LGBTQ rights in the United States

{{Main|Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States}}File:Capital_Pride_Parade_DC_2014_(14208636468).jpg, Washington, DC (2014)]] Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States has changed significantly since the late 1980s; by the early 2020s, an overwhelming majority of Americans approved of the legality of these marriages. Younger people are more likely to express support.{{Cite web |last=Lopez |first=German |date=June 26, 2015 |title=Same-sex marriage in the US, explained |url=https://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/18093652/same-sex-marriage |access-date=March 1, 2023 |website=Vox |language=en |archive-date=March 1, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230301080118/https://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/18093652/same-sex-marriage |url-status=live}}

From 1988 to 2009, support for recognized same-sex marriage increased between 1% and 1.5% per year,{{cite web |date=May 19, 2016 |title=Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage Appears to Shift at Accelerated Pace |url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/opinion-on-same-sex-marriage-appears-to/ |website=FiveThirtyEight |access-date=March 7, 2023 |archive-date=June 2, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200602204325/https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/opinion-on-same-sex-marriage-appears-to/ |url-status=live}} and accelerated thereafter, rising above 50% in Pew Research Center polling for the first time in 2011.{{cite web |date=July 29, 2015 |title=Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage |url=http://features.pewforum.org/same-sex-marriage-attitudes/index.php |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131127171658/http://features.pewforum.org/same-sex-marriage-attitudes/index.php |archive-date=November 27, 2013 |access-date=October 8, 2015 |work=Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project}} Furthermore, a 2012 Gallup poll found 61% support for allowing gay and lesbian individuals to adopt children.{{cite news |date=December 12, 2012 |title=Americans Favor Rights for Gays, Lesbians to Inherit, Adopt |url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/159272/americans-favor-rights-gays-lesbians-inherit-adopt.aspx |access-date=January 25, 2014 |work=Gallup |archive-date=July 12, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170712033750/http://www.gallup.com/poll/159272/americans-favor-rights-gays-lesbians-inherit-adopt.aspx |url-status=live}}

"The transformation of America's response to homosexuality", Jeremiah Garretson wrote in 2018, "has been — and continues to be — one of the most rapid and sustained shifts in mass attitudes since the start of public polling."

A 2021 Public Religion Research Institute poll about legal recognition of same-sex marriage found majority support (defined as at least 50% support) in 47 states, ranging from 50% in South Carolina to 85% in Massachusetts. A 48th state, Alabama, had plurality support (defined as more supporters than opponents, with neither side reaching 50%). Only Arkansas and Mississippi had majority opposition. When PRRI repeated the poll in 2022 and 2023, no state had majority opposition.{{Cite web |title=PRRI – American Values Atlas |url=https://ava.prri.org/#lgbt/2021/States/lgbt_ssm/2,3,9 |access-date=October 8, 2024 |website=ava.prri.org |archive-date=April 4, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170404161714/https://ava.prri.org/#lgbt/2021/States/lgbt_ssm/2,3,9 |url-status=live}} A 2022 Quinnipiac University poll found 68% support nationwide.{{Cite web |last=Staff |date=December 14, 2022 |title=Lowest Opinion Of Trump Among Voters In Seven Years, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Biden Approval Rating Climbs {{!}} Quinnipiac University Poll |url=https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3863 |access-date=December 15, 2022 |website=Quinnipiac University |language=en}} Gallup's 2022 and 2023 nationwide polls found 71% support; however, in 2024, this support decreased to 69%.{{Cite web |last=Brenan |first=Megan |date=2024-06-24 |title=Same-Sex Relations, Marriage Still Supported by Most in U.S. |url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/646202/sex-relations-marriage-supported.aspx |access-date=2024-10-08 |website=Gallup.com |language=en}}

In 2024, the PRRI found that the support for same-sex marriage and for LGBT discrimination protections in US states is inversely correlated with the support for Christian nationalism.{{Cite web |date=2024-03-12 |title=Views on LGBTQ Rights in All 50 States: Findings from PRRI’s 2023 American Values Atlas |url=https://www.prri.org/research/views-on-lgbtq-rights-in-all-50-states/ |access-date=2025-05-27 |website=PRRI |language=en-US}}

{{Main|Sodomy laws in the United States}}

{{See also|Crime against nature|Ages of consent in North America#United States}}

[[File:Decriminalization of same-sex sexual intercourse in the United States.svg|thumb|upright=1.3|Decriminalization of same-sex sexual intercourse in the United States{{div col|colwidth=7em}}

{{legend|Black|1962}}{{legend|MidnightBlue|1971}}{{legend|MediumBlue|1972}}{{legend|RoyalBlue|1973}}{{legend|SteelBlue|1974}}{{legend|CornflowerBlue|1975}}{{legend|DeepSkyBlue|1976}}{{legend|LightSkyBlue|1977}}{{legend|LightBlue|1978}}{{legend|PowderBlue|1979}}{{legend|#b9d7ff|1980}}{{legend|Green|1983}}{{legend|Lime|1985}}{{legend|#800000|1992}}{{legend|#aa0000|1993}}{{legend|#d40000|1996}}{{legend|Red|1997}}{{legend|#e27f90|1998}}{{legend|#f2b3be|1999}}{{legend|#fc0|2001}}{{legend|#ebeb14|2003}}{{div col end}}]]

On June 26, 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that intimate consensual sexual conduct is part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, explicitly overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, a 1986 decision that found sodomy laws to be constitutional.{{cite web|date=June 26, 2003|website=Cornell Law|title=Opinion of the Court|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/02-102P.ZO|access-date=July 26, 2017|author1=((Supreme Court of the United States))|archive-date=November 9, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181109165201/https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/02-102P.ZO|url-status=live}} Despite this ruling, some states have not repealed their sodomy laws{{cite web|date=November 23, 2007|title=Sodomy Laws in the United States|website=Gay and Lesbian Archives of the Pacific Northwest|url=http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/usa.htm|access-date=November 26, 2012|archive-date=October 20, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181020075855/http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/usa.htm|url-status=live}} and local law enforcement officers have used these statutes to harass or arrest gay people.{{cite news|date=May 27, 2008|title=Raleigh police press sodomy charges|url=http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/raleigh_police_press_sodomy_charges|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110410165428/http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/raleigh_police_press_sodomy_charges|archive-date=April 10, 2011|access-date=April 26, 2011|work=The News & Observer}}{{cite news|title=Prosecutors Drop Sodomy Charges|work=The News & Observer|date=May 30, 2008|url=http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/prosecutors_drop_sodomy_charge|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130120021807/http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/prosecutors_drop_sodomy_charge|archive-date=January 20, 2013|access-date=November 26, 2012}}{{cite news|last=Murphy|first=Tim|date=April 12, 2011|title=The Unconstitutional Anti-Gay Law That Just Won't Die|url=http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/lawrence-texas-homosexual-conduct-statute|access-date=November 26, 2012|work=Mother Jones|archive-date=November 17, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121117014621/http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/lawrence-texas-homosexual-conduct-statute|url-status=live}} After the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" in 2011, the U.S. Congress repealed sodomy laws in the U.S. military in 2014.

