This Week, There’s Been A Massive Escalation In Republicans’ Anti-Trans Rhetoric. Here’s Everything That’s Been Said, Explained.

Breaking down this week's attacks against the trans community.

Ever since Charlie Kirk was shot and killed last week, conservatives have sought to place blame onto the trans community. But in the past few days, this rhetoric has gone from baseless anger to calls for action, with prominent right-wing figures floating increasingly extremist proposals for dealing with the ‘transgender threat.’ While some of these ideas are inconsequential, others certainly strike fear.

So, I’d like to take a moment to look at each headline individually, starting with Monday's news of a Michigan bill that seeks to ban all online depictions of trans people and ending with today’s news of the Trump administration’s Supreme Court appeal against the injunction blocking the trans passport ban.

HB 4938 Shall Not Pass

Introduced last week, Michigan Republican Josh Schriver’s House Bill 4938 is a continuation of the rhetoric that fueled drag bans. At its core, this bill aims to ban all online depictions of pornography, but it takes one noticeable liberty: buried in its definition of the term is the inclusion of, to paraphrase, ‘any depiction that includes a disconnection between biology and gender by an individual of 1 biological sex depicting themself to be of the other biological sex.’ While it wouldn’t ban trans people from public life like drag bans try to do, it would seek to ban all online depictions of trans people in any context. This definition is so vague that a search engine showing pictures of actress Hunter Schafer would be punishable by up to 20 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $100,000.

Thankfully, this bill stands little chance at passage. Even if it makes it past the GOP-controlled Michigan House (which seems unlikely due to the extreme nature of the bill), it would still need to pass the Democratic Senate before heading to Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s desk. But while this bill is most certainly dead on arrival, the same cannot be said for the ideas that fuel it. For a few years, Republicans have been peddling the narrative that trans people are pornographic, and bills like this are the natural conclusion of their efforts. Regardless of its fate, this bill will not be the last of its kind. Will one like it ever pass? It’s hard to say. For now though, the threat isn’t too significant.

A Pride Flag Ban?

On Tuesday, Trump appeared to endorse the idea that pride flags should be banned due to being symbols of domestic terrorism. Of course, this would be legally complicated, which even Trump himself acknowledged, but that doesn’t necessarily stop him from trying it. In his words, he knows he’d be sued if he did it, but he’s ‘been sued before a couple of times.’ It’s worth noting, as I mentioned in my coverage of this, any ban like this wouldn’t work. Setting the 1st Amendment aside (which is already a massive ask), domestic terrorism is not a standalone charge but an aggravating factor that is used to increase sentences for those that have committed other crimes.

Because displaying a flag is not a crime, there exists no legal framework that can make this ban enforceable. Rather, designating pride flags as symbols of domestic terrorism would merely allow Trump to threaten the funding of institutions—like universities and hospitals—that permit people to fly them. However, considering that burning the American flag has been found to be constitutionally protected, it’s unknown how long this hypothetical ban would last if attempted.

Like many of the other things Trump says, this one seems to be nothing more than empty words. I’d be surprised if this is mentioned again.

House Republicans Float Involuntary Commitment of Trans People

On Wednesday, Erin Reed broke the story that two Republicans, South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace and Texas Rep. Ronny Jackson, called for the mass involuntary institutionalisation of trans people. While these are just two Republicans, this marks a massive escalation in rhetoric, leaning on the idea that transgender individuals are ‘mentally ill’ and not fit for public life. Rep. Jackson went on to justify his statement, saying that ‘the reason we don’t allow [trans people] in the military’ is ‘because they have psychiatric issues.’

It’s worth noting that this is categorically false. This is a fundamentally different argument than the one that was presented before (and upheld by) the Supreme Court when it allowed Trump’s ban on transgender troops to go into effect. In that scenario, the court found that the military can choose which health conditions are disqualifying, but here, the presence of a gender dysphoria diagnosis would be used to completely restrict someone’s liberty against their will. In cases like that, the burden of proof is much higher.

Thankfully, involuntary commitment is not something that is controlled at the federal level. Under our system, the states set their own rules for involuntary commitment, but in all cases, this involves a medical evaluation that finds a person either presents a clear and present danger to themselves or others or that their condition is debilitating enough to inhibit their basic function (eating, sleeping, taking necessary medication, etc.). Should a court involuntarily commit a person, this can be for no longer than 90 days (180 days in Colorado and Tennessee) at a time before needing to be renewed.

