Police in Washington, D.C., are seeking the public’s help in finding the killer of a Blacktransgender woman who was shot to death about 12:30 a.m. Saturday.
Bystanders flagged police down to where Dream Johnson, 28, lay unconscious on a city street, having been shot multiple times, the Washington Bladereports. She was taken to a local hospital, “but all lifesaving efforts failed and the victim was pronounced dead,” says a police statement quoted by the Blade.
The police did not identify Johnson as trans, but trans activists and her family said she was. She had planned to legally change her to Dream.
Vanna Terrell, Johnson’s aunt, told the Blade she heard that witnesses saw three men approach Johnson as she walked along the street and used a derogatory term toward her, so Terrell believes they knew Johnson was trans. Terrell also heard that the shooter emptied his gun, leading her to believe her niece was the victim of a hate crime.
A police spokesperson, however, told the Blade there was nothing to indicate Johnson’s killing was a hate crime.
Police are offering a $25,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of whoever is responsible for Johnson’s death. Homicide Detective Natasha Kennedy is the lead investigator in the case, and anyone with information is asked to contact her at (202) 380-6198.
GLAAD posted a statement to Instagram saying, “We cannot allow this pattern of violence against trans people — and especially trans women of color — to continue. No one should live in fear for being themselves.” Fifty-two percent of all anti-LGBTQ+ incidents tracked by GLAAD’s Alert Desk target trans people, the organization noted.
Puerto Rico, long regarded as a leader on transgender rights in the Caribbean, is facing a potential rollback as lawmakers push forward legislation to ban gender-affirming care for youth. The measure could criminalize parents and doctors and cut off vital medical support for the island’s trans community.
The bill, approved by both chambers of Puerto Rico’s legislature, is now awaiting action by Republican Gov. Jenniffer González Colón. Although she had proposed amendments to protect access to puberty blockers and allow minors already undergoing treatment to continue care, lawmakers did not adopt those changes. The governor now faces a decision to sign or veto the bill. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that the government can limit this kind of care.
Late last month, the Puerto Rican Senate advanced the legislation, which would bar gender-affirming health care for trans people under 21 and impose fines, prison time, and professional sanctions on parents and medical providers who facilitate such care. The House recently passed the bill as well, starting a 30-day clock for the governor to act.
Parents of trans youth have pleaded with the governor to veto the bill, but instead, she sent it back for changes that ultimately failed.
Pedro Julio Serrano, president of the Puerto Rico LGBTQ+ Federation, stated that the island has long been “at the forefront” of trans rights, citing milestones such as allowing trans people to change their birth certificates and a recent court ruling that enabled nonbinary individuals to have an “X” gender marker. However, he warned that the political climate has shifted dramatically.
He told The Advocate that conservative forces in Puerto Rico, particularly the fundamentalist party Proyecto Dignidad, are using anti-trans legislation as a calculated political strategy to attract voters. Serrano noted that the same types of bills now moving through the legislature were blocked in the previous term through activism and lobbying, but have resurfaced under a more conservative government.
The current bill follows the passage of a religious liberty measure and another effort restricting care for trans minors, both of which Serrano said the community is also preparing to challenge in court. “We are on that waiting stage,” he said.
Serrano stressed that while Puerto Rico’s political environment has become more hostile, the island’s broader culture remains deeply supportive of LGBTQ+ people. He described Puerto Rico as a place that is generally “accepting, welcoming, respectful,” and one of the world’s top LGBTQ+ travel destinations. Yet, he acknowledged that pockets of violence and bigotry persist, recalling how Puerto Rico was the epicenter of anti-trans violence in 2020 when seven trans people were murdered.
He noted that the federation formed shortly after the 2020 election, anticipating conservative political gains both locally and nationally. Since then, the coalition has grown to include over 100 organizations and numerous political and community leaders. Its work has included large-scale marches, legislative outreach, community assemblies, legal planning, and grassroots organizing.
Serrano said the island has experienced a groundswell of local activism, with Pride events expanding from one march in San Juan decades ago to more than 20 events across Puerto Rico today, including on smaller islands like Vieques. He said the community is determined to resist efforts to strip away hard-won rights, even if the fight is long and complex. “We know that we’re going to have some setbacks,” he said. “But if we don’t do the fight right now, it’s going to be even harder to win back those things that are taken away from us.”
Groups, including the Puerto Rico LGBTQ+ Federation and GLAAD, condemned the legislation, warning that it would impose unbearable burdens on families and cut off trans youth from lifesaving health care. “Lawmakers must vote to protect access to health care that saves lives, and allow families to make private health care decisions that help loved ones be themselves, be safe, and to thrive,” the groups said in a joint statement.
Advocates also stress that, unlike in the contiguous United States, trans Puerto Ricans cannot simply travel to a neighboring state for care if services are banned locally. Many would be left without options unless they could afford expensive travel to the mainland. Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens but cannot vote for president in the general election unless they reside on the mainland.
Despite political divisions, President Donald Trump’s influence remains limited on the U.S. territory.
“People don’t forget when he threw paper towels at us,” Serrano said, referring to Trump’s widely criticized visit after Hurricane Maria, which many on the island saw as dismissive and insulting during a humanitarian crisis. Serrano added that even Republicans on the island often distance themselves from Trump, and that his policies do not hold the same sway in Puerto Rico as they might in some U.S. states.
The Advocate contacted the Puerto Rican governor’s office to ask whether she plans to sign or veto the bill, but did not receive a response.
Transgender Louisianians will no longer receive Medicaid reimbursement for any gender-affirming care prescriptions if their provider uses certain gender-related diagnosis codes, according to multiple LGBTQ+ organizations.
“Instead of making this change through the legislative process, the state instilled its anti-trans agenda through obscure, extralegal bureaucratic maneuvers,” the advocacy organization Trans Income Project wrote in a statement to the Illuminator. “Now, thousands of Louisianans are losing coverage for trans medicine and incurring unexpected out-of-pocket costs when attempting to pick up their regular prescriptions.”
Gender-affirming care is a catch-all term for medical treatments given to people to align their physical bodies with their identified gender. Such care is administered to transgender people, who identify as a gender different from their sex assigned at birth, as well as cisgender people, who identify as their assigned sex.
