tightrope,” he said. “How do we create the experience that is the largest Pride in the state of Florida and one of the largest in the Southeast and the pace of dollars coming in is drastically less than it has been in the past?”
Ryan Bos is the executive director of Capital Pride Alliance, which organizes annual Pride celebrations in Washington, D.C., and will host this year’s WorldPride, an international celebration that is held in a new location every two years. Bos said the nonprofit was in talks with Target — which sponsored WorldPride in New York City in 2019 and has sponsored D.C.’s Capital Pride march in the past — but the company ultimately decided to pass.
Bos said other sponsors, like Wegmans Food Markets, have recommitted and increased their support for the festivities, which will take place from May 23 to June 8.
Kevin Kilbride, the media marketing manager of NYC Pride, said the budget for the organization’s annual Pride events in June is usually between $3 million and $6 million. Last year’s budget was $4.6 million, and this year’s will be about $3.5 million, he said.
Kilbride said about two-thirds of the organization’s previous sponsors have reaffirmed their support for this year’s events, which include one of the largest LGBTQ Pride marches in the world. As of Thursday, he said, one-third of the organization’s total partners had either pulled, scaled back or not yet finalized their funding commitments. As a result, NYC Pride is looking at a $350,000 dip in sponsorship funding, he said.
“A lot of it still is in the air at this point,” he said. “Folks are just moving a little bit more strategically and slowly than usual … and I think it’s a combination of the political environment, folks not sure what the repercussions would be, if any, but also the economy as well.”
Target is still sponsoring New York City’s annual LGBTQ Pride march, Kilbride said, though he noted the company has “chosen to take a silent partnership role,” and as a result is not listed as a sponsor on its website.
Target declined to comment on its decision not to sponsor WorldPride and on its partnership with NYC Pride.
Some brands face a ‘chilly environment’
Several Pride organizers — including those in Seattle, Boston and Minnesota’s Twin Cities — said they are being more selective about which sponsors they work with to ensure the companies’ policies align with their values.
Philadelphia Pride made the decision in 2022 not to work with corporations at all as a response to the community conversation about rainbow capitalism.
Twin Cities Pride, whichdraws about half a million people to its annual parade, announced earlier this year that it would not be partnering with Target as a sponsor for this year’s events after the Minneapolis-based retailer told employees in January that it would roll back DEI initiatives.
Andi Otto, the executive director of Twin Cities Pride, said he chose to turn down the company’s $50,000 sponsorship because he didn’t like the message it was sending to the LGBTQ community and communities of color. After Twin Cities Pride announced it wouldn’t partner with Target, Otto said, he launched a fundraiser that ended up doubling Target’s planned sponsorship.
Target declined to comment on Otto rejecting the company’s sponsorship.
Witeck said he’s not surprised that some brands are “facing a chilly environment” this year, as some Pride organizers and LGBTQ advocates question the values and consistency of some of their past sponsors.
“Community leaders have long opposed forms of ‘rainbow-washing’ if it’s felt the company has demonstrated weak or faltering loyalty,” he said, using a term similar to rainbow capitalism.
Pride celebrations ‘not going away’
Pride organizers have said the effects of losing major sponsors could vary widely, though none of the organizers who spoke with NBC News said they are scaling back security — and many, in fact, have said they’re increasing it.
NYC’s Kilbride said that as a result of having fewer committed sponsors and a reduced budget this year, three dance parties will not return for this year’s NYC Pride slate.
“We just have fewer options with a lower budget as far as what we can do, what kind of spaces we can provide for this community at a time that it’s obviously, in my opinion, more important than ever for these spaces to exist,” Kilbride said.
Otto said Twin Cities Pride, which typically spends about $800,000 on its annual Pride festival, is currently short about $200,000. In addition to declining Target’s donation, Otto said the organization had one big sponsor back out of negotiations and has not heard from several of its past sponsors yet. As a result, he said, this year’s festival will feature three stages for performances instead of its usual four.
The organizers of San Francisco Pride, which hosts a concert, parade and street fair the last weekend of June, usually start planning the three-day event nearly a year in advance, Ford said. As a result, she said, any potential funding shortage won’t affect this year’s events.
While many Pride organizers are making due with fewer corporate sponsors and lower budgets this year, Keller said the important thing to remember is Pride is “not going away.”