Prior to the 2003 Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, same-sex sexual activity was illegal in fourteen U.S. states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. military. By that time, twenty-nine states, the District of Columbia, and five territories had repealed their state's sodomy laws by legislative action.Same-sex activity had become legal in Illinois in 1962, Connecticut in 1971, Colorado and Oregon in 1972, Delaware and Hawaii in 1973, Massachusetts and Ohio in 1974, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota in 1975, California, Maine, Washington, and West Virginia in 1976, Indiana, Iowa, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming in 1977, Nebraska in 1978, New Jersey in 1979, Alaska, New York, and Pennsylvania in 1980, Wisconsin in 1983, Kentucky in 1992, Nevada and District of Columbia in 1993, Tennessee in 1996, Montana in 1997, Georgia and Rhode Island in 1998, Maryland and Missouri (Western District counties only) in 1999, Arizona and Minnesota in 2001, and Arkansas in 2002[http://old.ilga.org/Statehomophobia/ILGA_SSHR_2014_Eng.pdf State-sponsored Homophobia: A world survey of laws prohibiting same sex activity between consenting adults] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161020202330/http://old.ilga.org/Statehomophobia/ILGA_SSHR_2014_Eng.pdf|date=October 20, 2016}} The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, authored by Lucas Paoli Itaborahy, May 2014 Twelve states have had state Supreme Court or state Appeals courts rule that their state's sodomy laws were unconstitutional. Georgia, Louisiana, and Massachusetts, have all had their state sodomy laws struck down by the courts, but the legislatures have not repealed those laws.{{cite web|title=State Sodomy Laws Continue To Target LGBT Americans|url=http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201108080012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150910072529/http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201108080012|archive-date=September 10, 2015|access-date=November 9, 2012|website=Equality Matters}} On April 18, 2013, the governor of Montana signed a bill repealing that state's sodomy law; it had previously been nullified by the Montana Supreme Court.{{cite news|author=Ring, Trudy|date=April 19, 2013|title=WATCH: Montana Sodomy Repeal Signed Into Law|url=http://www.advocate.com/politics/2013/04/19/watch-montana-sodomy-repeal-signed-law|work=The Advocate|archive-date=June 29, 2018|access-date=April 21, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180629133141/https://www.advocate.com/politics/2013/04/19/watch-montana-sodomy-repeal-signed-law|url-status=live}} On April 23, 2014, the governor of Virginia signed a bill repealing that state's sodomy law.{{cite web|author=Garret, Thomas|date=April 23, 2014|title=SB 14 Sodomy; crimes against nature, clarifies provisions of clause, penalty.|url=https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?141+sum+SB14&141+sum+SB14|website=Virginia Government|access-date=June 15, 2020|archive-date=June 15, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615172312/https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?141%20sum%20SB14&141%20sum%20SB14|url-status=live}} Utah and Alabama repealed their sodomy laws in 2019 and Idaho did in 2022. On October 1, 2020, a bill repealing Maryland's sodomy law went into effect without the governor's signature,{{cite news|author=Kurtz, Josh|date=May 8, 2020|title=Here Are Two Dozen Bills Becoming Law Without Hogan's Signature|url=https://www.marylandmatters.org/2020/05/08/here-are-two-dozen-bills-becoming-law-without-hogans-signature|work=Maryland Matters|archive-date=June 15, 2020|access-date=June 15, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615171501/https://www.marylandmatters.org/2020/05/08/here-are-two-dozen-bills-becoming-law-without-hogans-signature|url-status=live}} and a bill repealing its "unnatural sex practices" law went into effect without the governor's signature in May 2023.{{Cite web |date=May 19, 2023 |title=Bill to repeal Md. sodomy law to take effect without governor's signature |url=https://www.washingtonblade.com/2023/05/19/bill-to-repeal-md-sodomy-law-to-take-effect-without-governors-signature/ |access-date=July 7, 2023 |website=Washington Blade |language=en-US |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230519203848/https://www.washingtonblade.com/2023/05/19/bill-to-repeal-md-sodomy-law-to-take-effect-without-governors-signature/ |archive-date=May 19, 2023}} Minnesota also repealed its sodomy law in 2023.{{Cite web |last=Blade |first=Special to the LA |date=2023-05-19 |title=Minnesota repeals sodomy, fornication, & adultery laws |url=https://www.losangelesblade.com/2023/05/19/minnesota-repeals-sodomy-fornication-adultery-laws/ |access-date=2023-11-09 |website=Los Angeles Blade: LGBTQ News, Rights, Politics, Entertainment |language=en-US |archive-date=December 30, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231230205146/https://www.losangelesblade.com/2023/05/19/minnesota-repeals-sodomy-fornication-adultery-laws/ |url-status=live }}

12 states either have not yet formally repealed their laws against sexual activity among consenting adults or have not revised them to accurately reflect their true scope in the aftermath of Lawrence v. Texas. Often, the sodomy law was drafted to also encompass other forms of sexual conduct such as bestiality, and no attempt has subsequently succeeded in separating them. 9 states' statutes purport to ban all forms of sodomy, some including oral intercourse, regardless of the participants' genders: Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma and South Carolina. 3 states specifically target their statutes at same-sex relations only: Kansas, Kentucky, and Texas.

