In a move that has ignited intense debate among legal experts, human rights advocates, and prison reform organizations, President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order prohibiting transgender women—classified under the order as “biological males”—from being housed in federal women’s prisons. The order also bans the use of federal funds for any form of gender transition procedures, medications, or other treatments within federal detention facilities. Additionally, it mandates that all government documents adhere strictly to two sexes, male and female, effectively removing non-binary gender markers.
According to data from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), 1,538 individuals currently housed in federal women’s prisons are transgender women—approximately 15 percent of the total female prison population of 10,047. Under this executive action, those inmates will be transferred to men’s facilities, though the precise timeline and logistics remain unclear.
Background and Scope of the Order
The text of the executive order highlights President Trump’s directive to eliminate any federal policies that previously allowed transgender women to be placed in women’s facilities. The president’s directive also overrides existing protocols that permitted transgender women to be sheltered in women’s domestic violence centers. Citing safety concerns for women, the administration argues that housing transgender women in female facilities is an inherent risk—though critics dispute these claims, pointing out that such an approach can endanger transgender inmates themselves.
The order further specifies that, “No Federal funds are to be expended for any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex.” Civil rights groups note that this language could prevent incarcerated transgender individuals from accessing essential health care such as hormone therapies and gender-affirming treatments, services many have been receiving for years.
Additionally, the order mandates amendments to the federal regulations implementing the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003, requiring that “males” not be housed in women’s facilities under any circumstances. Critics argue that this undermines specific guidelines set forth in PREA, which stipulate that prison officials must take into account the views and safety concerns of transgender inmates before assigning them to a facility.
Reactions and Legal Challenges
Supporters of the executive order, including the Independent Women’s Forum, praise what they describe as a long-overdue measure to protect the “integrity of women’s spaces.” They view the order as a necessary response to several high-profile incidents involving transgender women in women’s prisons, including reports of sexual assault against female inmates.
Conversely, civil rights and LGBTQ+ organizations have swiftly condemned the order. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) issued a statement calling the move “an attempt to erase transgender individuals under federal law,” while Lambda Legal and other advocacy groups have indicated they plan to challenge the directive in court. Many argue that classifying all transgender women as “biological males” is oversimplified and fails to acknowledge the heightened risks these individuals face in men’s facilities.
The criticism centers on the vulnerabilities transgender inmates experience behind bars. Multiple studies have concluded that transgender women, when housed in men’s prisons, face alarmingly high rates of sexual assault. According to federal data, incarcerated transgender people are roughly ten times more likely to be sexually victimized than cisgender inmates. Advocates like Julie Abbate, the national advocacy director at Just Detention International, warn that “people will die” because removing PREA provisions specifically designed to protect transgender inmates leaves them exposed to extortion, violence, and abuse.
The Role of PREA and Potential Implications
PREA was unanimously passed by Congress in 2003 to address sexual violence in detention facilities and ensure the safety of especially vulnerable populations. In 2012, additional guidelines instructed officials to make housing decisions for transgender or intersex inmates on a case-by-case basis, giving “serious consideration” to an inmate’s view on where they would be safest. Under Trump’s new mandate, those individualized considerations are effectively replaced by a broad prohibition against placing transgender women in women’s facilities.
Detractors of the executive order argue that it disregards the original spirit of PREA, which recognized the disproportionate threats faced by LGBTQI inmates. They also point out that the existing system already makes it exceedingly difficult for incarcerated transgender people to be housed in facilities matching their gender identity. In practice, critics say, only a small fraction of transgender women in federal custody were ever placed in women’s prisons, with most being assigned to men’s units. They argue that this new rule institutionalizes this practice nationwide, effectively codifying a uniform approach.
Concerns for Transgender Inmates
While the administration contends that transferring transgender women out of women’s prisons is necessary to protect cisgender female inmates, the policy’s opponents warn it imposes a significant risk on transgender inmates. Many fear the move will lead to increased rates of violence, sexual assault, and mental health crises in male facilities. Health care providers, legal experts, and advocates for prison reform worry that removing gender-affirming treatments in prisons may also lead to negative health outcomes for transgender inmates who have relied on these services, including hormone therapy, for years.
For those in the transgender community, the new order feels like a direct attack not only on their dignity but also on their personal safety. Although the measure does not explicitly address trans men housed in men’s prisons, the implications for transgender people across the federal system are significant, as the order effectively cements rigid interpretations of sex and erodes past protections.
The Bottom Line
As federal agencies scramble to comply with the order, court challenges are almost certain. Advocacy groups have vowed to file lawsuits asserting that the executive action violates constitutional protections and existing anti-discrimination laws. Legal experts anticipate a lengthy battle over whether the president’s directive oversteps federal statutes aimed at preventing sexual violence and ensures equal treatment of vulnerable populations.
For now, incarcerated transgender women face uncertainty as they confront new risks and diminishing health care resources. While supporters of the order see it as a means to protect cisgender women, many believe the policy disregards the lived reality of transgender inmates. It remains to be seen how quickly, and on what scale, these new rules will be enforced—or whether they will survive the intense legal scrutiny already beginning to form.