“You’re going to see even more people show up and need to find a safe space and find community and find where they can be their authentic selves, and that’s going to be at the Pride parade,” she said.
A Florida school district said it won’t renew the contract of a teacher who used a student’s preferred name, instead of legal name, without parental permission, in violation of state law.
Melissa Calhoun is a literature teacher at Satellite High School in the coastal city of Satellite Beach, Florida. According to her LinkedIn profile, she’s worked for the Brevard County Public Schools district for the past 12 years.
Unless the state intervenes, Calhoun, who did not immediately return requests for comment, could be one of the first educators to lose a job under Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law, or what critics call the “Don’t Say Gay” law.
Brevard County Public Schools conducted an investigation after receiving a complaint from a parentwho said Calhoun had used a name other than their child’s legal name without the parent’s permission, according to a statement shared by Janet R. Murnaghan, a spokesperson for the district.
“This directly violates state law and the district’s standardized process for written parental consent,” the statement said. “Based on the teacher’s own admission that she knowingly did not comply with state statute she received a letter of reprimand. Teachers, like all employees, are expected to follow the law.”
Satellite High School in Brevard County, Fla.Google Maps
Since the state will be reviewing Calhoun’s teacher certificate based on the complaint, the district said it will not renew her annual contract, which expires in May, until the issue is resolved.
“We’re here to really show support for Ms. Calhoun and to show that we are not OK with what is going on,” sophomore Brianna Knight told WESH. “We truly are upset that we are losing such a positive teacher.”
Calhoun’s supporters also started a petition asking the Brevard County School Board to reinstate her. As of Friday afternoon, it had garnered more than 22,000 signatures.
Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the Parental Rights in Education law in March 2022. At that time, it prohibited “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity” in kindergarten through third grade “or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”
A year later, he signed an expanded version of the measure that prohibits sexual orientation or gender identity instruction in prekindergarten through eighth grade, restricts reproductive health education in sixth through 12th grade, and bars schools from requiring students or employees to refer to each other with pronouns that do not align with their assigned sex at birth. It also prohibits transgender school employees from sharing their pronouns with students, among other restrictions.
In July 2023, a few months after DeSantis signed the expanded measure, the Florida Board of Education passed new rules to ensure schools were following the law and to “strengthen and enhance the safety and welfare of students in K-12 public schools and protect parental rights.”
Among those rules was a requirement that school districts receive parental permission before staffers can call a student by anything other than their legal name, including a nickname, even at the student’s request.
At a school board meeting this week, several parents spoke both in favor of and against the district’s decision not to renew Calhoun’s contract.
“There was no harm, no threat to safety, no malicious intent,” one parent of a student in the district who also said she was one of Calhoun’s colleagues said during the meeting, WESH reported. “Just a teacher trying to connect with a student, and for that, her contract was not renewed despite her strong dedication and years of service. I ask you, how can we justify this?”
School board member Katye Campbell said during the meeting that people might think the rule is “silly,” but that it’s important.
“The parents are the number one decision-makers for their children,” Campbell said, The Washington Post reported. In response to a question about students’ rights, she said the district shouldn’t interfere in families’ decisions “unless we legally have a reason to.”
A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked the Texas A&M University System from enforcing a ban on drag performances on its campuses.
The Texas A&M Board of Regents passed a resolution last month that prohibited drag shows in campus venues, arguing at the time, according to court documents, that drag shows could violate President Donald Trump’s executive order prohibiting federal funds from being used to promote “gender ideology.”
As a result of the resolution, Texas A&M’s flagship campus in College Station canceled “Draggieland,” an annual drag performance scheduled for Thursday in a campus theater. The Texas A&M Queer Empowerment Council, an LGBTQ student group that has sponsored the event for the past five years, sued, arguing that the ban on drag performances violates the First Amendment.
U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the Southern District of Texas said the students’ claim is likely to succeed and issued a temporary injunction that will allow the performance to go on as scheduled while litigation continues.
“By permitting Draggieland to be held on campus, in the theatre used for a wide variety of events and performances, for those who want to attend and have bought tickets to do so, the Board does not imply that it endorses Draggieland’s message,” Rosenthal wrote in her opinion. “Instead, the Board is complying with the constitutional obligation to allow different messages and viewpoints, including those viewed as offensive to some, to be expressed at a university that is committed to critical thought about a wide range of conflicting and divergent viewpoints and ideologies.”