The age of consent in each jurisdiction varies but, in most jurisdictions, it is equal to the age of consent for heterosexual sex.{{cite news|last=McBride|first=Alex|title=Lawrence v Texas (2003)|url=https://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/landmark_lawrence.html|access-date=July 9, 2014|work=PBS News|archive-date=November 3, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171103073011/http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/landmark_lawrence.html|url-status=live}} The exception to this is Texas, whose statute books still hold an outdated Romeo and Juliet law that makes the age of consent for gay and lesbian teenagers unequal to that for heterosexual ones.{{cite web |url=https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.21.htm |title=PENAL CODE CHAPTER 21. SEXUAL OFFENSES |website=Statutes.capitol.texas.gov |access-date=December 31, 2020 |archive-date=May 29, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190529234451/https://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/pe/htm/pe.21.htm |url-status=live }}{{cite web |last=Barrett |first=Peter |url=https://www.barrettcrimelaw.com/blog/2019/january/what-is-the-age-of-consent-in-texas-/ |title=What is the Age of Consent in Texas? |website=Barrettcrimelaw.com |date=January 8, 2019 |access-date=December 31, 2020 |archive-date=January 17, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210117035021/https://www.barrettcrimelaw.com/blog/2019/january/what-is-the-age-of-consent-in-texas-/ |url-status=live }} Researchers have shown that sodomy law repeals led to a decline in the number of arrests for disorderly conduct, prostitution, and other sex offenses, as well as a reduction in arrests for drug and alcohol consumption, in line with the hypothesis that sodomy law repeals enhanced mental health and lessened minority stress.{{cite journal|author1=Riccardo Ciacci |author2= Dario Sansone |title=The impact of sodomy law repeals on crime |journal=Journal of Population Economics |date=2023 |volume= 36 |issue= 4 |pages= 2519–2548 |doi=10.1007/s00148-023-00953-1 |doi-access=free |arxiv=2008.10926}}

{{See also|Same-sex marriage in the United States|Timeline of same-sex marriage in the United States|Same-sex unions in the United States|Domestic partnership in the United States|Cohabitation in the United States|Common-law marriage in the United States}}

File:Garden State Equality May 2011 protest (5694200900).jpg by Garden State Equality in support of same-sex marriage rights and against deportation of LGBTQ spouses.]]

The movement to obtain civil marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples in the United States began in the 1970s but remained unsuccessful for over 40 years. On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts became the first U.S. state and the sixth jurisdiction in the world to legalize same-sex marriage following the Supreme Judicial Court's decision six months earlier.{{cite news|last=Belluck|first=Oam|date=May 17, 2004|title=With Festive Mood, Gay Weddings Begin in Massachusetts|newspaper=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/17/national/17CND-GAYS.html|access-date=January 11, 2014|archive-date=October 16, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151016144836/http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/17/national/17CND-GAYS.html|url-status=live}} Before nationwide legalization, same-sex marriage became legal in 36 states: 24 states by court order, nine by legislative action, and three by referendum. Some states had legalized same-sex marriage by more than one of the three actions.

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that states must license and recognize same-sex marriages. Consequently, same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands. Currently, same-sex marriages are recognized in American Samoa, due to the Respect for Marriage Act. The legal status of same-sex marriage also varies in Native American tribal nations, as their reservations are considered sovereign entities and were not affected by the Supreme Court's legalization in 2015.

{{Main|List of U.S. state laws on same-sex unions}}

Prior to nationwide same-sex marriage, fifteen U.S. states had civil unions or domestic partnerships. The first state to allow same-sex unions was Vermont in July 2000. Many of these states retain those laws as a continued choice for same-sex couples, and opposite-sex couples in certain states.

{{Main|Same-sex adoption in the United States}}

Same-sex couples are allowed to adopt in states and territories following the ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges legalizing same-sex marriage. Prior to Obergefell, various states by legislative and judicial action had allowed joint adoption by same-sex couples.

Naturalized U.S. citizens whose biological children are born abroad may be unable to obtain U.S. citizenship for their children even if their spouse is also a U.S. citizen. This may disproportionately affect same-sex couples, given that typically only one spouse is biologically related to the child.{{Cite news|last=Mervosh|first=Sarah|date=May 21, 2019|title=Both Parents Are American. The U.S. Says Their Baby Isn't.|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/us/gay-couple-children-citizenship.html|access-date=May 21, 2019|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=May 21, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190521195255/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/us/gay-couple-children-citizenship.html|url-status=live}} In October 2020, with representation by Lambda Legal, Immigration Equality and law firm Morgan Lewis & Bockius;{{cite news |last1=Greene |first1=Jenna |title=Pro Bono Hero: How Morgan Lewis partner Manning helped win citizenship for babies of same-sex couples |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/pro-bono-hero-how-morgan-lewis-partner-manning-helped-win-citizenship-babies-2021-05-27/ |work=Reuters |date=May 27, 2021 |publisher=Reuters |access-date=October 20, 2021 |archive-date=October 24, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211024030004/https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/pro-bono-hero-how-morgan-lewis-partner-manning-helped-win-citizenship-babies-2021-05-27/ |url-status=live }} the United States Department of State withdrew its appeal of the verdict in Kiviti v. Pompeo, and declined to appeal Mize-Gregg v. Pompeo.{{cite news |last1=Ring |first1=Trudy |title=State Dept. Quits Fight Over Citizenship of Same-Sex Couples' Kids |url=https://www.advocate.com/family/2020/10/27/state-dept-quits-fight-over-citizenship-same-sex-couples-kids |work=advocate.com |date=October 27, 2020 |publisher=The Advocate |access-date=October 20, 2021 |archive-date=October 21, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211021154726/https://www.advocate.com/family/2020/10/27/state-dept-quits-fight-over-citizenship-same-sex-couples-kids |url-status=live }} The State Department's refusal to recognize children born overseas to married same-sex, American citizen couples as U.S. citizens was ruled to be unlawful by Federal district court judges in both cases.{{cite web |title=Victory! State Department Withdraws Appeal in Cases of Same-Sex Couples' Children Refused Passports |url=https://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/20201027_victory-state-dept-withdraw-citizenship-same-sex-couples |date=October 27, 2020 |website=Lambda Legal |access-date=July 7, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201101073951/https://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/20201027_victory-state-dept-withdraw-citizenship-same-sex-couples |archive-date=November 1, 2020}}

;Defense of Marriage Act

{{Main|Defense of Marriage Act}}

{{See also|Respect for Marriage Act}}

The United States Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, which forbade the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and relieved states of the requirement that they recognize same-sex unions performed in other jurisdictions. On June 26, 2013, Section 3 of DOMA ("Definition of marriage") was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor. The law became effectively unenforceable after the U.S. Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) and was fully repealed by the Respect for Marriage Act in 2022.

