Northwestern University’s Deal with the Trump Administration is the Most Transphobic Yet

When it comes to trans people, Northwestern's agreement with Trump goes way further than those made by other schools. And it sets the standard moving forward.

The Northwestern University Arch | Image: Wikimedia Commons

Yesterday, it was announced that Northwestern University—after facing significant federal pressure over what President Trump alleges constitutes antisemitism on campus—had struck a deal with the Trump administration in order to restore its federal funding. In doing so, it became the latest high-profile academic institution to give in to Trump’s demands, joining schools like Brown, Columbia, Cornell, and the University of Pennsylvania. Similar to the government’s agreements with other schools, Northwestern will pay a $75 million fine, cut DEI programs, clamp down on campus protests, and review its “international admissions practices and policies for international students.”

But there’s more. Northwestern, like other schools, has agreed to make changes to its policies surrounding trans students, but this time, these concessions have gone much further. First, there’s gender-affirming care for minors. Earlier this month, Transitics reported that Northwestern Medicine—which has over 200 locations in northern Illinois—had quietly stopped providing gender-affirming care for trans patients under 19 (as demanded by Executive Order 14187), and, quite expectedly, this agreement has now codified that policy.

However, that’s not all Northwestern has agreed to when it comes to this issue. As part of this deal, Northwestern must “revise all policies, protocols, and public-facing materials” to reflect the federal government’s position on gender-affirming care. Taken at face value, this statement is quite clear: not only can Northwestern not provide gender-affirming care to minors, but it also can’t defend the treatment either.

This isn’t exactly surprising. Since Trump entered office, the federal government has worked tirelessly to discredit gender-affirming care for minors, and last week, it even published its own “comprehensive review” of treatment standards for transgender youth. Under this provision, there will be one less voice to discredit these efforts. While this might not be significant on its own, its potential inclusion in future agreements with other schools and organisations can certainly threaten the scientific support for gender-affirming care. Put bluntly, this marks a grave escalation in intellectual attacks on transgender healthcare.

The school has also made significant concessions surrounding trans bathroom use. As part of its agreement, Northwestern has agreed to abide by the DOJ’s memo titled “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination.” This document, released in July, aims to weaponise Title IX against the trans community and asserts that “failing to maintain sex-separated (using ‘sex’ as it was defined in Executive Order 14168) athletic competitions and intimate spaces can also violate federal law.”

Make no mistake: the Trump administration is attempting to enforce a nationwide bathroom ban, and Northwestern is just the latest to agree to it. In fact, a few weeks ago, compliance with the DOJ memo was the only anti-trans provision found within Cornell’s deal. And in July, Brown also agreed to something similar, saying it would “offer women the option of female-only housing, restrooms, and showering facilities, and for these purposes will adopt the above mentioned definitions of ‘male’ and ‘female.’”

However, as Brown soon found out, this runs into a problem: the law. Illinois, New York, and Rhode Island are all states with gender identity discrimination protections for public accommodations, and this protects bathroom access. Shortly after signing the agreement, threats of legal action forced Brown to walk back its new bathroom policy, and with good reason. This all boils down to the fact that compliance with Title IX isn’t actually mandatory, as only when receiving federal funds does Title IX apply. Conversely, state discrimination protections are not optional, and as such, when presented with a Title IX interpretation that conflicts with state law, state law will win out.

The Trump administration certainly knows this, and this likely explains why Brown has not been threatened further even though it is technically violating the agreement it made. Under precedent established in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), cutting off all funding isn’t an incentive; it’s a “gun to the head” and illegally coercive. As such, forcing a school to choose between either following the law or losing its funding is considerably vulnerable, and if challenged, Trump’s ability to attack colleges may go with it.

That said, the Trump administration gets bolder with every new capitulation. For all intents and purposes, this deal represents the new minimum that other colleges will have to agree to, and that’s a problem. Because these restrictions on science won’t stop at gender-affirming care, this weaponisation of Title IX won’t stop at trans women, and these attacks on the freedom to protest won’t stop at college campuses. Only colleges can decide when enough is enough.