The Queer Empowerment Council said in a statement that it is “overjoyed” with the decision.
“This is another display of the resilience of queer joy, as that is an unstoppable force despite those that wish to see it destroyed,” the group said. “While this fight isn’t over, we are going to appreciate the joy we get to bring by putting on the best show that we can do.”
A spokesperson for the Texas A&M University System said the school has received the judge’s opinion and is reviewing its options and potential next steps.
The decision is yet another blow against policies that seek to restrict drag performances. In 2023, a federal judge struck down a Texas law that LGBTQ advocates feared would ban drag shows, and judges also blocked a similar law in Montana that targeted drag shows and events where drag performers read books to children. However, in Tennessee, a federal appeals court last year allowed a law restricting drag to stand, reversing a lower court ruling.
Texas A&M’s Board of Regents, in addition to arguing that allowing drag performances on campus could violate Trump’s order regarding “gender ideology,” also said such performances violate the university’s mission to respect others. Drag, the board said, involves men dressing in women’s clothing, wearing exaggerated makeup and prosthetics and performing in a way that “demeans women.”
The performances could “contribute to a hostile environment for women contrary to System anti-discrimination policy and Title IX,” the university said, citing a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs, according to court documents.
Rosenthal, however, said that the board didn’t show any evidence that “Draggieland” has contributed to an increase in the harassment of female students over the last five years the Queer Empowerment Council has held the performance and that the record didn’t show that any female students had complained.
In addition, Rosenthal said the board couldn’t show evidence that Trump’s executive order regarding “gender ideology” applies to drag shows “or that the Draggieland message denies the existence of the male and female sexes.”
“The QEC’s complaint makes clear that by donning clothing and makeup traditionally associated with the opposite sex, Draggieland performers intend to convey a message of LGBTQ+ support by engaging in a protected art form,” Rosenthal wrote. “The performers are just that: performers. They are acting. The performance is theater. It is not about individuals seeking to change their biological sex or claim a different biological sex. It is about actors who perform dressed differently than their biological sex. Again, the Board’s argument conflates the existence of two sexes with different ways to express sexuality and sexual themes.”
Rosenthal added, “To ban the performance from taking place on campus because it offends some members of the campus community is precisely what the First Amendment prohibits.”
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes of Washington, D.C., ruled that the ban violates the equal protection clause because it discriminates based on transgender status and sex.
Reyes said the ban “is soaked in animus.”
“Its language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact,” she wrote.
She added, “Indeed, the cruel irony is that thousands of transgender servicemembers have sacrificed — some risking their lives — to ensure for others the very equal protection rights the Military Ban seeks to deny them.”
Reyes delayed the effect of her preliminary injunction until Friday to give the administration time to appeal it. She added in her order that the government “could have crafted a policy that balances the Nation’s need for a prepared military and Americans’ right to equal protection.”
“They still can,” she said. “The Military Ban, however, is not that policy. The Court therefore must act to uphold the equal protection rights that the military defends every day.”
A spokesperson for the Department of Justice called Reyes’ order “the latest example of an activist judge attempting to seize power at the expense of the American people who overwhelmingly voted to elect President Trump.”
“The Department of Justice has vigorously defended President Trump’s executive actions, including the Defending Women Executive Order, and will continue to do so,” the spokesperson said in an email.
Cadets arrive at Michie Stadium before the arrival of President Joe Biden during commencement exercises at West Point on May 25, 2024 in West Point, New York. Spencer Platt / Getty Images
“The ban’s harmful impact and rushed implementation show that it was motivated by prejudice,” Minter said in a statement. “Our plaintiffs include lifelong military personnel who served in combat in Afghanistan, come from multi-generation military families, and have received honors like the Bronze Star. This ban is unjustifiable and attacks brave servicemembers, recruits, and families who sacrifice so much for our country.”
Trump’s order goes much further than a similar policy he issued during his first term, which prohibited trans people from enlisting and allowed those already serving to continue doing so in a manner consistent with their gender identities and continue receiving transition-related medical care if they came out before the ban. Service members who came out after it were not allowed to receive such medical care and had to continue serving in a manner consistent with their assigned sexes at birth.