;Former state bans on same-sex marriage

{{See also|U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions|List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type|Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States#Efforts to ban same-sex unions by constitutional amendment}}

After the passage of the DOMA in 1996, many state legislators enacted state statutes, nicknamed mini-DOMA's, that ban same-sex marriage.{{cite web|title=8 States with Legal Gay Marriage and 39 States with Same-Sex Marriage Bans - Gay Marriage - ProCon.org|url=http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857|access-date=November 9, 2012|website=Gaymarriage.procon.org|archive-date=May 2, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190502231314/https://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857|url-status=dead}} After Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2004, 14 states amended their constitution to ban recognition of same-sex marriages and many banning civil unions as well. 28 states passed state constitutional amendments that banned same-sex marriage:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Hawaii voters approved a narrower constitutional amendment empowering the legislature to outlaw same-sex marriage, which they had already done in 1993. On November 6, 2012, Minnesota became the first state to vote down a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The amendment failed with a 53% to 47% vote.{{cite news|author=Davis, Don|date=November 7, 2012|title=Minnesota voters reject marriage amendment|newspaper=Duluth News Tribune|url=http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/249158/|url-status=dead|access-date=November 7, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121108163511/http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/249158/|archive-date=November 8, 2012}} All state constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage were declared unconstitutional in June 2015 in Obergefell v. Hodges.

[[File:Map of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination Protections in the United States in both Housing and Public Accommodations.svg|450px|thumb|Map of states, counties, and municipalities that have sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination prohibited in employment, housing, and public accommodations via statute, executive order, regulation, and/or court ruling:

{{legend|#4D004B|Sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination prohibited in employment, housing, and public accommodations}}

{{legend|#88419D|Sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination prohibited in employment and public accommodations, but not housing}}

{{legend|#8C6BB1|Sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination prohibited in employment and housing, but not public accommodations}}

{{legend|#8C96C6|Sexual orientation discrimination prohibited in employment, housing, and public accommodations, while gender identity discrimination prohibited in only employment and housing}}

{{legend|#081D58|Sexual orientation discrimination prohibited in employment, housing, and public accommodations, while gender identity discrimination prohibited in only employment}}

{{legend|#253494|Sexual orientation discrimination prohibited in employment and housing, while gender identity discrimination prohibited in only employment}}

{{legend|#0570B0|Sexual orientation discrimination prohibited in employment and public accommodations, while gender identity discrimination prohibited in only employment}}

{{legend|#DECBE4|Sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination prohibited in employment since Bostock v. Clayton County}}

----

{{legend|#CC3333|State has law which prohibits local discrimination protections for sexual orientation or gender identity in housing or public accommodations}}]]

The Equality Act, which is currently proposed in the United States Congress, would outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity nationwide.{{cite web |title=The Equality Act |url=https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-equality-act |access-date=December 30, 2020 |website=Human Rights Campaign |archive-date=August 21, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210821011202/https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-equality-act |url-status=dead}} However current President Trump signed an executive order ordering the non-enforcement discrimination laws for gender identity and sexual orientation.{{Cite web |date=2025-01-22 |title=Trump orders end of government DEI programs, LGBT protections |url=https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20250122-trump-orders-end-of-government-dei-programs-lgbt-protections |access-date=2025-01-23 |website=France 24 |language=en |archive-date=January 23, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250123201928/https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20250122-trump-orders-end-of-government-dei-programs-lgbt-protections |url-status=live }}{{Cite web |last=Branstetter |first=Gillian |date=2025-01-22 |title=Trump's Executive Orders Promoting Sex Discrimination, Explained {{!}} ACLU |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/trumps-executive-orders-promoting-sex-discrimination-explained |access-date=2025-01-23 |website=American Civil Liberties Union |language=en-US |archive-date=January 24, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250124021229/https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/trumps-executive-orders-promoting-sex-discrimination-explained |url-status=live}} This is despite the supreme court ruling in Bostock v Clayton County that discrimination of this kind was illegal.

U.S. federal law does not explicitly include protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. In June 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sexual orientation and gender identity are included under "sex" as a prohibited ground of employment discrimination in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.{{cite news |url=https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/jun/15/justices-rule-lgbt-people-protected-job-discrimina/ |title=Justices rule LGBT people protected from job discrimination |work=Arkansas Democrat-Gazette |agency=Associated Press |date=June 15, 2020 |archive-date=June 15, 2020 |access-date=June 15, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615161641/https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/jun/15/justices-rule-lgbt-people-protected-job-discrimina/ |url-status=live}} The ruling may impact other federal civil rights barring sex discrimination in education, health care, housing, and financial credit.

Explicit and comprehensive anti-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity have been proposed by the United States Congress under the Equality Act, which was passed in the House by a vote of 236–173 on May 17, 2019,{{cite news|first=Ashley|last=Killough|title=Houses passes Equality Act|url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/17/politics/houses-passes-equality-act/index.html|access-date=December 31, 2020|publisher=CNN|archive-date=January 13, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230113104532/https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/17/politics/houses-passes-equality-act/index.html|url-status=live}} but has since stalled in the Senate.{{cite news|date=July 27, 2020|title=Why the Equality Act Remains Important to LGBTQ Equality|work=The Regulatory Review|url=https://www.theregreview.org/2020/07/27/eyer-equality-act-remains-important-lgbtq-equality/|access-date=December 31, 2020|language=en-US|archive-date=January 1, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210101233840/https://www.theregreview.org/2020/07/27/eyer-equality-act-remains-important-lgbtq-equality/|url-status=live}} During the 2024 United States presidential election, The Heritage Foundation with contributors from the cabinet of Donald Trump outlined legislation on Project 2025 for a large rollback of LGBTQ rights in the United States and a rollback of same-sex marriage in the US. As well as a rollback on all legal protections on the basis of "gender identity."{{Cite web|url=https://nevadacurrent.com/2024/07/26/family-values-lgbtq-rights-would-backslide-with-project-2025/|title=Family values, LGBTQ+ rights would backslide with Project 2025 • Nevada Current|first=Dana|last=Gentry|date=July 26, 2024|access-date=August 5, 2024|archive-date=August 5, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240805175104/https://nevadacurrent.com/2024/07/26/family-values-lgbtq-rights-would-backslide-with-project-2025/|url-status=live}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/religion/2024/08/05/project-2025-heritage-foundation-conservative-policy-playbook-first-amendment-religious-liberty/74461512007/|title=Inside Project 2025: How the expansive conservative playbook could impact religious liberty|first=Angele|last=Latham|website=The Tennessean}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.advocate.com/politics/project-2025-anti-lgbtq|title=What is Project 2025 and what does it mean for LGBTQ Americans?|website=www.advocate.com|access-date=August 5, 2024|archive-date=August 4, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240804112430/https://www.advocate.com/politics/project-2025-anti-lgbtq|url-status=live}}

[[File:LGBT employment discrimination law in the United States.svg|400px|thumb|Map of states that have sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination prohibited in public and/or private employment via state statute, executive order, regulation, and/or case law. Note: Employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is also prohibited under federal law.

