Trump's Executive Order on Sex and Gender

Implications for Georgetown and beyond

On January 20, 2025, just hours after his inauguration, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” (“Defending Women”). The order mandates that federal agencies recognize only two sexes–male and female–based on “immutable classification,” excluding gender identity from legal and policy considerations. The order purports to protect women from men self-identifying as women who intrude on “intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women.”

The order directs federal agencies to enforce binary definitions of sex across all documents and communications, remove existing promoting gender ideology, prohibit the use of federal funds for such initiatives, and require that all single-sex spaces be designated strictly by biological sex rather than gender identity.

How might this executive order impact society and the Georgetown community? The effects of this executive order are already being felt within the Georgetown LGBTQ+ community. GU Pride, a central hub for LGBTQIA+ students, expressed concerns that the order could intensify social and institutional barriers. By enforcing binary sex classifications, the order could force transgender individuals to disclose their identities in everyday situations, such as at the DMV, emergency rooms, voting centers, traffic stops, and banks – potentially exposing them to discrimination and harassment. “Our civil protections are being eroded,” the organization added, emphasizing that growing legal and social restrictions further discourage closeted transgender students from living authentically and create additional obstacles for those already struggling to find acceptance and security.

For some students, the order has also reshaped their career aspirations, particularly for those considering federal government jobs. GU Pride noted that the order, along with other recent measures, signals a workplace environment increasingly hostile to LGBTIA+ employees, making them feel unsafe pursuing public-sector careers.

Legal Implications and Feasibility

Professor Tricia Hoefling, who teaches courses on gender, law, and the Constitution at the Georgetown capitol campus and in the Women and Gender Studies Program, offers insights into the order’s legal viability.

“Executive orders do not always have the force of law” but can signal an administration’s priorities, Hoefling explained. A key legal question revolves around Section 3(f) of the order, which directs the Attorney General to counter the application of Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) – a Supreme Court decision that ruled LGBTQ+ employment discrimination falls under the “sex” discrimination under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, the administration’s attempt to reinterpret federal law through executive order may face legal challenges.

“Historically, the courts have given great deference to the executive branch’s interpretations of the law, which changed last year with the Loper case,” Hoefling noted. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) allowed federal courts greater authority to review and reject agency interpretations. While the Trump administration can articulate its interpretation, the courts are not bound to follow it.

Impact on States and Schools

The order’s effects on the state policies will vary. While states often look to federal guidelines for direction, they are generally not required to adopt them. However, they are constitutionally bound to comply with Supreme Court rulings, which have the potential to limit or expand the order’s reach.

A key case to watch is the United States v. Skrmetti, currently before the Supreme Court. The case examines whether bans on transgender medical procedures for minors violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Its outcomes will likely shape future legal battles over transgender rights by signaling which direction the Supreme Court’s stance on the issue and whether it will take action to protect transgender rights. Civil rights organizations, including the ACLU and National Urban League, have already filed lawsuits challenging the order “Defending Women,” through which we can further see the Court’s approach and feeling of the issue.

Effects on Georgetown University

While Georgetown does not have an official record of self-identified transgender athletes, national sports organizations and schools have begun shifting policies on trans athletes in response to the order. Specifically, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) revised their stance on transgender athlete participation, publishing a statement that a student athlete assigned male at birth may not compete on an NCAA women’s team, while no formal regulation has been set for participation on NCAA men’s teams.

The order’s provision enforcing single-sex bathrooms raises concerns about campus facilities. Georgetown has all-gender restrooms across its Hilltop and Capitol campuses, but it remains uncertain whether federal enforcement will impact these spaces. While higher education institutions are less likely to face immediate scrutiny, K-12 school districts–such as Denver Public Schools–have already been targeted for investigation over restroom policies.

A more direct impact on Georgetown could come through federal research funding. The university receives grants from the Department of Education, Department of State, and Department of Defense, among others. Although individual students’ gender identities are unlikely to affect financial aid eligibility, research on LGBTQ+ and gender-related topics could face funding cuts if they are considered to “promote gender ideology.” As Georgetown grants do not primarily come from federal grants, the extent of the impact of this aspect of the order remains unclear, though budget cuts in certain fields are possible

Despite these challenges, Georgetown is expected to uphold its Jesuit values, including cura personalis – care for the whole person – by keeping diversity requirements and commitment to diversity and inclusion.

Professor Hoefling emphasized that while the order introduces uncertainty, it does not override Supreme Court precedents, such as protections for transgender employees under Bostock. However, it underscores the administration’s ideological stances on gender and may portend future actions in pursuit of the goal. “This order is intended to create confusion and… reinforce traditional gender norms,” Hoefling said. “But courts will hold the Trump administration accountable if they try to act outside the law.”

She also expressed optimism about the public response, drawing parallels to the aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), which overturned Roe v. Wade (1973). After Dobbs, citizen-led ballot initiatives in 10 to 11 states resulted in strong protections for abortion rights, with more than three-quarters of them deciding to keep abortion rights. “I believe people will step up to protect transgender rights and women’s rights.”

As legal battles unfold, the full ramifications of the executive order on the Georgetown community and American society remain uncertain. However, its impact on federal policy, education, and civil rights is already taking shape, setting the stage for a debate on gender identity and legal recognition in the US.