The Louisiana Department of Health did not respond to emailed questions asking why the policy has been put in place.
The Williams Institute, a think tank at UCLA School of Law that researches sexual orientation and gender identity law, estimates LGBTQ+ adults are twice as likelyas non-LGBTQ+ adults to take part in the Medicaid program.
Louisiana banned gender-affirming health care for transgender youth in 2023, but the treatments remain legal for transgender adults.
The Justice Department announced that it had sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics involved in “performing transgender medical procedures on children.”
The department’s brief announcement Wednesday did not name any of the 20 doctors or clinics or say where they were. It also did not specify what constituted “transgender medical procedures” but said its investigations “include healthcare fraud, false statements, and more.”
“Medical professionals and organizations that mutilated children in the service of a warped ideology will be held accountable by this Department of Justice,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.
Also Wednesday, the Federal Trade Commission hosted an all-day workshop on the “dangers of gender-affirming care.” In his opening remarks, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson suggested that such care is deceptive and requires greater scrutiny by the commission.
The workshop and the Justice Department’s announcement are the latest escalation of the Trump administration’s campaign to restrict transgender rights and access to transition-related medical care.
The FTC’s panel Wednesday featured more than a dozen speakers who criticized transgender health care, including people who received such care as minors and now say they regret it; doctors and psychologists who disagree with the current standards for providing such care; and political scientists and lawyers who oppose access to transition care for minors.
Claire Abernathy said she had a double mastectomy by her 15th birthday and detransitioned, or stopped identifying as trans, at 18.
“My doctors didn’t tell me that hormones would cause permanent side effects,” said Abernathy, now 20. “They hid those effects from me. They worked to silence me when I tried to complain about this abuse. We need to make sure no more kids are sold products they can’t return.”
A common refrain from many of the panelists was that it is not possible for someone to be “born in the wrong body” and that there is no evidence to support transition care as a treatment for gender dysphoria, the medical term for the distress that results from the conflict between someone’s gender identity and sex assigned at birth.
Miriam Grossman, a child psychologist who has testified in favor of state legislation to ban access to transgender care for minors, said the idea that someone can know for sure that their gender identity is more authentic to them than their birth sex “is entirely unproven and unprovable.”
“There is no objective evidence of being born in the wrong body, and saying so misleads and takes advantage of consumers, and it impacts their medical decisions,” Grossman said.
Ferguson said the FTC’s statutory mandate is to “protect people from deceptive cures and health claims. He added that the FTC would post a public request for information next week based on what was learned at the workshop.
‘Not the FTC’s lane’
The workshop faced backlash from activists and also from some employees within the FTC, Reuters reported. Nearly 150 FTC employees signed a “statement of concern” dated July 2 about Wednesday’s workshop, writing that it “would chart new territory for the Commission by prying into confidential doctor-patient consultations.”
They added, “Simply put, in our judgment, this is not the FTC’s lane.”
On Thursday, three former FTC employees also opposed the workshop at an event held by Public Knowledge, a nonprofit organization that promotes free expression and an open internet.
Among them was Eileen Harrington, who worked for the FTC for nearly 40 years and was its executive director from 2010 to 2012. She said that, through the workshop, the “FTC engaged in a kind of overreach that we haven’t seen for over 50 years.”
Harrington helped develop the FTC’s workshop process in 1992 when she was director of the division of marketing practices. Before a workshop, she said, the FTC would issue a public statement about the topic and then invite the public to submit comments. It would also invite stakeholders with a variety of views to speak at the workshop.
“Yesterday’s event bears little resemblance to what we intended to create back in 1992 and to what the FTC has done over the years,” Harrington said, noting that the public was barred from attending in person and that the FTC handpicked people who were allowed to speak and who represented only one point of view.
Joe Simonson, a spokesperson for the FTC, criticized the Public Knowledge event in a phone interview.
“I looked up who funds Public Knowledge, and I see it’s all big tech, and so it makes sense to me that a big tech-funded nonprofit, ostensibly devoted to copyright law, would be looking for any excuse to attack the Federal Trade Commission, even if it means standing against young men and women who say they were abused and mutilated by so-called medical professionals,” Simonson said.
He added that the workshop was not open attendance because the panelists received death threats.
Regarding criticism that the workshop included only one viewpoint, Simonson said, “Many of the panelists who appeared say they were victims of mutilation and abuse, and I don’t know who is on the other side of that.”
Asked about the majority of trans people, including youths, who say they do not regret receiving treatment, Simonson said: “We’re not talking about those people. We’re talking about people who were abused and mutilated.”
Kellan Baker, executive director of the Institute for Health Research and Policy at Whitman Walker Health, a medical clinic in Washington, D.C., said he helped create Thursday’s event to provide perspectives that were left out of the FTC’s workshop.
“We wanted to hear from the parents who are in the position of caring for their children and wanting what’s best for their children,” Baker said. “We also wanted to hear from experts in transgender health.”
Some European countries have restricted access to such care, but only one, the United Kingdom, has indefinitely banned new prescriptions of puberty blockers to treat minors for gender dysphoria.
Twenty-five states restrict access to puberty blockers and hormone therapy for trans minors, though courts have permanently blocked restrictions from taking effect in Montana and Arkansas, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ think tank. Arizona and New Hampshire ban operations for minors, which are recommended only in rare cases. Seventeen states and Washington, D.C., have measures that protect access to transgender health care. The care is legal in an seven more states that neither protect nor ban it.
No federal law restricts access to transition-related care. However, the Trump administration has sought to curtail it through a combination of executive orders and actions by federal agencies. In January, President Donald Trump signed a sweeping executive order aiming to prohibit federal funds from going to hospitals or medical schools that provide gender-affirming care to minors, though multiple judges have blocked that part of the order.
Then, in an April memo, Bondi directed U.S. attorneys to use laws against female genital mutilation to investigate doctors who “mutilate” children “under the guise of care” and to prosecute these “offenses to the fullest extent possible.”
“I hated my body,” the nonbinary 16-year-old said. “I hated looking at it.”