{{legend|#800080|Sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination prohibited in public employment}}

{{legend|#BA75FF|Gender identity discrimination prohibited in public employment}}

{{legend|#0000ff|Sexual orientation discrimination prohibited in public employment. Sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination prohibited in public employment.}}{{Legend|navy|Sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination prohibited in public employment.}}{{legend|#ff00ff|Sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination prohibited in public employment only}}{{Legend|grey|No state-level prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity}}{{legend|#00ffff|Sexual orientation discrimination prohibited in public employment only}}]]

{{Main|LGBT employment discrimination in the United States}}

Employment discrimination refers to discriminatory employment practices such as bias in hiring, promotion, job assignment, termination, and compensation, and various types of harassment.{{cite journal|last=Tilcsik|first=András|year=2011|title=Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination against Openly Gay Men in the United States|journal=American Journal of Sociology|volume=117|issue=2|pages=586–626|doi=10.1086/661653|jstor=10.1086/661653|pmid=22268247|hdl=1807/34998|s2cid=23542996|hdl-access=free}}

There is no federal statute explicitly addressing employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. However, in June 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sexual orientation and gender identity are included under "sex" as a prohibited ground of employment discrimination in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This effectively means that in the U.S., no employer can fire an employee on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

24 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and over 140 cities and counties have enacted bans on discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or sexual identity. Additionally, some states have laws or regulations that ban discrimination based on gender identity and/or sexual orientation in public employment only.

Presidents have also established certain protections for some employees of the federal government by executive order. In 1995, President Bill Clinton's Executive Order 12968 establishing criteria for the issuance of security clearances included sexual orientation for the first time in its non-discrimination language: "The United States Government does not discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or sexual orientation in granting access to classified information." It also said that "no inference" about suitability for access to classified information "may be raised solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the employee."{{cite news|last=Purdum|first=Todd S.|date=August 4, 1995|title=Clinton Ends Ban on Security Clearance for Gay Workers|newspaper=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/05/us/clinton-ends-ban-on-security-clearance-for-gay-workers.html|access-date=August 4, 2012|archive-date=April 2, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190402082142/https://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/05/us/clinton-ends-ban-on-security-clearance-for-gay-workers.html|url-status=live}} Clinton's Executive Order 13087 in 1998 prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation in the competitive service of the federal civilian workforce. It applied to the large majority of federal employees, but not to the excepted services such as the military.{{cite web|date=May 5, 1998|title=1998-05-28 Statement on Amendment to EEO Executive Order|website=nara.gov|url=http://clinton6.nara.gov/1998/05/1998-05-28-statement-on-amendment-to-eeo-executive-order.html|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120820143222/http://clinton6.nara.gov/1998/05/1998-05-28-statement-on-amendment-to-eeo-executive-order.html|archive-date=August 20, 2012|access-date=August 4, 2012}}

At the start of 2010, the Obama administration included gender identity among the classes protected against discrimination under the authority of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In 2012, the EEOC ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not allow gender identity-based employment discrimination because it is a form of sexual discrimination.{{cite news|date=April 25, 2012|title=In Landmark Ruling, Feds Add Transgendered to Anti-Discrimination Law|url=http://www.edgeboston.com/news/national/news//132290/in_landmark_ruling,_feds_add_transgendered_to_anti-discrimination_law|access-date=July 17, 2015|work=Edgeboston.com|archive-date=April 15, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190415054504/http://www.edgeboston.com/news/national/news//132290/in_landmark_ruling,_feds_add_transgendered_to_anti-discrimination_law|url-status=live}}{{cite news|last=Carpenter|first=Dale|date=December 14, 2012|title=Anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, says the EEOC|newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/07/16/anti-gay-discrimination-is-sex-discrimination-says-the-eeoc/|access-date=July 17, 2015|archive-date=April 15, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190415054504/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/07/16/anti-gay-discrimination-is-sex-discrimination-says-the-eeoc/|url-status=live}}{{cite news|last=Tatectate|first=Curtis|title=EEOC: Federal law bans workplace bias against gays, lesbians, bisexuals|url=http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/gay-south-florida/article27469123.html|access-date=July 17, 2015|work=Miami Herald|archive-date=April 28, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190428173212/https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/gay-south-florida/article27469123.html|url-status=live}}

On July 21, 2014, President Obama signed Executive Order 13672, adding "gender identity" to the categories protected against discrimination in hiring in the federal civilian workforce, and both "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the categories protected against discrimination in hiring and employment on the part of federal government contractors and sub-contractors.{{cite news|date=July 21, 2014|title=Executive Order – Further Amendments to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity|agency=Office of the Press Secretary|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/07/21/executive-order-further-amendments-executive-order-11478-equal-employmen|via=National Archives|work=whitehouse.gov|access-date=July 21, 2014|archive-date=December 26, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161226120052/https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/07/21/executive-order-further-amendments-executive-order-11478-equal-employmen|url-status=live}}{{cite news|date=July 21, 2014|title=Obama signs edict banning discrimination against federal LGBT employees|publisher=Al Jazeera|url=http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/21/obama-signs-enda.html|access-date=July 21, 2014|archive-date=July 23, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140723142804/http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/21/obama-signs-enda.html|url-status=live}} Obama's related Executive Order 13673{{Efn|{{Executive Order|13673}}|name=|group=}} required federal contractors to prove their compliance with labor laws, but President Trump revoked this requirement on March 27, 2017.{{cite magazine|last1=Kutner|first1=Jenny|date=March 29, 2017|title=Trump Rolls Back Protections for LGBTQ Workers, Despite Recent Promises|url=https://www.vogue.com/article/trump-executive-order-rolls-back-lgbtq-protections|magazine=Vogue|access-date=December 6, 2018|archive-date=March 28, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190328104743/https://www.vogue.com/article/trump-executive-order-rolls-back-lgbtq-protections|url-status=live}}

As of June 15, 2020, all persons working for public employers that employ more than 15 people are protected from discrimination based solely on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity via the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County.Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., Ga., {{ussc|volume=590|year=2020|docket=17-1618|page=644}} The plaintiffs of the case include Gerald Bostock, Aimee Stephens, and Donald Zarda, each fired based upon their sexuality or gender identity. Two-thirds of registered U.S. voters agree with the Supreme Court's decision that employment nondiscrimination laws should protect LGBTQ identity, according to a HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted several days later.{{cite news|last=Edwards-Levy|first=Ariel|date=June 25, 2020|title=The Supreme Court Rulings On LGBTQ Rights And DACA Are Really Popular, Poll Finds|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-daca-lgbt-decisions-poll_n_5ef5322cc5b612083c4b048b|access-date=June 26, 2020|work=HuffPost|language=en|archive-date=December 17, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201217184139/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-daca-lgbt-decisions-poll_n_5ef5322cc5b612083c4b048b|url-status=live}}

File:US LGBT housing discrimination.svg or gender identity. HUD regulations require all housing providers that receive HUD funding not to discriminate against an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity.

