In a ruling that instantly inflamed the ongoing battle over transgender policies in the federal system, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth has temporarily derailed a key part of President Donald Trump’s agenda: halting taxpayer-funded transgender procedures for federal inmates.
With the stroke of a pen, Lamberth not only froze the executive order but also transformed a narrow lawsuit involving three individuals into a class-action case now representing over 1,000 transgender-identifying prisoners.
The ruling arrives as the Trump administration moves decisively to reassert biological sex as the legal and policy standard across federal agencies.
Trump’s January executive order was crystal clear: the federal government would recognize only two genders, and taxpayer dollars would not be used to fund surgeries, hormones, or gender-affirming clothing for inmates in the federal prison system. The Bureau of Prisons was directed to fall in line, immediately.
But Judge Lamberth’s 36-page opinion offered a different view—one rooted in procedural objections and allegations of harm. He wrote that the Bureau of Prisons and the administration provided no “serious explanation” for treating gender-related interventions differently than other psychological treatments.
The court went even further, criticizing what it called a “thin record” behind the executive order, suggesting the administration didn’t thoroughly consider the effects of these policy changes on inmates before implementation.
It’s a classic move by a federal judge to issue a ruling with sweeping national implications based on a narrow case, and it fits into a broader pattern. Opponents of Trump’s agenda have repeatedly used the courts to stall or block executive actions—whether it’s immigration policy, environmental deregulation, or, in this case, transgender medical coverage in prison.
The Trump administration swiftly responded, slamming the ruling as a judicial overreach and a threat to both public safety and biological reality.
“The decision allowing transgender women, aka MEN, in women’s prisons fundamentally makes women less safe,” the White House said in a statement. It reiterated the administration’s stance: gender is biological, immutable, and foundational to a coherent legal system.
Critics of the ruling argue that the court is effectively mandating that the American taxpayer foot the bill for deeply controversial procedures, many of which the broader medical and legal communities are still debating. And they point out the deeper issue at play: whether unelected judges should have the power to override elected officials on deeply divisive cultural issues under the banner of procedural technicalities.
