As anti-trans laws get more extreme, here's where state laws stand in 2025
Since 2020, every new year has brought a new record of state bills attempting to roll back transgender rights. Most of that legislation has not become law. Even as the sheer volume of bills continues to grow, LGBTQ+ advocates continue to defeat the majority of them. But each year, Republicans introduce more and more bills. And each year, those bills become broader and more extreme, as politicians look for new ways to enforce a binary definition of gender — and that escalation is turning up in the bills that do pass.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is tracking 575 anti-LGBTQ+ state bills so far this year, most of which target transgender people. One hundred and five of those bills have failed and 54 have passed into law. Those newly passed laws include restrictions on trans students' ability to use school restrooms or play school sports, Pride flag bans on government property, gender-affirming care restrictions, and bans on updating personal identity documents like driver's licenses and birth certificates.
Many of these laws define sex in ways that exclude trans and intersex people. Men and boys are defined as people who can produce sperm. Women and girls are defined as people who can produce eggs. Sex is defined in terms of reproductive capacity, with some exceptions for developmental or genetic anomalies that prevent having children. Throughout these different policies, regulating gender is a central goal.
As summer draws near and more state legislative sessions come to an end, The 19th is tracking the emerging trends, firsts and surprises this year as statehouse Republicans brought a record-breaking number of anti-LGBTQ+ bills.
Republicans have become more explicit in trying to create legal distinctions between men and women based on their characteristics at birth — in the name of protecting women's-only spaces or defining what a woman is. Now, 15 states strictly define sex based on reproductive anatomy, chromosomes or hormones. None of these laws were in place prior to 2023, and five of them went into effect this year. These laws exclude trans and nonbinary people from state nondiscrimination protections. They also have the potential to embolden public scrutiny and discrimination of women who don't fit into traditional gender roles.
Nineteen states now ban transgender people from using bathrooms that match their gender identity in various government-owned buildings, including K-12 schools, according to the Movement Advancement Project, which tracks LGBTQ+ policy. Several of the most far-reaching bans, which restrict access to bathrooms in public places like libraries, museums and colleges, were passed this year in states including Montana, South Dakota and Wyoming.
Meanwhile, Republicans in other states want to expand pre-existing policies. This year, Idaho and Arkansas widened the scope of their K-12 bathroom bans to apply to colleges, jails and all government buildings. And while Arkansas had already stopped issuing driver's licenses with an 'X' gender marker in 2024, the state passed a law this year to require that gender be displayed on all licenses. In March, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton argued in a nonbinding opinion that driver's licenses and birth certificates previously updated for transgender Texans via court orders should be reverted back to reflect sex assigned at birth.
Over time, the anti-trans bills that do make it into law are becoming more severe, said Logan Casey, director of policy research at the Movement Advancement Project.
'Especially now with the Trump administration signalling very strongly, throughout the campaign and since inauguration, that attacking transgender people is one of their top priorities, it's no surprise to me that state electeds continue prioritizing this in their own efforts,' Casey said.
This year, Iowa became the first state in the country to completely rescind nondiscrimination protections for trans people. The Iowa Civil Rights Act previously protected trans people against discrimination in employment, housing, credit and lending, public accommodations and education. The law was a lifeline for many people, according to ACLU of Iowa Executive Director Mark Stringer. Now, those protections have been stripped from the state code. They had been in place since 2007 and were endorsed at that time by many Republican lawmakers.
Iowa's new law also bans updates to gender markers on birth certificates and bans schools from teaching students about LGBTQ+ identities from kindergarten through sixth grade. It goes into effect on July 1. This moment was years in the making, according to Keenan Crow, director of policy and advocacy at One Iowa, a statewide LGBTQ+ advocacy organization.
The political environment for trans people in the state has been bad and getting worse, as many Republican moderates have been replaced with extremists who want to embrace culture war issues, Crow said.
'It's escalated from things like the 'don't say gay, don't say trans' stuff and the book bans all the way up to removing an entire class of people from the Civil Rights Act,' they said. 'When I started this job almost 12 years ago, I was really proud of our state. We were one of the first states to add gender identity as a protected class. We were the third state for marriage equality.'
For years, Iowa had been a good place for transgender people to live freely without facing much discrimination or political scrutiny, Crow said. It's no longer that way.
'I wouldn't anymore recommend that trans folks move here because their rights are being eroded, literally, as we speak,' they said.
In Texas, where the legislative session ends on June 2, Republicans introduced a bill that would charge transgender people with a felony if they inform their employer or the government about their gender identity. This bill, which has not advanced through the state legislature, would subject trans people to up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine for the crime of 'gender identity fraud,' according to the Houston news site Chron.