{{legend|#0072b2|Prohibits housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity}}

{{legend|#f0e442|Prohibits housing discrimination based on sexual orientation only}}

{{legend|#d3d3d3|Does not factor sexual orientation or gender identity/unclear}}]]

{{Main|Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity}}

{{Further|Housing discrimination in the United States}}

The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) is an agency within the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. FHEO is responsible for administering and enforcing federal fair housing laws and establishing policies that make sure all Americans have equal access to the housing of their choice. Housing discrimination refers to discrimination against potential or current tenants by landlords. In the United States, there is no federal law against such discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, but at least twenty-two states and many major cities have enacted laws prohibiting it.{{cite web|title=Renter's Rights Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination|url=http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/housing-discrimination/tenant-fair-housing-orientation.html|access-date=April 26, 2011|website=FindLaw|archive-date=March 14, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120314034511/http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/housing-discrimination/tenant-fair-housing-orientation.html|url-status=live}} See, for example, Washington House Bill 2661.

In 2012, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity issued a regulation called "Equal Access" to prohibit LGBTQ discrimination in federally-assisted housing programs.{{cite web|title=Equal Access to Housing Final Rule - HUD Exchange|url=https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/1991/equal-access-to-housing-final-rule/|access-date=May 23, 2019|website=hudexchange.info|archive-date=December 24, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201224034203/https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/1991/equal-access-to-housing-final-rule/|url-status=live}} It ensures that the Department's core housing programs are open to all eligible persons, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. In 2019, however, there was an attempt to weaken the regulation.

The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity is responsible for enforcing a variety of fair housing laws, which prohibit discrimination in both privately owned and publicly assisted housing including:

• The Fair Housing Act
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
• Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974
• Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
• Architectural Barriers Act of 1968
• Age Discrimination Act of 1975
• Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972

Among the landmark civil cases on gay rights in housing is Braschi v Stahl Associates Co. In 1989 New York Court of Appeals case that decided that plaintiff Miguel Braschi, the surviving partner of a same-sex relationship, counted as "family" under New York law and was thus able to continue living in a rent controlled apartment belonging to the deceased partner.{{cite news|title=Braschi v. Stahl Associates Co - Case Brief for Law Students|publisher=Casebriefs|url=https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/family-law/family-law-keyed-to-weisberg/alternative-families/braschi-v-stahl-associates-co/|access-date=August 7, 2020|archive-date=October 27, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201027122523/https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/family-law/family-law-keyed-to-weisberg/alternative-families/braschi-v-stahl-associates-co/|url-status=live}}{{Cite news|last1=Gutis|first1=Philip S.|date=July 7, 1989|title=New York Court Defines Family To Include Homosexual Couples|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/07/nyregion/new-york-court-defines-family-to-include-homosexual-couples.html|access-date=August 7, 2020|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=October 10, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201010234523/https://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/07/nyregion/new-york-court-defines-family-to-include-homosexual-couples.html|url-status=live}}

On April 14, 2010, President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order to the Department of Health and Human Services to draft new rules for all hospitals accepting Medicare or Medicaid funds. They would require facilities to grant visitation and medical decision-making rights to gay and lesbian partners, as well as designees of others such as widows and widowers.{{cite news|date=April 16, 2011|title=Obama Widens Medical Rights for Gay Partners|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/us/politics/16webhosp.html|access-date=June 18, 2011|archive-date=November 18, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181118205056/https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/us/politics/16webhosp.html|url-status=live}} Such rights are not protected by law in many states. Obama said he was inspired by the case of a Florida family, where one of the mothers died while her partner and four children were denied visitation by the hospital. On June 12, 2020, the Trump administration issued a new rule stating that sexual orientation and gender identity were not covered under the anti-discrimination protections of the Affordable Care Act,{{cite news|title=Transgender Health Protections Reversed By Trump Administration|work=NPR News|date=June 12, 2020|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/12/868073068/transgender-health-protections-reversed-by-trump-administration|access-date=June 28, 2020|language=en|last1=Simmons-Duffin|first1=Selena|archive-date=June 23, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200623172448/https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/12/868073068/transgender-health-protections-reversed-by-trump-administration|url-status=live}} but this was reversed by the Biden administration, restoring the Obama-era policy.{{Cite news|last=Alonso-Zaldivar|first=Ricardo|date=May 10, 2021|title=Reversing Trump, U.S. Restores Transgender Health Protections|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/us-restores-transgender-health-protections_n_6099311de4b012351603d287|access-date=May 10, 2021|work=HuffPost|language=en|archive-date=May 10, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210510134501/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/us-restores-transgender-health-protections_n_6099311de4b012351603d287|url-status=live}}

According to the American advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, more than 10000 local anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced in 2023 by members of the conservative Republican Party, including more than 190 that are specifically anti-trans. While in past years conservatives have focused on bathroom bills and banning trans athletes from sports, most bills passed in 2023 have focused on banning gender-affirming health care. Critics noted that these events are a part of the wider culture war between liberals and conservatives in the U.S{{cite news |last1=Wan |first1=William |title=Kentucky lawmakers pass major anti-trans law, overriding governor's veto |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/03/29/kentucky-anti-transgender-law-override-vote/#:~:text=Kentucky%20lawmakers%20passed%20a%20sweeping,and%20parents%20with%20trans%20children. |agency=Washington Post |date=March 29, 2023}}

{{Main|Hate crime laws in the United States}}

File:Map of LGBT-related hate crime law in the United States.svg by state. A national hate crimes law encompasses both sexual orientation and gender identity.