When therapy didn’t help, Pitchenik, who uses the pronoun they, started going to the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, the country’s biggest public provider of gender-affirming care for children and teens. It changed their life.
But in response to the Trump administration’s threat to cut federal funds to places that offer gender-affirming care to minors, the center will be closing its doors July 22. Pitchenik has been among the scores of protesters who have demonstrated regularly outside the hospital to keep it open.
Sage Sol Pitchenik in Santa Clarita, Calif., on Monday.Jae C. Hong / AP
“Trans kids are done being quiet. Trans kids are done being polite, and trans kids are done begging for the bare minimum, begging for the chance to grow up, to have a future, to be loved by others when sometimes we can’t even love ourselves,” Pitchenik said, prompting cheers from dozens of protesters during a recent demonstration.
They went to the center for six years.
“There’s a lot of bigotry and just hate all around, and having somebody who is trained specifically to speak with you, because there’s not a lot of people that know what it’s like, it meant the world,” they told The Associated Press.
The center’s legacy
In operation for three decades, the facility is among the longest-running trans youth centers in the country and has served thousands of young people on public insurance.
Patients who haven’t gone through puberty yet receive counseling, which continues throughout the care process. For some patients, the next step is puberty blockers; for others, it’s also hormone replacement therapy. Surgeries are rarely offered to minors.
“I’m one of the lucky ones,” said Pitchenik, who received hormone blockers after a lengthy process. “I learned how to not only survive but how to thrive in my own body because of the lifesaving health care provided to me right here at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.”
Many families are now scrambling to find care among a patchwork of private and public providers that are already stretched thin. It’s not just patient care, but research development that’s ending.
“It is a disappointment to see this abrupt closure disrupting the care that trans youth receive. But it’s also a stain on their legacy,” said Maria Do, community mobilization manager at the Los Angeles LGBT Center. “I think it showcases that they’re quick to abandon our most vulnerable members.”
Maria Do, community mobilization manager at the Los Angeles LGBT Center, outside Children’s Hospital Los Angeles on Thursday.Jae C. Hong / AP
The closure comes weeks after the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, amid other efforts by the federal government to regulate the lives of transgender people.
The hospital initially backed off its plans to close after it announced them in February, spurring demonstrations, but later doubled back.
The center said in a statement that “despite this deeply held commitment to supporting LA’s gender-diverse community, the hospital has been left with no viable path forward” to stay open.
“Center team members were heartbroken to learn of the decision from hospital leaders, who emphasized that it was not made lightly, but followed a thorough legal and financial assessment of the increasingly severe impacts of recent administrative actions and proposed policies,” the statement said.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta has warned that by closing the center, the hospital is violating state antidiscrimination laws, but his office hasn’t taken any further actions. Bonta and attorney generals from 22 other states sued the Trump administration over the executive order in February.
“The Trump administration’s relentless assault on transgender adolescents is nothing short of an all-out war to strip away LGBTQ+ rights,” Bonta told the AP in an email. “The Administration’s harmful attacks are hurting California’s transgender community by seeking to scare doctors and hospitals from providing nondiscriminatory healthcare. The bottom line is: This care remains legal in California.”
LGBTQ protesters and health care workers offer visibility
Still wearing scrubs, Jack Brenner, joined protesters after a long shift as a nurse in the hospital’s emergency room, addressing the crowd with a megaphone while choking back tears.
“Our visibility is so important for our youth,” Brenner said, looking out at a cluster of protesters raising signs and waving trans pride flags. “To see that there is a future, and that there is a way to grow up and to be your authentic self.”
Jack Brenner, an emergency room nurse at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, on Thursday.Jae C. Hong / AP
Brenner, who uses the pronoun they, didn’t see people who looked like them growing up or come to understand what being trans meant until their mid-20s.
“It’s something I definitely didn’t have a language for when I was a kid, and I didn’t know what the source of my pain and suffering was, and now looking back, so many things are sliding into place,” Brenner said. “I’m realizing how much gender dysphoria was a source of my pain.”
Trans children and teens are at increased risk of death by suicide, according to a 2024 study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Brenner described encountering young patients in the emergency room who are trans or otherwise on the gender-nonconforming spectrum and “at the peak of a mental health crisis.” Brenner wears a lanyard teeming with colorful pins emblazoned with the words “they/them” to signal their gender identity.
Jack Brenner shows their lanyard decorated with pronoun pins and buttons.Jae C. Hong / AP
“I see the change in kids’ eyes, little glints of recognition, that I am a trans adult and that there is a future,” Brenner said. “I’ve seen kids light up when they recognize something of themselves in me. And that is so meaningful that I can provide that.”
Beth Hossfeld, a marriage and family therapist, and a grandmother to an 11- and 13-year-old who received care at the center, called the closure “patient abandonment.”
“It’s a political decision, not a medical one, and that’s disturbing to me,” she said.
On June 18, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The 6-3 ruling is expected to have a broad impact as 24 other states have already enacted similar laws, which bar puberty blockers, hormone therapy (HRT) and gender transition surgeries for trans youth.
Uncloseted Media wanted to pass the microphone to the kids and young adults who could be directly affected by SCOTUS’ decision. So we called up Romana, Zavier, Ray, Dylan and Samuel—who are all receiving some form of gender-affirming care—to get their reaction to the decision.
Watch the full interview above or read the transcript here:
Spencer: Hi everyone, I am here with five trans kids and young adults from across the United States. Guys, thank you so much for speaking with me and Uncloseted Media today.
All: Thank you for having us.
Spencer: Last week, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 in a landmark case that prohibits health care providers [and] doctors from administering gender-affirming care to minors. That includes puberty blockers and HRT. I want to know, where were you guys when you heard the news and what was your reaction to that?
Samuel: So I’ve been following this case since November. I think the ruling’s ridiculous. I think it’ll kill kids.
Spencer: When you say this ruling is going to kill kids, that is a really bold statement. Why do you say that?
Samuel: It’s a bold statement. The care that enables so many people to live their lives. I think taking that possibility away from people who need it is incredibly cruel and short-sighted.