This legislation marks a dramatic escalation of Republican lawmakers' attempts to criminalize being transgender in America. Medical providers in six states face felony charges for providing gender-affirming care to minors, and in two states — Utah and Florida — it is a criminal offense for trans people to use bathrooms that match their gender identity in certain circumstances.
Notably, 2025 has also marked a return of states attempting to overturn marriage equality. As of late April, half a dozen states had introduced bills asking the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, according to the New York Times. Marriage equality, or same-sex marriage, has been viewed as morally acceptable by most Americans for years, per Gallup.
In response to a bill that would ban state spending on gender-affirming care for trans prisoners, Georgia Democrats organized a mass walkout in April. The frustration that fueled their walkout wasn't just about that bill, according to the Associated Press: This year, Republican lawmakers pushed and prioritized anti-trans bills like never before. Those efforts included restricting Medicaid coverage of gender-affirming care and rescinding care for state workers. That bill did not become law, as Georgia's legislative session ended early.
One of the most public signs of Democratic resistance to anti-trans policies played out in Maine, as Gov. Janet Mills challenged President Donald Trump over his executive order threatening federal funding for schools that allow trans girls on girls' teams. When Trump personally threatened to cut state funding if Maine didn't comply with the order, Mills dug in. 'We'll see you in court,' she told Trump during a White House meeting with governors in February.
In response, the Trump administration brought the hammer down: The Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture all opened investigations into Maine's university system and state education department, ProPublica reports. The USDA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration halted funding, while the Social Security Administration briefly canceled contracts. The Justice Department threatened to sue.
All of that political pressure was exerted over two transgender girls competing in school sports, per ProPublica. In early May, the state reached an agreement with the Trump administration to restore some funding for Maine's students to have access to school meals.
There have also been signs of Republican opposition to anti-trans policies this year. In March, as state legislators in Montana considered a bill to allow private citizens to sue drag performers, 13 Republicans flipped their votes following impassioned speeches from Democrats, including trans state Rep. Zooey Zephyr. Without those Republican votes, the bill failed. Another Montana bill, which would allow the state to remove trans kids from their parents' custody if they transition, was defeated after nonbinary state Rep. SJ Howell gave a floor speech in opposition to the bill. Twenty-nine Republicans flipped their votes.
In Wyoming, the Republican governor allowed the state's sex definition bill to become law without his signature — which, he explained in a statement, was due in part to his opposition to how the legislation was drafted.
In his letter to Wyoming's secretary of state, Gov. Mark Gordon said that the law 'oversteps legislative authority and encroaches upon the role of the courts.' Unlike previous bills he signed into law that banned trans people from using bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity, this new law 'has a different agenda,' he wrote — one that he could not put his signature behind. This law 'does not provide clear direction on how it would improve current policies or enforcement, nor does it outline any specific issues it seeks to resolve,' he said.
In May, five Pennsylvania Democrats voted in support of a bill to ban trans girls and women from girls' sports in kindergarten through college. Their breakaway votes reflect a small but growing chorus of Democratic lawmakers ceding ground on trans rights — particularly when it comes to sports — following Trump's re-election.
Some lawmakers, like Democratic state Sen. Paul Sarlo in New Jersey, have plainly said that they believe trans women should be banned from women's sports. Others have spoken more generally — California Gov. Gavin Newsom is one of the most high-profile Democrats to argue that trans women competing in women's sports is 'deeply unfair.' These comments were all made as part of discussions of how Democrats can better appeal to voters.
Joelle Bayaa-Uzuri Espeut of the Normal Anomaly Initiative, one of the nation's leading Black LGBTQ+ nonprofits headquartered in Texas, said that anxiety, uncertainty and confusion are rampant in response to the extreme political attacks seen this year. But trans people are also feeling emboldened to fight back, she said.
'With these extreme bills that are being proposed, trans people and our allies are standing up and stepping up and saying, we won't be erased. We will still be visible, regardless of these proposed bills,' she said.
To Espeut, visibility is an antidote to fear.
'We're being threatened just by making our identity a felony. Visibility is key. Visibility is an act of revolution. It's an act of resistance,' she said. 'It is showing that they are not going to win.'
The post As anti-trans laws get more extreme, here's where state laws stand in 2025 appeared first on The 19th.