The new policy prohibits trans people from enlisting and requires the military to identify all trans service members who have “a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria,” which is the medical term for the severe emotional distress caused by the misalignment between one’s gender identity and birth sex, according to a memo the Defense Department filed in the lawsuit last week.
Those identified by the Pentagon will be disqualified from service and must be removed from their jobs. They will receive honorable separations unless their records reflect otherwise, according to the memo.
In January, two national LGBTQ legal organizations, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders and the the National Center for Lesbian Rights, filed suit against Trump’s executive order on behalf of six active-duty trans service members and two trans people seeking to enlist. They argued that the ban discriminates against trans people and “reflects animosity toward transgender people because of their transgender status.”
The order, the lawsuit said, declared that being trans fundamentally “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.”
The order said, “A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.”
Reyes pushed Justice Department attorney Jason C. Lynch on that language during preliminary hearings last month, asking repeatedly whether he believed it showed animus against the trans community.
“Would it be fair to say that excluding a group of people from military service based on unsupported assertions that they are liars, immodest, lack integrity, are undisciplined and are dishonorable, would you agree with me that — particularly where there’s no support for any of those assertions — that that is animated by animus?” Reyes asked Lynch, who declined to answer.
Multiple Defense Department memos also say enlisted service members will be required to use pronouns and salutations, such as “sir” and “ma’am,” that align with their birth sexes. Reyes pressed Lynch about how pronoun usage affects military readiness.
“I don’t —” Lynch said, before the judge interrupted him.
“Because it doesn’t,” Reyes said. “Because any commonsense rational human being understands that it doesn’t.”
Transgender veterans will no longer be provided hormone therapy through the Department of Veterans Affairs, unless they were already receiving such care through the department or the military, the VA announced Monday.
The reversal of the decade-old policy comes just days after the VA rescinded a 2018 directive that required the department to treat trans veterans “with respect and dignity.” The directive required coverage of mental health care, hormone therapy, pre-surgery evaluation and care after surgery as medically necessary. The VA has never covered gender-affirming surgery for veterans.
The rescinded directive also required health care providers to address veterans by their gender identity, which included using their requested pronouns and preferred name.
According to Monday’s announcement, trans veterans who weren’t already receiving treatment for gender dysphoria, which is the medical term for the severe emotional distress caused by the misalignment between one’s gender identity and birth sex, will not be able to access it through the VA.
“I mean no disrespect to anyone, but VA should not be focused on helping Veterans attempt to change their sex,” VA Secretary Doug Collins said in a statement Monday, adding that the “vast majority” of veterans and Americans agree, though he did not point to any data that supports that claim.
“All eligible Veterans — including trans-identified Veterans — will always be welcome at VA and will always receive the benefits and services they’ve earned under the law,” Collins said. “But if Veterans want to attempt to change their sex, they can do so on their own dime.”
Any money saved by curtailing treatments for gender dysphoria “will be redirected to help severely injured VA beneficiaries — such as paralyzed Veterans and amputees — regain their independence,” the VA said.
In addition to ending coverage of hormone therapy for veterans who weren’t already receiving it, the VA will also no longer provide gender-affirming prosthetics, wigs or letters of support for veterans to access transition-related surgery outside of the VA.
Veterans who receive care in VA facilities will also be required to use “intimate spaces,” such as bathrooms and locker rooms, in accordance with their birth sex, the VA announced.
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ advocacy group, condemned the VA’s announcement.
“Transgender veterans share the same commitment and the same love of country as all other veterans,” she said in a statement. “They made the same sacrifices and are owed the same respect and care after their service. Despite this, the VA has decided to turn its back on transgender veterans who committed their lives to serving in our armed forces—complying with an Administration hellbent on harming and scapegoating the transgender community.”
The policy change was brought on by President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring that there are only two, unchangeable sexes, the VA said. The executive order has resulted in sweeping changes regarding trans people across the federal government, from government web pages that mention trans people to passport policies.
The VA has been providing treatment for gender dysphoria for more than a decade, according to the department’s announcement, which added that the Veterans Health Administration estimates indicate that less than one-tenth of 1% of the 9.1 million veterans enrolled in VA health care are trans, which would be about 9,100 veterans. That number is far lower than previous research has found. The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law estimated in 2014 that about 134,300 trans people are veterans or are retired from the Guard or Reserve, though it’s unclear if they would all be eligible for VA health care.