Romana: Ifelt disgusted, especially since I think [it’s] just from [the] hate. And I know people who gender-affirming care has saved the life of as teenagers. And I think every kid should be able to have that. And also, this ruling makes me scared that a state might try to ban trans care for adults.
Spencer: It could be a slippery slope.
Romana: Yeah,definitely.
Spencer: When you think about your future as a trans person without the care, what does that look like for you? Why is that so devastating?
Dylan: Because there’s not one.
Samuel: Yeah.
Spencer: Unpack that a little bit more. Why? Like, why do you think there is not one?
Photo courtesy of Dylan Brandt.
Dylan: Personally, now that I have had [testosterone] for almost five years, there would be no way that I would be able to lose everything that I have worked so hard for… And go back to living a life that was not me.
Spencer: Would you compare it to, like, if I were being forced to live as a woman every single day? Is it the exact same thing to you?
Dylan: Absolutely.I mean, if you were forced to be living [as] a woman and you, that was not something that you wanted? Absolutely.
Samuel: I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t do it. When I was younger, it almost killed me then. I couldn’t do it now. I think they’d have to kill me to force me to stop transitioning because it saved my life. I think living as myself, living as Sam, as a man, is so integral to who I am. For somebody to even try to force me to stop that would include stopping me entirely, if that makes sense.
Spencer: Okay, let’s talk about Donald Trump. Trump has tasked several federal agencies to police and ultimately stop gender-affirming care for minors, which he has equated to child abuse and child sexual mutilation. He’s also falsely stated that kids are going to school and coming back with sex changes. I wanna know, as a trans kid, what would you say if you could talk to President Trump right now?
Ray: It’s kind of painful to hear the same argument that he pulls out of his asshole every single time just because he wants to weaponize the fact that we’re a marginalized community and people are afraid of us because they don’t understand so his tactic to basically throw people off is to make us look like we’re indoctrinating kids. We’re coming back from school with surgeries. Which, by the way, you don’t just go to school and be like, “Ah, yes, I would like a surgery please.”
Spencer: Do you guys feel sometimes like you’re being used by adults as political pawns?
Ray: All the time!
Dylan: Yeah, I have been fighting this fight for so long that I’m not even necessarily surprised by what’s said anymore. I think that if I could say something directly to Trump, it wouldn’t be very nice. Because at this point I’m done being nice. At this point I’m just mad, because it has gotten to a point where they’re toying with people’s lives. They are toying with people’s lives making us look like monsters for their political gain. Because if they have people on their side that think that we are everything that they say they are, people are gonna believe ‘em.
Spencer: Especially when most Americans have never even met a trans person before.
Dylan: Absolutely.
Spencer: And trans people represent, as far as we know, less than one percent of the overall population.
Romana: I feel like a political pawn, because there’s so much talk about trans people and so much legislation passed around it and it just feels like we’re being used as a scapegoat and just someone to put the blame on and hate on in society. If I could say something to President Trump, I would proudly say something like, “Just leave us alone.”
Photo courtesy of Romana.
Spencer: It’s hard for me to square away why [Trump] would make trans issues the number one platform of [his] campaign when it’s such a small percentage of the population. It doesn’t really make sense mathematically.
Samuel: I think to your point, it’s exactly because it’s a small area of the population. For a lot of these politicians, the hate is real. But to some extent, it’s like we are the issue they can use right now because we’re such a small community that we’re targetable. It’s the small size of the transgender community and the lack of education that the general public has that is what drives being able to target this group.
Spencer: I think there’s a lot of misinformation in the United States about what gender-affirming health care actually is. So tell me what gender-affirming health care means to you and how did you make the decision to get on it?
Dylan: It took me a really long time to realize or to put words to how I was feeling. And once I did, I spoke with my primary doctor who referred me to the gender spectrum clinic in Little Rock. And I went, had my first appointment with them. And that was a six-month process where you meet with those doctors multiple times. You have to be in therapy. You have to get a psychiatric evaluation to make sure that you are doing this for the right reason. And when I tell people that they’re like, “Oh! I didn’t know that. I didn’t know that there was a process,” and I [would say], “Yeah, I’m not just walking in and saying, ‘Hey can I have it?’” And then with my top surgery too. I had to have been in therapy. I had to get letters of recommendation. I had to get it signed off, basically, by multiple people.
Gender-affirming care, to me, is hope. I graduated last year, and I never thought that I would make it to graduation, and the only reason that I did is because of my gender-affirming care. I’ve been on testosterone for almost five years, and even up until four years ago I was just so unhappy with the way that I looked, with the way I felt. I didn’t want to go out, I didn’t want to go do anything, and now I do.
Sam: I think I resonate with everything Dylan said, from the length of the process to the sort of life-saving benefits. I don’t think I would have made it to 18 without starting care at 14 when I did. I was just so uncomfortable, but the process is long. I think it was two years because my parents weren’t really sure about care at first.
Spencer: I think one of the critiques a lot of adults in this country have on gender-affirming care is that there are irreversible impacts, right? And for things like testosterone, like there are things like facial hair, for example, that you can’t fully go back on, right? Was that decision hard to make when you know that sometimes there will be elements of this that could be not completely reversible?
Photo courtesy of Samuel.
Sam: I can see why it would be a hard decision for a lot of people and I think in some ways that’s like why there’s so many safety checks and it’s also why maybe my parents were so. You know, like…
Spencer: Cautious?
Sam: Nervous, yeah. Especially because they were like, oh, you know my daughter now, you’re no longer my daughter and that was a huge adjustment. But for me, as long as I’ve been out, I’ve known that this is what I wanted to do. Like once I had the language to be able to say, “Yeah, I’m trans,” and knew that that was the path I wanted to go down. So in the end, after considering everything, it wasn’t really a hard decision.
Spencer: And Zavier, you are 11. A lot younger than everyone else on this panel, and it sounds like you are taking blockers, which to any Americans watching are completely reversible and have been given to cisgender girls for things like precocious puberty for decades. Zavier, what does gender-affirming care mean to you?
Photo courtesy of Zavier.
Zavier: Well, when I was 3 years old, I came out and I was wanting to be trans. Once I got older, my parents, they put me on blockers and let me take medicine for it.
