Before you read the rest of this column, repeat after me: “Executive orders are not themselves law. Executive orders are not themselves law. Executive orders are not themselves law.” 

There. Now that you’ve said that (and hopefully taken some deep breaths), here is what you need to know about this administration’s executive orders. First, what are executive orders? They are written directives from the President ordering the federal government to take specific actions. And alas, while executive orders are not themselves law, they can still affect our lives.

As of June 13, the President has signed six executive orders very directly affecting the LGBTQ+ community. He began with several executive orders issued on this first day of his presidency: One repealing many executive orders issued under the Biden Administration protecting LGBTQ+ equity; another defining sex as “immutable binary biological classification and remove recognition of the concept of gender identity, including in sex protections and in agency operations;” another ending government equity and inclusion activities, including LGBTQ+ inclusion. After this first blast, he also signed two other anti-LGBTQ+ executive orders in January: One directing federal agencies to work toward significantly limiting access to gender-affirming care for those under age 19, and another directing agencies to refuse to fund or support “gender ideology or discriminatory equity ideology.” He also issued an executive order urging federal agencies to withhold federal funding for educational institutions that allow transgender women and girls to participate in women’s sports.

These executive orders have indeed led to federal agencies taking specific actions. For example, the executive order ending government equity and inclusion activities has led to the loss of federal funding for scientists studying the health of LGBTQ+ populations, loss of federal funding for the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program to cover certain gender-affirming care services as a part of whole person care to HIV+ transgender people, and potential loss of federal funding to hospitals that provide gender-affirming medical care for those under 19. It has also led the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to propose a rule to prohibit insurers from covering gender-affirming care as an essential health benefit beginning in 2026, and to issue a letter to state Medicaid agencies encouraging them to take steps to limit gender-affirming care for youth within their states. Finally, the executive orders have led the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a notice that it does not consider transgender discrimination a form of discrimination on the basis of disability sufficient to warrant loss of federal funding. And it has led to the U.S. State Department to ban the use of the “X” gender marker for passports.

The executive orders have also been implemented by the U.S. Department of Justice. For example, it filed a letter to the U.S. Supreme Court informing the Court that the administration is now supporting Tennessee in the Supreme Court case of United States v. Skrmetti (more later on this case in a future column because at the time of the writing, the decision had not yet been issued), where a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors is being challenged. And the U.S. Bureau of Prisons has established new policies prohibiting access to gender-affirming care for transgender people in federal prisons.

These are just a few examples. And federal agencies are also taking specific, more on-the-ground actions as a result of these executive orders, such as removal of information from websites as well as withholding of specific grant funds for hospitals, universities, and nonprofits. Yes, it’s a lot.

But! Ongoing lawsuits are already challenging many of these actions, either the broader actions described earlier, or the more specific actions taken by the agencies. And many of them are already succeeding. For example, multiple federal courts have already issued temporary restraining orders against agencies removing gender-affirming best practice guidance from their websites and against agencies refusing to provide funding to entities either providing gender-affirming medical care to patients under the age of 19 or communications supporting transgender equity. And a federal court has temporarily blocked the State Department from banning the use of the “X” marker for passports. And on June 16, a Reagan-appointed district court judge ruled that the Trump administration’s termination of hundreds of grants by the National Institutes of Health was “void and illegal,” stating that, “This represents racial discrimination, and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community.” Brave plaintiffs and organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, and the Transgender Law Center are leading the way.

These are absolutely tough times for us, but the LGBTQ+ community has been through so much already. We must stand strong together, by providing comfort and mutual aid to each other, as well as support for organizations that are fighting these legal battles.