Trump also issued an executive order prohibiting trans people from serving or enlisting in the military. The policy requires all trans people who are currently serving to be separated from the military by next month. Several trans service members and trans people who planned to enlist filed a lawsuit in January to block the policy, and a judge is expected to issue a decision in the case this week.
A majority of Americans, 58%, favor allowing openly trans people to serve in the military, though support has declined, from 66% in 2021 and 71% in 2019, according to Gallup data released last month. The drop was driven primarily by Republican survey respondents, Gallup found.
In recent years, Republicans have increasingly supported policies that target transgender people, particularly trans youth, by prohibiting trans students from playing school sports on the teams that align with their gender identities and barring them from accessing transition-related health care.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton declared Friday that state court orders to change the sex markers on Texas birth certificates, driver’s licenses and other state-issued IDs are no longer valid.
State agencies have already prohibited transgender people from changing the sex markers on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses through internal policy changes last year. Paxton’s new directive requires them to go further and revert back any sex marker changes that were the result of court orders. The directive is the first of its kind nationwide and marks yet another escalation in the state’s nearly decadelong effort to restrict the rights of trans people.
“There are only two sexes, and that is determined not by feelings or ‘gender theory’ but by biology at conception,” Paxton said in a statement Friday. “Radical left-wing judges do not have jurisdiction to order agencies to violate the law nor do they have the authority to overrule reality. In Texas, we will follow common sense and restore any documents that were wrongfully changed to be consistent with biology.”
Paxton’s directive came via a nonbinding legal opinion in response to a request from Steven McCraw, director of the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), in September. McCraw asked the attorney general whether Texas courts have the authority to order state agencies to change a person’s sex designation on government documents. If they don’t, McCraw continued, do agencies like DPS have the authority to revert back sex markers for trans Texans whose documents were changed by court orders?
McCraw said in his requestthat there has been a “years-long and state-wide effort to alter government records to reflect gender identity.” He added that judges who approve sex-marker changes on documents “may do so with no scrutiny whatsoever,” citing local news reports about lawyers helping trans clients update their Texas documents.
Transgender advocates say IDs that accurately reflect a trans person’s gender identity are critical to their safety. Documents that show their birth sex and not their lived gender, they say, can cause problems while going through airport security and traveling, starting a new job — where their ID could out them as trans to an employer — voting in elections or interacting with law enforcement.
However, McCraw said state documents are required to reflect sex, which he defined as “a binary and fixed biological fact” referring to the presence of two X chromosomes or the presence of a Y chromosome, and that accurate identification “has obvious implications for public safety.” Conservative officials have often cited a similar definition of sex, even though scientists estimate that 1.7% of people are born intersex, meaning they have sex characteristics that don’t fit typical definitions of male or female.
Ash Hall, an LGBTQ policy and advocacy strategist for the ACLU of Texas, said nonbinding legal opinions, like Paxton’s, cannot supersede court orders.
“State agencies have no authority to retroactively change anyone’s valid legal documents,” Hall said in a statement. “If state agencies attempt to implement this non-binding opinion, it would be an unlawful waste of resources that will not hold up in court nor stand the test of time. We should all have identity documents that match who we are as a matter of basic safety and Paxton cannot erase transgender Texans’ right to exist.”
McCraw’s letter and Paxton’s legal opinion are the latest efforts from Texas officials to roll back the rights of trans Texans.
In 2023, the state enacted legislation that prohibits transition-related care for minors and barred trans student athletes from playing on school sports teams that align with their gender identities.
Many of the state’s policy changes targeting trans people have circumvented the legislature, by agencies choosing to change their policies internally or by Paxton issuing legal directives for them to do so. In March 2022, after state lawmakers failed to pass a bill restricting transition-related care for minors, Paxton issued a legal opinion and directive that resulted in the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services opening child abuse investigations into parents who were suspected of having provided such care to their minor children, though the directive was later blocked by a judge.
So far this year, Texas lawmakers have introduced nearly 200 bills targeting LGBTQ people, according to Equality Texas, a state LGBTQ advocacy group.
Last week, Republican state Rep. Tom Oliverson filed a bill that could charge trans people with a state jail felony — punishable by up to two years in jail and a fine of up to $10,000 — if they identify their birth sex incorrectly on state documents or to employers. The bill doesn’t have any other sponsors and is unlikely to pass, but it’s the first of its kind in the nation.