News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
26 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump ignites debate on presidential authority with Iran strikes and wins praise from Republicans
The instant divisions in the U.S. Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president's ability to conduct such a consequential action without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. While Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to go it alone, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off,' said Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Advertisement Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional, and demanded more information in a classified setting. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that he received only a 'perfunctory notification' without any details, according to a spokesperson. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in a statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity.' Advertisement House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that Trump 'misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' The quick GOP endorsements of stepped up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump publicly considered the strikes for days and many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party's schism over Iran could complicate the GOP's efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350 billion national security package in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax breaks bill, which is speeding toward votes next week. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,' Wicker posted on X. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune both were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes.' Advertisement Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including some of Trump's most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America's 'forever wars.' Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that 'while President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, also posted on X that 'This is not Constitutional.' 'This is not our fight,' said Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch's constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action. Kaine said the bombings were 'horrible judgment.' 'I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,' Kaine said. Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that 'new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.' 'Then they sent other people's children to fight and die endlessly,' Casar said. 'Enough.'
Bloomberg
41 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Senate Can Keep Ban on State AI Rules in Trump Tax Bill
A Republican effort to block US states from enforcing new artificial intelligence regulations will remain in President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending package for now, marking a win for tech companies pushing to stall and override dozens of AI safety laws across the country. In a surprise decision, Democrats said the Senate parliamentarian ruled the provision aligns with the special budgetary process Republicans are using to consider the tax package. That process allows the GOP to avoid making concessions to Democrats, who otherwise could filibuster legislation.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Senate GOP slashes megabill's tax costs with new accounting method
Tax legislation recently unveiled by Senate Republicans only costs $441 billion when tallied using a novel accounting method requested by the GOP. The new estimate by the Joint Committee on Taxation, which was released late Saturday night, shows how Senate Republicans were able to slash the costs of sweeping tax legislation set to be included in the GOP's sweeping megabill by using a 'current policy baseline' — a never-before-used technique that wipes out the cost of extending existing tax cuts that are set to expire at year's end. The contrast with the traditional method of fiscal scoring, accounting for tax policy as currently enacted into law, is profound: Similar tax legislation that passed the House in May was estimated by JCT to cost $3.8 trillion under the old method. In defending the revised baseline, Republicans have argued that extending current tax law shouldn't be counted as adding to the deficit because the GOP is merely preventing huge tax increases on individuals and businesses around the country. But critics have derided the measure, asserting that it threatens to blow up long-standing budget rules and disguises the cost of the GOP's marquee legislation. 'Extending the Trump tax cuts prevents a $4 trillion tax increase — this is not a change in current tax policy or tax revenue,' said Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) in a statement on Sunday morning. 'This score more accurately reflects reality by measuring the effects of tax policy changes relative to the status quo.' Democrats have requested JCT release a score under the current-law approach. That will 'show the actual cost of the bill,' said Ryan Carey, a spokesperson for Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Finance Democrat. 'Republicans rigged this score with deceptive math designed to hide the true, multi-trillion dollar cost of their proposals, and they wouldn't need to do this at all if their bill actually paid for itself,' Carey said. The new estimate shows the softened math of large tax cuts from those affecting individuals and families to businesses and companies. Extending basic individual tax rates lowered by Trump's 2017 tax bill, for instance, was estimated by JCT to cost around $2.2 trillion in the House-passed bill. In the Senate bill, under the new baseline, a permanent extension and modification of those rates costs only $83 billion. Likewise, an expansion of the Child Tax Credit in the House-passed bill would cost around $800 billion. In the Senate bill, JCT estimates that Senate Republicans' version of expansions to the family credit would cost only $124 billion. In the House bill, a permanent extension of a key deduction for business would cost around $820 billion. Senate Republicans proposal to make the deduction permanent would cost just $6 billion. Senate Republicans also made deviations to the House Republican plan on a number of the proposed tax cuts. The Senate GOP, for instance, dialed back the cost of President Donald Trump's campaign promises to provide tax relief for tips and overtime work by tens of billions of dollars. The GOP accounting gambit is expected to face a challenge from Senate Democrats, who will argue that the novel baseline does not comply with budget rules governing the filibuster-skirting reconciliation process. Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough is expected to weigh in on legality of the provisions in the GOP tax bill this week. But with Republicans intent on passing their megabill on party lines, they have been laying the groundwork to argue they don't need to heed advice from the parliamentarian on the current policy baseline issue and are preparing to potentially override Democrats' objection on the floor with a simple-majority vote. Fiscal hawks in the House will also likely be watching closely. Under a rule in the House budget set by Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.), the amount of tax cuts in the GOP's megabill needs to be offset by a corresponding amount of spending cuts. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has already committed to finding at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. But if the total cost of Senate Republicans' tax bill exceeds $4 trillion under current-law accounting, House Republicans will insist that any further tax cuts will need to be matched dollar-for-dollar by further spending cuts.
