Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

​A pride flag, a bathroom ban, a job change: LGBTQ+ federal workers challenge Trump in court

Multiple current and former federal employees have sued, saying the Trump administration’s executive orders on gender and DEI have made it impossible for them to do their jobs.

News

The back of a person's head, they are holding a small rainbow colored flag.

Over the past year, the administration has faced a number of high-profile lawsuits over the ban on LGBTQ+ pride expression and refusal to let transgender workers use bathrooms that align with their genders.

Calla Kessler/The Washington Post/Getty Images

Sarah O’Neill loved her job as a data scientist at the National Security Agency (NSA).

“The government before last year was what I would consider to be a model employer,” O’Neill said.


She started the job in 2019, two years after she started her transition to living as a woman.

“That wasn’t an issue at all,” she said. “Everybody was supportive.”

Everything changed in January 2025. That’s when President Donald Trump took office for a second term and signed an executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”

The order stated that the federal government would recognize only “male” and “female” genders and that they were unchangeable from birth, denying the existence of transgender people like O’Neill.

O’Neill was informed that she was no longer allowed to use a women’s restroom, and should use one aligned with her biological birth sex.

As a government employee, O’Neill was used to following rules. But this one seemed almost impossible to follow. She found a few single-stall restrooms at work and used those, but O’Neill is a woman. Using a men’s room was not appropriate.

Across the Trump administration, LGBTQ+ federal workers describe being forced to choose between their jobs and their ability to fulfill their most basic human needs.

Shannon Leary, a partner at Gilbert Employment Law, has spent the past 19 years representing federal workers in discrimination lawsuits against the federal government. Such discrimination chips away at a person’s ability to do their job, she said.

“That impacts a person on so many different levels, both personally and professionally,” she said.

There has been a steady stream of those cases across all presidential administrations, Leary said. But something has changed with the advent of the second Trump administration.

“I personally have observed an increase in potential clients reaching out,” Leary said.

It’s unknown how many LGBTQ+ federal workers are suing the Trump administration for alleged discrimination, experts said. That’s because some of the suits are public, while others have been made as confidential complaints. But over the past year, the administration has faced a number of high-profile lawsuits over the ban on LGBTQ+ pride expression and refusal to let transgender workers use bathrooms that align with their genders.

Here are the suits advocates are watching most closely in the courts:

Sarah O’Neill, NSA

O’Neill, the data scientist, is suing her agency, saying the NSA violated Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by denying her existence as a transgender woman and creating a hostile work environment. Agency actions included “cancelling its policy recognizing her identity and right to a workplace free of unlawful harassment, prohibiting her from identifying her pronouns as female in written communications, purging references to transgender people from its materials, and barring her from using the women’s restroom at work,” her complaint alleged.

The agency did not respond to a request to comment on the lawsuit.

LeAnne Withrow, Illinois National Guard

LeAnne Withrow, a transgender woman who serves as the lead military and family readiness specialist for the Illinois National Guard, also enjoyed an accepting workplace until January 2025. Then, following Trump’s executive order, she was told she could no longer use a women’s room, she said.

Withrow has mostly made it work by using a single-stall bathroom close to her office.

“But this past week, for example, I had a two-hour meeting in a building across campus, where I have to badge in, and I’m two floors up,” she said, putting her far from the bathrooms she knew were safe to use. “It’s kind of humiliating in a way. … It feels very much like separate, but also not equal.”

Withrow filed a federal class-action lawsuit in November against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Withrow alleges that Trump’s order violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VII, which prohibits discrimination against transgender workers on the basis of their sex.

OPM did not respond to a request to comment on the lawsuit.

David Maltinsky, FBI

Veteran FBI employee David Maltinsky was undergoing special agent training in Quantico, Virginia, when he received a letter from Director Kash Patel informing him he had been fired for displaying political messages at work, he said.

Maltinsky’s firing came after Trump signed an executive order ending all government diversity, equity and inclusion policies. Months prior, Maltinsky displayed a Pride flag that he had been given by the FBI Los Angeles Field Office. Maltinsky said he had asked multiple supervisors about keeping the flag displayed and been told he was not in violation of a policy.