A federal judge gave final approval Wednesday to a class-action settlement between the Defense Department and LGBTQ veterans who were discharged because of their sexual orientation under “don’t ask, don’t tell” and similar earlier policies.
The settlement could affect the more than 35,000 veterans discharged between 1980 and 2011, “because of real or perceived homosexuality, homosexual conduct, sexual perversion, or any other related reason,” according to court documents.
A group of veterans filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in August 2023, alleging that the effects of “don’t ask, don’t tell” — which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993 and was in effect from 1994 to 2011 — violated their constitutional rights.
A veteran visits the grave of Leonard Matlovich in the Congressional Cemetery in Washington on the 10th anniversary of the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in 2021. Patsy Lynch / AP file
Service members who received less than honorable discharges from the military are disqualified from accessing certain benefits, such as medical care through the Veterans Health Administration and a pension. Those who were honorably discharged but whose discharge form says they separated from the military due to homosexuality could be outed when they are required to present the form to receive benefits or during background checks.
The agreement, which was reached in January, will allow veterans who received a less than honorable discharge because of their sexual orientation to be eligible for an immediate review and an upgrade to an honorable discharge. Veterans who received an honorable discharge, but whose discharge form states that they separated from the armed services because of their sexual orientation, will be able to have that characterization removed from the form within months.
As part of the settlement, the Defense Department has to create a streamlined process for veterans to request a review of their discharge paperwork. The department now has until mid-August to post information on its website and mail letters to class members telling them how to apply for a new military discharge form. Once the new process is in place, class members will have three years to submit requests for new discharge forms.
In response to a request for comment on the settlement, a Pentagon press officer referred NBC News to the Department of Justice. The DOJ and the plaintiffs’ lawyers did not immediately return a request for comment.
This week’s class-action settlement comes as another federal judge weighs whether to block President Donald Trump’s administration from banning transgender people from military service. The ban stems from an executive ordersigned by the president on Jan. 27 that reinstates a policy from his first term and rescinds an order from former President Joe Biden that allowed trans people to enlist and serve openly.
A Texas state bill could charge transgender people with “gender identity fraud,” making it illegal to identify as trans on official documents and potentially leading to jail time.
The bill, which was filed last week by Republican state Rep. Tom Oliverson, would make it a state jail felony if a person “knowingly makes a false or misleading verbal or written statement” by identifying their sex assigned at birth incorrectly to a governmental entity or to their employer. State jail felonies in Texas are punishable by up to two years in jail and a fine of up to $10,000.
Oliverson did not immediately return a request for comment. So far, the bill has no other co-sponsors, making it unlikely to pass, the Houston Chronicle reported. However, the bill is among the first of its kind nationally and is an example of how legislation targeting trans people has become more clear in its intent and more extreme in recent years, particularly in Texas.
Last month, Texas state Rep. Brent Money, a Republican, filed a bill that would make it illegal for a health care provider to treat any patient, including adults, with puberty-suppressing medication, hormone therapy or surgeries if the purpose of the treatment is to affirm the patient’s gender identity.
Money’s bill is a replica of a law enacted in 2023 that prohibits such treatments for minors. The text of the new bill shows the word “child” struck out and replaced with “person” to apply to adults. The bill would also prohibit medical institutions from receiving public funds if they provide any such treatments.
Money did not immediately return a request for comment. After filing the bill, he said on X that the measure is intended to expand the law restricting care for minors.
“I want to make it clear that my heart goes out to those struggling with gender dysphoria,” he said, referring to the medical term for the severe emotional distress caused by the misalignment between one’s gender identity and birth sex. “These individuals deserve compassion, support, and real solutions to address their pain — not irreversible procedures that leave them scarred for life. This legislation isn’t about judgment; it’s about accountability.”
He added that the bill targets doctors and “medical profiteers” who “exploit vulnerable people, pushing costly surgeries and lifetime pharmaceuticals for financial gain rather than offering genuine care.”
Multiple studies have found that access to transition-related care, including surgeries for adults, improves mental health outcomes. Last year, the National Center for Transgender Equality, which is now called Advocates for Trans Equality, released the largest nationwide survey of the trans community, with more than 90,000 respondents, and found that 94% reported that they were at least a little more satisfied with their lives.