Because this process requires medical evaluation, it is much harder to politicise. Medical standards would need to change, which hasn’t even happened amid attacks against gender-affirming care for minors. But make no mistake: calls like Nancy Mace’s and Ronny Jackson’s are dangerous. They threaten to normalise the view that we present a danger to ourselves, a view that can be weaponised by Republican states to justify total bans on gender-affirming care.

So while this rhetoric may never achieve the mass involuntary commitment it endorses, the ideas it perpetuates can still be more destructive than anything else we’ve seen. Although we’re not at that point yet, this is certainly a warning sign we can’t afford to take lightly.

Republicans Attempt to Legitimise Their Concept of ‘Transgender Terrorism’

Yesterday evening, independent journalist Ken Klippenstein uncovered a plan by the FBI to designate trans people as a subcategory of ‘Nihilistic Violent Extremists,’ or NVEs. Well, yes and no. While it’s true that the FBI is planning on creating a label for trans people under the NVE category, that label would only apply to trans suspects. In other words, a person that fits into the ‘trans NVE’ label is someone who has already committed a crime and happens to be trans. And like I discussed with domestic terrorism above, this term can only be used as an aggravating factor.

So although it won’t establish any new crimes, it will mean that a trans person will most likely receive a worse sentence than a cis person who committed the same crime when the crime is violent and found to be politically motivated. And it’s important to point out that the federal government still employs capital punishment, which is only handed out when aggravating factors, like being an NVE, are present.

Additionally, it will allow the FBI to harass those even vaguely associated with the trans suspects it places under this label, much like we’ve seen with the deep investigation into the people in Tyler Robinson’s personal life. Putting this together, if the FBI investigates a trans person connected to a suspect (which, again, they will do at higher rates if the suspect is trans), they will be harassed at much higher rates than a cis person connected to the suspect.

Of course, the primary purpose of all this is intimidation. It would allow the FBI to intimidate trans people whether or not they have reason to, and it will automatically categorise the crimes committed by trans people as more heinous. In doing so, the idea that the trans community is inherently violent will be legitimised not just in conservative rhetoric but in the law. Because if this is implemented, the term ‘transgender extremist’ will have gone from being a right-wing media dog whistle to being used in the courtroom.

And yet, there’s another part to this story. At the same time as this story broke, the Heritage Foundation—the conservative think tank responsible for Project 2025—was busy releasing their alternative for how the FBI should handle trans people: ‘Transgender Ideology-inspired Violence and Extremism (TIVE).’ Unlike the NVE designation that only applies to suspects of violent crimes, this term encompasses anyone who believes opposition to transgender rights is in any way harmful to trans people.

While this isn’t currently being actively discussed within the FBI, it’s certainly a threat given that the Heritage Foundation has deep ties to the current administration. And because its definition is so broad, the vast majority of hypothetical TIVEs will actually be our allies. So should this become policy, it will be tantamount to thought policing. Moreover, if it’s attempted and found to be unconstitutional, that ruling can only come after at least one person is harmed enough by the policy.

However, because the FBI is already unsure of how it will implement the proposed NVE classification, it’s unclear how possible the current form of the Heritage Foundation’s idea even is. Its highly questionable legality combined with the FBI being understaffed and underfunded means it isn’t exactly feasible. Despite this, the mere fact it’s been proposed means we must stay vigilant.

Trans Passport Case Reaches the Supreme Court

Finally, there’s the Trump administration’s appeal in Orr v. Trump. This move comes after the 1st Appeals Court issued a ruling upholding the injunction blocking Trump’s policy banning gender marker changes for passports earlier this month. Interestingly, until now, the Trump administration hadn’t really shown much of a willingness to fight this case. Their appeals were sluggish, and there was no real significance placed on this policy when it first started. So, it shouldn’t be a coincidence that this appeal came amid the drastic escalation in anti-trans rhetoric that has engulfed the right since Charlie Kirk’s shooting.

As I said when the injunction was upheld, unlike other trans-related lawsuits that have come before the Supreme Court, this one appears to have a fighting chance. Its most potent argument doesn’t rely on a liberal interpretation of the 14th Amendment but on the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires a 60-day public comment period for policy changes, which was ignored when the current administration rushed this policy through the day of Trump’s inauguration.

Even amid its right-wing turn, the Supreme Court has appeared to remain consistent when it comes to procedural arguments. Last month, the Supreme Court declined to stay a ruling blocking the NIH from enforcing its research cuts, a case that mainly concerns the APA. And just last week, an appeal from South Carolina over an injunction on its trans bathroom ban was denied in a 6–3 decision.

Going by previous cases, expect to see a decision on this appeal sometime in the next two weeks. Until then, all we can do is wait.