{{legend|#800080|Sexual orientation and gender identity recognized in state hate crimes law}}

{{legend|#0000ff|Sexual orientation recognized in state hate crimes law}}

{{legend|#cccccc|State hate crimes law uninclusive of sexual orientation or gender identity}}]]

Hate crime laws (also known as bias crimes laws) protect against crimes motivated by feelings of enmity against a protected class. Until 2009, a federal law defined hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity. In October 2009, Congress passed the Matthew Shepard Act, which expanded the definition of hate crimes to include gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability.{{Cite journal|last=Meyer|first=Doug|year=2014|title=Resisting Hate Crime Discourse: Queer and Intersectional Challenges to Neoliberal Hate Crime Laws|journal=Critical Criminology|volume=22| issue=1 |pages=113–125|doi=10.1007/s10612-013-9228-x|s2cid=143546829}} It removed the requirement that the victim of a hate crime be engaged in a federally protected activity.{{cite news|last=Pershing|first=Ben|date=October 22, 2009|title=Hate crimes bill set to become law|newspaper=The Washington Post|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/10/senate_approves_hate_crimes_me.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120630234115/http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/10/senate_approves_hate_crimes_me.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=June 30, 2012|access-date=October 22, 2009}} President Obama signed the legislation on October 28, 2009.{{cite news|date=October 28, 2009|title=President Barack Obama signs hate crimes legislation into law|url=http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=98285|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://archive.today/20110722003600/http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=98285|archive-date=July 22, 2011|access-date=April 26, 2011|work=Baywindows.com}}

Two statutes, the Hate Crime Statistics Act (1990) and the Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act (1997), require the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), as well as college/university campus security authorities, to collect and publish hate crime statistics.

{{As of|2023|December}}, 46 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands have statutes criminalizing various types of bias-motivated violence or intimidation (the exceptions are Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, and Wyoming). Each of these statutes covers bias on the basis of race, religion, and ethnicity; 34 cover disability; 34 of them cover sexual orientation; 28 cover gender; 13 cover age; 23 cover gender identity; five cover political affiliation.[http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/state_hate_crime_laws.pdf State Hate Crime Laws] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070614124916/http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/state_hate_crime_laws.pdf|date=June 14, 2007}}, Anti-Defamation League, June 2006. Retrieved May 4, 2007. 31 states and the District of Columbia have statutes creating a civil cause of action, in addition to the criminal penalty, for similar acts. Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia have statutes requiring the state to collect hate crime statistics; 16 of these cover sexual orientation.

In Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) the Supreme Court unanimously held that state penalty-enhancement laws for hate crimes were constitutional and did not violate First Amendment rights to freedom of thought and expression.

Laws that prohibit hate speech, including those that relate to sexual orientation or gender identity, are considered unconstitutional, due to the First Amendment's broad protections for free speech.{{Cite news |last=Volokh |first=Eugene |author-link=Eugene Volokh |date=June 19, 2017 |title=Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ |access-date=October 3, 2022 |newspaper=The Washington Post |archive-date=September 9, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220909101440/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ |url-status=live }}

{{Main|Gay panic defense # United States}}

In 2018, Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) and Representative Joseph Kennedy III (D-MA) introduced S.3188 and H.R.6358, respectively, which would prohibit a federal criminal defendant from asserting, as a defense, that the nonviolent sexual advance or an individual or a perception or belief of the gender, gender identity, or expression, or sexual orientation of an individual excuses or justifies conduct or mitigates the severity of an offense. Both bills died in committee. In June 2019, the bill was reintroduced in both houses of Congress as the Gay and Trans Panic Defense Prohibition Act of 2019 (S.1721 and H.R.3133). It has been reintroduced in both the 2021 and 2023 sessions.

As of October 2023, 17 states and the District of Columbia have banned the so-called "gay panic defense": California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington.{{cite news |url=https://www.lgbtmap.org/img/maps/citations-panic-defense-bans.pdf |title=Gay/Trans Panic Defense Laws |date=June 7, 2021 |work=Movement Advancement Project |access-date=July 8, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230407132333/https://www.lgbtmap.org/img/maps/citations-panic-defense-bans.pdf |archive-date=April 7, 2023}}

[[File:Transgender military service.svg|thumb|500px|Transgender military service by country and territory

{{legend|#002255|Allows transgender military service}}

{{legend|#1f78b4|Allows most transgender military service, with some exceptions and requirements}}

{{legend|#800000|Prohibits transgender military service}}

{{legend|#e6e6e6|Unknown if transgender military service allowed}}

{{legend|#777777|Has no military}}]]

{{Main|Sexual orientation and gender identity in the United States military}}

{{See also|Don't ask, don't tell|Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010|Transgender personnel in the United States military|Sexual orientation in the United States military|Sexual orientation and gender identity in the United States military#Cross-dressers|Intersex people in the United States military}}

Although the U.S. military discharged soldiers for homosexual acts throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth century, U.S. military law did not expressly prohibit homosexuality or homosexual conduct until February 4, 1921. On May 5, 1950, the Uniform Code of Military Justice was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on May 31, 1951. Article 125 forbade sodomy among all military personnel, defining it as "any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offence." Application of Article 125 was severely limited by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, and it was amended only to apply to 'forcible sodomy' on December 26, 2013, when President Barack Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 finally repealed the article and its classification of sodomy, as a crime separate from rape, altogether.

Prior to 1993, lesbian and gay people were not permitted to serve in the U.S. military. Under the "Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy enacted that year, they were permitted to do so only if they did not disclose their sexual orientation. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 permitted homosexual men and women to serve openly in the armed forces once designated government officials certified that the military was prepared for the repeal.{{cite news|last1=Branigin|first1=William|last2=Wilgoren|first2=Debbi|last3=Bacon|first3=Perry Jr.|date=December 22, 2010|title=Obama signs DADT repeal before big, emotional crowd|newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/22/AR2010122201888.html|access-date=April 26, 2011|archive-date=August 12, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180812134804/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/22/AR2010122201888.html|url-status=live}} Since September 20, 2011, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals have been able to serve openly.{{cite news|date=July 23, 2011|title=In 60 days, gays will be allowed to serve openly in the military|publisher=CNN|url=http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/22/dadt.repeal/index.html|archive-date=October 18, 2018|access-date=July 23, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181018043258/http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/22/dadt.repeal/index.html|url-status=live}}

On July 13, 2015, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said that the current regulations banning transgender individuals from serving were outdated, and announced a six-month study to determine if lifting the ban would have any impact on the military's effectiveness.{{cite news|last1=Baldor|first1=Lolita|date=July 13, 2015|title=Pentagon announces plan aimed at lifting transgender ban|agency=Associated Press|url=http://bigstory.ap.org/article/67db24e3b2604c39b20c4b7f7e5bcbf7/apnewsbreak-pentagon-readying-plan-lift-transgender-ban|access-date=July 13, 2015|archive-date=July 14, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150714211804/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/67db24e3b2604c39b20c4b7f7e5bcbf7/apnewsbreak-pentagon-readying-plan-lift-transgender-ban|url-status=dead}} On June 30, 2016, Carter announced that the ban on transgender troops from openly serving had been lifted.{{cite news|date=June 30, 2016|title=Military lifts transgender ban s|agency=McClatchy|url=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article86902072.html|access-date=June 30, 2016|archive-date=May 2, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190502063356/https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article86902072.html|url-status=live}} The policy went into effect on October 1, 2016, and training on transgender issues was scheduled to begin a month later.