Texas has provided a blueprint over the last decade for states that have sought to restrict trans rights, becoming in 2017 one of the first states, alongside North Carolina, to consider a “bathroom bill,” which would’ve barred trans people from using the restrooms that align with their gender identities.
The bill didn’t pass, but the state has enacted other measures targeting trans people. In March 2022, after failing to pass a bill restricting transition-related care for minors, the state’s attorney general issued a legal opinion that resulted in the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services opening child abuse investigations into parents who were suspected of having provided such care to their minor children.
The state went on to pass a transition-related care restriction, and it has also enacted a measure barring trans student athletes from playing on school sports teams that align with their gender identities, among others. Additionally, the state recently announced that an executive order signed by President Donald Trump bars it from allowing trans people to update the gender marker on their Texas birth certificates, state IDs and driver’s licenses.
owa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill Friday that strikes gender identity from the state’s civil rights law, making Iowa the first state to remove civil rights from a previously protected class.
The bill passed the Republican-majority state Senate, 33-15, along party lines Thursday. Less than an hour later, the House passed its version of the bill, 60-36, with five Republicans joining Democrats to vote against it.
Reynolds, a Republican, said in a statement Friday that the bill “safeguards the rights of women and girls.” She said the civil rights code’s protections against discrimination based on gender identity “blurred the biological lines between the sexes,” and “forced Iowa taxpayers to pay for gender-reassignment surgeries.”
“We all agree that every Iowan, without exception, deserves respect and dignity,” she said. “What this bill does accomplish is to strengthen protections for women and girls, and I believe that it is the right thing to do.”
The Iowa Civil Rights Act broadly prohibits discrimination in many areas of life, including employment, housing, education and credit. In 2007, the state Legislature, which was then controlled by Democrats, passed a bill that extended those protections to LGBTQ people, adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected classes.
The new law removes gender identity from the code. It also requires that birth certificates reflect a person’s sex assigned at birth and removes a clause that previously allowed a trans person to update the sex marker on their birth certificate if they had a notarized affidavit from a doctor and surgeon attesting that they had medically transitioned.
The law also revises a measure Reynolds signed in 2023 that prohibits the instruction of sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through sixth grade to change “gender identity” to “gender theory,” which it defines as the concept that someone can have “an internal sense of gender that is incongruent with the individual’s sex” assigned at birth. Critics have called the measure a “don’t say gay” law.
Democratic Iowa state Rep. Aime Wichtendahl, the first trans person elected to the state’s General Assembly, said during the House debate Thursday that the bill “revokes protections to our homes and our ability to access credit. In other words, it deprives us of our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.”
Wichtendahl added, through tears, that transitioning saved her life.
“The sum total of every anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ bill is to make our existence illegal, to force us back into the closet,” she said.
Republican state Sen. Jason Schultz, who introduced the Senate’s version of the bill, noted that the state’s civil rights code has been cited in some lawsuits and court decisions in favor of trans rights, including a 2023 decision that requires the state’s Medicaid program to cover transition-related care, the Des-Moines Register reported.
“All these legal protections are at risk due to the inclusion of the words ‘gender identity’ in our code,” Schultz said Thursday.
More than 2,000 people rallied to protest the Senate vote Thursday, according to local reports and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Iowa, with signs that read “Trans rights are human rights.” The crowd also booed and yelled at senators following their vote, the Des-Moines Register reported.
Prior to signing the bill, Reynolds said it was meant to bring Iowa in line with federal law and the laws of most states. However, federal law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity following the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County.
State and local protections from discrimination based on gender identity vary, with 23 states explicitly prohibiting such discrimination in employment, 22 states prohibiting it in housing and 27 states prohibiting gender identity discrimination in public accommodations, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ think tank.
After Reynolds signed the bill Friday, Wichtendahl told NBC News it felt like a “gut punch,” and that she’s heard from trans constituents who are scared for their lives. She said her message to them is to stand together.
“Refuse to give in to despair, because the greatest act of rebellion that you can do in these dystopian times is to live your life unafraid and be happy,” she said. “And I know after yesterday, that’s a new level of challenge, but it’s the greatest act of rebellion, and the greatest thing that you can do for yourself right now is show the world that you are unafraid to live your life.”