Spencer: A lot of people, adults particularly, would say, how could a kid ever know at 3 that they’re trans? What would you say to that? How did you know?
Zavier: I just saw people. I just thought about wanting to be trans and I’ve wanted to be trans ever since.
Spencer: And you’ve always felt like a boy?
Zavier: Yeah.
Spencer: And Ray, how about you? When did you kind of know you were trans or start having feelings that you could be trans and what’s the process for you been like to get on gender-affirming care?
Ray: I’ve known since I was like 6, 7-ish. I’ve always wanted to be the dad, always wanted to be a king. I didn’t want to be a queen, none of that. It took about seven to eight months of doctors visits. First we had to make sure my mental health was good. So they prescribed me like Strattera and other types of medicines to help elevate my levels and stuff. And then they eventually put me on testosterone.
Spencer: And how has that been for you, the transformation? Has that felt good?
Ray Oh, I feel like myself now, finally! I feel like everybody in this call or this meeting feels like themself after they finally take their hormones.
Spencer: So for me, a cisgender gay boy growing up, I’d want to wear my mom’s clothes and kind of act like a girl and do different things that would tap into my femininity. But there’s never been a question that I could be a trans woman, right? What do you think is the difference between how you guys feel versus how I feel about wanting to explore my gender?
Dylan: So in my house, I’ve had both. You know, my brother is a 17-year-old gay man. And when he was little, he did. He put on my dresses and my mom’s high heels and boots and everything. And so we had that, and then we had me. From the time I could dress myself wanting strictly jeans and t-shirts, and nobody was allowed to touch my hair. And there is so much of a difference. My brother was exploring that, and I don’t want to say exploring that as in a hobby, and I was exploring it more as a lifestyle. That sounds wrong to me. But that’s the best way I can explain it.
Spencer: A big difference could be comparing it to some gay guys [who] like to dress up in drag on Halloween. You want Halloween to be every single day for the rest of your life.
Dylan: My entire life, yes, yes.
Spencer: Take me more into your mind about the feelings of wellness, of health, if you are able to live as your gender identity.
Photo courtesy of Dylan.
Dylan: The validation started the moment I cut my hair off. I mean, from that moment, I opened the door for somebody. It was, “Thank you, sir.” We went out to eat with my mom, me and my brother. “What do you boys want?” I mean it was right off the bat. And that’s honestly what made me realize that’s who I was supposed to be, because it made me feel so good. I mean, even to this day, somebody calling me sir or any form of male affirmation, anything, makes me feel so good. Just knowing that these random people in the deep south have no clue who they’re talking to. And if they did, their reaction would be way different. But the fact that these country hicks in the Deep South, who I know voted for Trump, are calling me sir or bub or anything? Makes me feel so good about myself knowing that they have no idea.
Spencer: And Zavier, how about you? You’re the youngest, why is it important for you to transition at such a young age?
Zavier: When I was growing up and people would call me a girl, I would just not feel like I was a girl. And when they said that I would just be like, “No,” inside my head.
Spencer: And do you play on the boys sports teams and do you use the boys bathroom?
Zavier: I do use the boys bathroom and my parents are signing me up for kickboxing.
Spencer: Love it, that’s super cool, yeah. And you feel great since you’ve transitioned. Is there ever any regret or feeling like, “I wanna go back to living as a girl?” No? And that would be the case for everyone here is my sense, right? No regret, no sense of de-transitioning, anything like that, yeah? Do you guys find that when you meet people and actually have conversations with them about who you are and why you need this care, hearts and minds are changed, does that help?
Sam: Yeah.
Spencer: You’re shaking your heads. Yeah, go ahead.
Dylan: [In my] School, everybody knew, I live in a small town. It wasn’t a secret. Even the 60 Minutes episode, I mean, you have no idea how many people watched that and came to me and said, “I am so sorry. I never thought about it the way that you put it. I didn’t understand until I watched that.” Like there were so many people in my school and work that [60 Minutes] truly changed the way that they thought about the transgender community. People have this pre-idea of what the transgender community is. And it’s just not, at all, how it actually is. And you don’t know that until you speak with somebody that is living it.
Spencer: And to your point on misinformation, I mean, if you turn on Fox News, which is the most watched cable news channel in this country right now, misinformation is rampant. There are comparisons that gender-affirming care is literally just bottom surgeries or so-called general mutilation. What do you think those media portrayals of trans kids and gender-affirming care for trans kids does to the mindset of Americans as they see you guys?
Dylan: They see that people are talking about giving 7-year-olds bottom surgery at school. Yeah, that could be scary to somebody that doesn’t understand. You see that, and your brain automatically goes to, “Oh, that’s not right. They can’t do that. That’s not right.”
Spencer: But that’s not happening.
Dylan: That’s not happening, absolutely. But, you see that as somebody that doesn’t know for sure that that’s not happening. And I mean, yeah, I don’t blame them for being like, “Oh, we have to stop this.” But it’s that misinformation of people saying, “Oh this is happening” when it’s not. So they’re scaring people for no reason.
Romana: I definitely agree that they make it sound really scary. And I’ve met people who’ve thought that way. I think the news really paints trans children especially as victims of being trans, which isn’t true. Or like, you’re being groomed into it, which doesn’t happen.
Spencer: Zavier, as an 11-year-old, have you even had conversations about surgeries or anything like that?
Zavier: The answer is no, because I’m only 11 years old, and I started the blockers about a year ago. So, since I’m 11 years old and you usually get surgeries at like 17 or 18, maybe. Nobody’s talked about it to me. Because if I change my mind, which I probably won’t, it’s in like six, seven years.
Spencer: Right, and you started on blockers because it gives you more time to delay puberty so you can still give yourself time to make up your mind. Right? And that’s something that I’m assuming you’re exploring with your family and your doctor to decide what’s best for you, is that right?
Zavier: Yeah.
Spencer: Ray, is it okay if I speak about the experience we had in South Carolina?
Ray: Yeah.