“My supervisor and I talked, and he agreed, the flag is not violating anything that he sees,” he said. Maltinsky also asked the head attorney for the Los Angeles field office.

“And he also agreed, and he said, this does not violate any FBI policy, rule or regulation.”

When Maltinsky was fired, he filed suit against Patel. A spokesperson for the FBI said in a statement that the agency does not comment on pending litigation.

Danielle Mittereder, TSA

Transportation Security Officer Danielle Mittereder sued the Department of Homeland Security in November after supervisors made her stop doing airport pat-downs because she is transgender. The removal came after Trump’s January 20 executive order declaring two biological sexes. Mittereder alleges that she had excelled in her job and never received complaints until supervisors enacted the order, which also barred her from using bathrooms that aligned with her gender at work.

DHS did not respond to a request to comment.

HRC Foundation, federal health care

The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the educational arm of the nation’s largest LGBTQ+ rights advocacy organization, is in the midst of preparing a class-action lawsuit against OPM for blocking insurance coverage for gender-affirming care ifor federal workers. The foundation says the policy forces employees to choose between their jobs and their health care.

“The Trump administration is weaponizing medical care to push transgender public servants and their families out of their jobs and back into the closet,” Human Rights Campaign Foundation President Kelley Robinson said in a statement. “This policy is textbook discrimination and we will continue to advance this litigation until our federal employees and their families get the respect, care and dignity they deserve.”

OPM did not respond to a request to comment on the suit.


Kate Sosin reports on LGBTQ+ issues for The 19th.

A Pride Flag, a Bathroom Ban, a Job Change: LGBTQ+ Federal Workers Challenge Trump in Court was originally published by The 19th and is republished with permission.


Read More

​Thomas Albus.

Thomas Albus speaks at a press conference in 2019.

Hillary Levin/Post Dispatch/Polaris

What Meetings Among Trump Lawyers Reveal About the FBI’s Seizure of Election Records in Georgia

The Missouri prosecutor overseeing an investigation into the 2020 vote in Fulton County, Georgia, has taken part in meetings since last fall with lawyers tasked by President Donald Trump to reinvestigate his loss to Joe Biden.

Thomas Albus, whom Trump appointed last year as U.S. attorney for Missouri’s Eastern District, has had multiple meetings set up with top administration lawyers to discuss election integrity.

Keep Reading Show less
A computer mouse's digital clicker hovering above the image of a gavel.

Administrative subpoenas aren’t new—but in a data-driven world, they can expose identity and chill speech. A deep dive into history, Supreme Court doctrine, and modern risks.

Getty Images, J Studios

Administrative Subpoenas: Old Tool, New Risks

The tool people think is new (and isn’t)

Most people assume administrative subpoenas are a relatively new federal instrument—something that took off after 9/11 or emerged as a modern bureaucratic hack. The truth is they’re rooted in the late nineteenth-century rise of federal regulation, when Congress created agencies tasked with investigating industries shaping national life.

In 1887, the Interstate Commerce Act created the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to regulate railroads and investigate abuses. To give the Commission investigatory teeth, Congress authorized it to demand the books, papers, and testimony needed to examine discriminatory practices, alleged safety violations, and other infractions. This early template still defines the tool: agencies can compel information without a judge’s signature upfront. Which is backed, if necessary, by court enforcement if the recipient refuses.

Keep Reading Show less
Person holding a sign that reads, "Get ICE out of our cities."

Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-OR) joins the Congressional Hispanic Caucus rally outside of the ICE Headquarters on February 03, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Heather Diehl

Democrats’ Demands for ICE Reform

After the killing of two Minneapolis citizens by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers in January, Democrats refused to approve further funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) without new reforms. As a result, starting on February 14, no funding has been available for most DHS agencies: TSA, FEMA, CISA, and Coast Guard employees have either been furloughed or are required to work without paychecks (although backpay is expected).

ICE and CBP were given enough funding by last year's so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act to continue operations essentially indefinitely in the wake of a shutdown, leaving the rest of DHS as the only leverage Democrats have left.

Keep Reading Show less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep Reading Show less