Spencer: Okay, well, we came to film an episode on conservative-minded dads. May your dad rest in peace, I know he passed away, and I’m so sorry about that. When we were filming with your dad, who was a military veteran, who was kind of a redneck—can I say that? From Georgia. I remember him saying to me, “This is completely against Republican ideology, get the government the hell out of my child’s doctor’s office.” Do you guys have anything to say about why it’s all Republicans coming after trans health care when it really is completely opposite to how conservatives see government intervention in family health care and parents’ rights?
Ray: Republicans are really bad at realizing that everything is not their business. We have HIPAA for a reason. They don’t seem to grasp the concept that they don’t to be in everybody’s lives. They feel like they have to protect these children, even though they’re not really protecting them.
Spencer: Is it fair to say that like gender-affirming care can be complicated and it can be nuanced and we need to have conversations about nuance by this but it’s tough to have those when you have people just attacking, attacking, attacking?
Samuel: Yeah, exactly. I mean, it’s medicine and all medicine is complex. Doctors and patients and their families are more qualified than politicians.
Photo courtesy of Ray.
Ray: Politicians, they don’t have like a degree in anything to be able to say, “Oh, this is bad.” Like they’ve never done the research. They do not have a qualification. Until I see them have an MD, they don’t have any qualifications to say anything. And I do believe research should be done. I mean, everything has so many different symptoms for every different person. I believe research is very important.
Dylan: Lawmakers don’t need to be involved in my doctor visits. They have no right. They have no knowledge. I just… They’ve got a lane and they should stay in it.
Earlier this month, the Defense Department told transgender service members that they had to choose whether they would voluntarily or involuntarily separate from the military.
Four trans service members who are now in the process of separating said nothing about their decisions feels voluntary at all.
“Nobody feels like this is voluntary,” said Emily Shilling, a commander in the Navy and the president of SPARTA, a nonprofit group that advocates for trans service members. “This is coercion. This is under duress.”
President Donald Trump signed an executive order a week into his administration prohibiting trans people from enlisting or serving in the military. Trans service members sued, and a federal judge temporarily blocked the order from taking effect. Then, last month, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to enforce the order. Days later, the Defense Department issued guidance requiring active duty service members to voluntarily self-identify as having been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, which is the distress that results from a misalignment between one’s birth sex and gender identity, by June 6 and reserve service members to self-identify by July 7.
After that, the guidance said, the military will find trans service members who didn’t self-identify through medical readiness programs and begin involuntarily separating them. Affected service members “are eligible for an array of benefits,” the guidance said, including separation pay, “which will be higher for those who self-identify and agree to a voluntary separation.”
However, many details are still unknown, such as what benefits trans service members will be able to access and whether they will all receive honorable discharges. It’s also unclear how many service members will be affected. Just over 4,000 transgender people currently serve in the military, according to Defense Department data, and the department said last month that about 1,000 trans service members have begun the separation process from the military after voluntarily identifying themselves. The department said Tuesday that it does not have an updated number of affected service members.
“Characterization of service will be honorable except where the Service member’s record otherwise warrants a lower characterization,” a U.S. Defense official said in a statement to NBC News. “Military Services will follow normal processes for administrative separation.”
The four trans service members who spoke to NBC News all emphasized that they are speaking in their personal capacity and not on behalf of their respective branches. The biggest question they all face is what comes next.
Bree Fram
On June 30, 2016, the day then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced that transgender people could serve openly in the military, Bree Fram, who was then a major in the Air Force, came out to her teammates in an email as a trans woman and then went to burn off her nerves at the gym.
Col. Bree Fram served for 22 years and said she planned to serve “for many years to come” because she loved her job.Courtesy Bree Fram
When she returned to her desk later, she said her colleagues approached her one by one, shook her hand, and told her a version of “It’s an honor to serve with you.”
Fram, who is 46 and now a colonel for the U.S. Space Force at the Pentagon, said that scene repeated earlier this month with leaders from other branches of the military when she told them it would be her last meeting with them. An officer sitting next to her asked where she was going, and she said, “I’m being placed on administrative leave because I don’t meet this administration’s standards for military excellence and readiness.”
Fram said there was a moment of silence before it seemed like her colleagues realized which policy she was referring to — because, she said, trans service members don’t “walk into a room and lead with our identity.”
“I walk into a room and someone sees a colonel, and they see the uniform, and they see all the things that represents about my experience and my expertise,” said Fram, who is one of the highest-ranking out trans officials in the military.
Then, Fram said her colleagues walked over, one by one, and shook her hand and said, again, that it had been an honor to serve with her.
Fram, who served for 22 years until she was placed on administrative leave on June 6, was the director of requirements integration for the Space Force. She helped to identify future technological capabilities the military will need and provided those to developers who built them. She said she planned to serve “for many years to come,” because she loved her job and the team that she worked with.
Fram said she doesn’t know what she’ll do next, but she expects she’ll work in public service.
“I believe in this country, even though it may not believe in me right now,” Fram said. “The oath I swore and the ideals that are embedded in the Constitution still matter to me, and I believe they are worth fighting for.”
Sam Rodriguez
Sam Rodriguez, 38, was recently commissioned as a Medical Service Corps officer in the Navy and was supposed to begin officer training school and then a two-year clinical fellowship in San Diego to become a licensed clinical social worker. However, about a week after the Supreme Court decision allowing the trans military ban to take effect, Rodriguez, who uses they/them pronouns, said the Navy canceled those orders.
Lt. Junior Grade Sam Rodriguez, left, with Lt. Rae Timberlake, center, and Parker Moore, an electronics technician in nuclear power, right. All three of them are trans and nonbinary service members in the Navy.Courtesy Sam Rodriguez
“It was really gut-wrenching to receive that news,” Rodriguez said. They enlisted in 2015 and planned to serve for 15 or 20 years, when they would’ve left the Navy as an experienced licensed social worker. However, now they will leave with their master’s degree in social work, and they will have to look for an employer who is willing to provide supervision for them to receive their clinical license, which will be more difficult.
They submitted their resignation earlier this month and requested a separation date in the fall. They said they don’t think they’ll be able to find an entry-level job as a civilian that’s going to match their current salary, housing allowance, health care benefits and the stipend that they and their wife get to pay for child care for their two children.
They plan to move their family from San Diego to Washington, D.C., so they can become more involved in policy advocacy. Outside of work, they are a board member and membership director for SPARTA.
“People need to realize that this is a national security issue,” Rodriguez said, pointing to research from the Modern Military Association of America, an advocacy group for LGBTQ military members and veterans, which found that 73% of trans service members have between 12 and 21 years of experience.
“We’re not going to be one-for-one swapped tomorrow, and some people it will take two decades to replace,” they said.
Emily Shilling
Shilling, 42, is the highest-ranking out trans person in the Navy after having served for nearly two decades, including in over 60 combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. She was also one of the lead plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the administration’s ban.
After Trump was elected, she requested to retire in the fall. Her intention was to rescind that retirement because she expected that the ban on trans troops serving would be blocked, but with the policy taking effect, her last day was June 12, and she will officially retire in September.
Emily Shilling is the highest-ranking out trans person in the Navy.Leah Millis / Reuters
“I am deeply heartbroken that this is how my career has ended, but also deeply proud of what I’ve done,” Shilling said. “I lived my dream. I did everything I ever wanted to in the Navy and I did it honorably, and I stood proud. I might be getting out of the Navy, but it’s not me quitting this fight. I’m just choosing to take on this fight in a different way.”
Shilling said the Navy invested $40 million in training her, and as a result she has many desirable skills and has already accepted an offer to work in defense technologies and advanced development. However, she said her story is rare among trans service members, thousands of whom will be looking for private sector jobs for the first time.
Shilling said the lawsuit against the ban will return to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for a hearing in October, but by that time, most trans service members will be out of the military.
“The irreparable harm is done now,” she said.
Alex Shaffer
Alex Shaffer, 48, joined the military as a combat medic in the Oregon Army National Guard in 2007. His mentors in the guard convinced him to go to school to become a physician’s assistant, and he now also works in a private family practice as a PA.
Alex Shaffer, center, with two of the soldiers who are part of the platoon he oversaw.Courtesy Alex Shaffer
“In all of the military, it’s a family,” Shaffer said of what he’s enjoyed about serving in the guard.
Shaffer said he planned to stay in the guard “until I could no longer physically serve or they kicked me out for being too old.” He was in the process of trying to commission as an officer. However, his last drill was June 7, because he began the process to medically separate from the National Guard as a result of the ban. (The National Guard only provides retirement benefits to service members if a medical evaluation board deems them physically unfit for duty.)
“I’m devastated,” Shaffer said. “It’s a loss of identity to me. I’ve been a soldier for so long, and it’s a part of who I am.”
A report on the largest survey ever of trans Americans’ health was released on Wednesday, June 11, and its findings reaffirmed what many academics, health care providers and trans people already know: gender-affirming care saves and improves lives, but transphobia often dissuades people from pursuing or continuing it when they need it most.
Over 84,000 trans, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming people aged 18 and up responded to the 2022 U.S. Transgender Survey, spearheaded by Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE). Of respondents who had transitioned, 9 percent had gone back to living as their sex assigned at birth at some point in their lives, at least for a short while — but in almost every single case, the reason was anti-trans discrimination from one’s family, friends, or community.
“Social and structural explanations dominated the reasons why respondents reported going back to living in their sex assigned at birth at some point,” the report found. “Only 4% of people who went back to living in their sex assigned at birth for a while cited that their reason was because they realized that gender transition was not for them. When considering all respondents who had transitioned, this number equates to only 0.36%.”
Meanwhile, respondents who received gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) or gender-affirming surgery overwhelmingly reported feeling “more satisfied” with their lives, 98 percent and 97 percent, respectively.
This watershed report contradicts the popular narrative being circulated by mainstream media, far-right politicians, and anti-trans groups that transgender people are “detransitioning” en masse due to life-shattering “transition regret.” In reality, it shows gender diverse people are living rich and vibrant lives, so long as they are provided the space, support, and care they need from their health care providers and communities.
The survey found a trans person’s overall health and wellbeing also heavily depend upon rates of familial support, a factor that has a profound influence over a trans person’s lifetime experience of suicidality.
The survey has been released in increments as researchers at A4TE wade through the unprecedented amounts of data from trans people who lent their voice to the project. It is a much-needed, comprehensive overview of the challenges — and victories — seen in trans health care since the prior iteration of the study. The report is especially vital considering the Trump Administration moved to remove transgender people from the U.S. Census and other government websites, rendering trans communities potentially invisible, and robbing researchers of crucial data informing public policy decisions.
“Having real concrete and rigorous data about the realities of trans people’s day-to-day lives is also a vital part of dispelling all of those assumptions and stereotypes that plague the public discourse about our community,” said Olivia Hunt, A4TE’s Director of Federal Policy, during a press briefing this week.
The report also touched upon trans people’s access to health care, which increased between 2015 and 2022; the quality of care, as trust between doctors and trans patients has improved; disparities between trans people across racial groups, which showed trans people of color are generally more prone to experience discrimination compared to white trans people; and the mental health challenges facing the trans community, as 44 percent of respondents met the criteria for serious psychological distress, compared to less than 4 percent of the general U.S. population.
Many of these issues have likely been exacerbated since the data was collected. The lead-up to President Donald Trump’s return to the Oval Office incited a new wave of anti-trans animus, impeding access to care and stirring up transphobic vitriol and harassment.
“From 2015 to 2022, state-level policy environments became more protective in some ways for trans people; however, in 2022 alone, when the USTS was administered, 315 anti-LGBTQ bills were introduced across the country, many of which harm trans and nonbinary people’s access to healthcare, participation in sports, access to public facilities, or other facets of public life,” the report says.
“This political landscape has only worsened since the administration of the 2022 USTS, with the introduction of 571 anti-LGBTQ nationwide in 2023 and 489 in 2024,” it continues. “At the time of writing, data on trans and nonbinary people has been erased from federal health surveys. As funding for LGBTQ research is stripped away, the USTS has become an ever more critical resource on the lived experiences of trans and nonbinary people.”
Nonetheless, trans life and trans joy have persisted, as testimonies featured in the U.S. Trans Survey demonstrate.
“I have thrived in the past 12 months in transition, I have a genuine smile on my face most days & laugh with genuine joy,” wrote Charlotte, a trans woman, in her survey response. “I have grown into the woman I was meant to be.”
And as Roo, a nonbinary person, wrote: “Once I learned what it meant to be trans, I never looked back. I traded in my Regina George-esque life for a future with a balding head and a predisposition for a beer gut. I’ve never been more happy to be alive—every single day. ”
Tuesday’s ruling from U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick means that transgender or nonbinary people who are without a passport or need to apply for a new one can request a male, female or “X” identification marker rather than being limited to the marker that matches the gender assigned at birth.
In an executive order signed in January, the president used a narrow definition of the sexes instead of a broader conception of gender. The order said a person is male or female and rejected the idea that someone can transition from the sex assigned at birth to another gender.
Kobick first issued a preliminary injunction against the policy last month, but that ruling applied only to six people who joined with the American Civil Liberties Union in a lawsuit over the passport policy.
In Tuesday’s ruling she agreed to expand the injunction to include transgender or nonbinary people who are currently without a valid passport, those whose passport is expiring within a year, and those who need to apply for a passport because theirs was lost or stolen or because they need to change their name or sex designation.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The government failed to show that blocking its policy would cause it any constitutional injury, Kobick wrote, or harm the executive branch’s relations with other countries.
The transgender and nonbinary people covered by the preliminary injunction, meanwhile, have shown that the passport policy violates their constitutional rights to equal protection, Kobick said.
“Even assuming a preliminary injunction inflicts some constitutional harm on the Executive Branch, such harm is the consequence of the State Department’s adoption of a Passport Policy that likely violates the constitutional rights of thousands of Americans,” Kobick wrote.
Kobick, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, sided with the ACLU’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which stays the action while the lawsuit plays out.
“The Executive Order and the Passport Policy on their face classify passport applicants on the basis of sex and thus must be reviewed under intermediate judicial scrutiny,” Kobick wrote in the preliminary injunction issued earlier this year. “That standard requires the government to demonstrate that its actions are substantially related to an important governmental interest. The government has failed to meet this standard.”
In its lawsuit, the ACLU described how one woman had her passport returned with a male designation while others are too scared to submit their passports because they fear their applications might be suspended and their passports held by the State Department.
Another mailed in their passport Jan. 9 and requested to change their name and their sex designation from male to female. That person was still waiting for their passport, the ACLU said in the lawsuit, and feared missing a family wedding and a botany conference this year.
In response to the lawsuit, the Trump administration argued that the passport policy change “does not violate the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution.” It also contended that the president has broad discretion in setting passport policy and that plaintiffs would not be harmed since they are still free to travel abroad.
On Thursday, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA) announced the pausing of its transgender youth healthcare program, citing insurmountable pressure from the Trump administration.
In emails reviewed by The Los Angeles Times, the hospital’s Center for Trans Youth began telling its nearly 3,000 patients’ families about its upcoming closure.
“We’re just disappointed and scared and enraged,” stated Maxine, the mother of a current patient, who declined to give her last name for fear of attacks on her son. “The challenge is how we break news to this kid who has had such a positive experience with everybody at Children’s.”
The emails state there was “no viable alternative” that would allow the hospital to continue specialized care.
“There is no doubt that this is a painful and significant change to our organization and a challenge to CHLA’s mission, vision, and values,” hospital executives wrote to staff in a Thursday morning email. The center will close on July 22, and the emails say the decision “follows a lengthy and thorough assessment of the increasingly severe impacts of federal administrative actions and proposed policies.”
Executives have determined that continuing to operate the center would jeopardize the hospital’s ability to care for its hundreds of thousands of patients, noting the continual attacks by federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, Health and Human Services, Medicare and Medicaid Services who have been issuing numerous threats towards doctors and hospitals providing gender-affirming care for trans youth, including threats of prosecution.
“These threats are no longer theoretical,” the note said. “Taken together, the Attorney General memo, HHS review, and the recent solicitation of tips from the FBI to report hospitals and providers of GAC strongly signal this Administration’s intent to take swift and decisive action, both criminal and civil, against any entity it views as being in violation of the executive order.”
The hospital’s Trans Youth Center is among the oldest and largest programs in the country and the only facility to provide puberty blockers and other gender-affirming care for trans youth on public insurance. But because the hospital is significantly more reliant on public funding than other pediatric medical facilities in California, it is particularly vulnerable to the actions and de-funding threats of the Trump administration. The severity is exacerbated even more when taking in account that 40% of pediatric beds in Los Angeles are at this hospital.
“CHLA has a responsibility to navigate this complex and uncertain regulatory environment in a way that allows us to remain open as much as possible for as many as possible,” executives wrote. “In the end, this painful and difficult decision was driven by the need to safeguard CHLA’s ability to operate amid significant external pressures beyond our control.”
This isn’t the first time this year however, that CHLA has announced that it’ll no longer provide gender-affirming services. On February 4, CHLA declared that it would stop providing hormonal therapy to transgender people under 19 in the wake of President Trump’s executive order threatening to cut funding from hospitals treating trans patients under 19.
This decision was met with protests, as hundreds gathered outside the children’s hospital in East Hollywood. The hospital reversed its decision a few weeks later when a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s Executive order.
After that, California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) issued a statement saying the hospital’s cancellation of gender-affirming care violated the state’s Equal Protection laws.
“Let me be clear: California law has not changed, and hospitals and clinics have a legal obligation to provide equal access to healthcare services,” Bonta said.
Bonta has yet to respond to this current attempt to leave thousands of transgender patients without proper healthcare. Activists say this closure sets a dangerous precedent to other hospitals being pressured to cave by the current federal administration.
“CHLA needs to be a leader in this and stand up to the Trump administration, because other hospitals are taking note of what they’re doing,” said Maebe Pudlow, a trans nonbinary activist who helped organize the February protests.
“It feels very conveniently timed when everybody’s focus is on [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] raids happening in Los Angeles,” the activist went on. “I think it’s despicable.”