On October 24, 2016, 10 soldiers in the U.S. Army became the first to openly petition for a sex change since the ban on service by transgender individuals was lifted.{{cite news|last=Baldor|first=Lolita|title=10 Transgender Soldiers Ask for Formal Recognition|agency=Associated Press|url=https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-10-24/10-transgender-soldiers-seek-formal-gender-identity-change|archive-date=October 24, 2018|access-date=August 25, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181024073654/https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-10-24/10-transgender-soldiers-seek-formal-gender-identity-change|url-status=live}} The military was originally scheduled to complete its adjustment to openly transgender troops by July 2017. That month, however, President Trump declared in a tweet that transgender people would be prohibited from serving in the military.{{Cite news|date=July 26, 2017|title=Trump: Transgender people 'can't serve' US military|language=en-GB|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40729996|access-date=July 26, 2017|archive-date=July 29, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170729073833/http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40729996|url-status=live}} The next day, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford said, "There will be no modifications to the current policy until the President's direction has been received by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary has issued implementation guidance. In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with respect."{{cite news|title=Joint Chiefs: 'No modifications' to transgender policy from Trump tweet|work=Politico|url=http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/27/trump-transgender-military-ban-no-modification-241029|access-date=July 28, 2017|archive-date=July 27, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170727153508/http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/27/trump-transgender-military-ban-no-modification-241029|url-status=live}}

Trump later published a memo on August 25, 2017, directing that an implementation plan be submitted to him by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security by February 2018.{{cite web|author=Trump, Donald J.|date=August 25, 2017|title=Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security|url=https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/25/presidential-memorandum-secretary-defense-and-secretary-homeland|via=National Archives|website=whitehouse.gov|access-date=August 26, 2017|archive-date=March 4, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210304212919/https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-secretary-defense-secretary-homeland-security/|url-status=live}} In November 2018, the Trump administration formally asked the Supreme Court to issue a ruling on the matter, even though lower courts were still hearing appeals.{{cite news|date=November 23, 2018|title=Trump asks US court for review of transgender military ban|publisher=BBC|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46321543|access-date=December 5, 2018|archive-date=March 28, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190328031606/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46321543|url-status=live}} Though the Supreme Court initially refused this request, on January 22, 2019, it granted temporary permission to the Trump administration to proceed with its ban,{{cite news|title=Supreme Court Revives Trump's Ban On Transgender Military Personnel, For Now|work=NPR News|date=January 22, 2019|url=https://www.npr.org/2019/01/22/687368145/supreme-court-revives-trumps-ban-on-transgender-military-personnel-for-now|access-date=March 7, 2019|publisher=NPR|language=en|last1=Welna|first1=David|last2=Chappell|first2=Bill|archive-date=May 18, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190518182731/https://www.npr.org/2019/01/22/687368145/supreme-court-revives-trumps-ban-on-transgender-military-personnel-for-now|url-status=live}}{{cite web|date=February 27, 2019|title=GLAD, NCLR Statements on House Armed Services Committee Hearing on Transgender Military Ban|url=https://notransmilitaryban.org/2019/02/27/glad-nclr-statements-on-house-armed-services-committee-hearing-on-transgender-military-ban/|access-date=March 7, 2019|website=No Trans Military Ban|language=en-US|archive-date=March 8, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190308081320/https://notransmilitaryban.org/2019/02/27/glad-nclr-statements-on-house-armed-services-committee-hearing-on-transgender-military-ban/|url-status=dead}} and on March 12 the Department of Defense released a memorandum describing the terms of the ban to take effect on April 12, 2019.{{cite news|last=Norquist|first=David|date=March 12, 2019|title=MEMORANDUM FOR CHIEF MANAGEMENT OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE|url=https://www.washingtonblade.com/content/files/2019/03/DTM-DRAFT-151-MILITARY-SERVICE-BY-TRANSGENDER-PERSONS-AND-PERSONS-WITH-GENDER-DYSPHORIA-OSD002299-19-RES-Final.pdf|access-date=March 19, 2019|work=Washington Blade|archive-date=April 12, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190412135102/https://www.washingtonblade.com/content/files/2019/03/DTM-DRAFT-151-MILITARY-SERVICE-BY-TRANSGENDER-PERSONS-AND-PERSONS-WITH-GENDER-DYSPHORIA-OSD002299-19-RES-Final.pdf|url-status=live}}

The memorandum offers some protection for existing military personnel who were already diagnosed with "gender dysphoria" or who were already serving in their self-designated gender before the memorandum was issued.{{cite web|date=February 22, 2019|title=Frequently Asked Questions on the Transgender Military Ban|url=https://notransmilitaryban.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/FAQ-Transgender-Military-Ban-FINAL-2.22.19.pdf|access-date=March 7, 2019|website=notransmilitaryban.org|archive-date=April 12, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190412135001/https://notransmilitaryban.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/FAQ-Transgender-Military-Ban-FINAL-2.22.19.pdf|url-status=live}} However, new personnel must serve in their birth gender/sex and are disqualified from service if they have a recent history of gender dysphoria or if they have ever received hormones and surgery related to gender transition. Two bipartisan bills in Congress are pushing back against the ban.{{cite news|title=Bipartisan bills introduced to thwart Trump's trans military ban|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/bipartisan-bills-introduced-thwart-trump-s-trans-military-ban-n969051|access-date=March 7, 2019|work=NBC News|language=en|archive-date=May 19, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190519134957/https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/bipartisan-bills-introduced-thwart-trump-s-trans-military-ban-n969051|url-status=live}}{{cite news|title=US appeals court rules in favor of Trump transgender ban, but policy still can't be enforced|url=https://www.stripes.com/news/us/us-appeals-court-rules-in-favor-of-trump-transgender-ban-but-policy-still-can-t-be-enforced-1.563149|access-date=March 7, 2019|work=Stars and Stripes|archive-date=March 8, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190308081738/https://www.stripes.com/news/us/us-appeals-court-rules-in-favor-of-trump-transgender-ban-but-policy-still-can-t-be-enforced-1.563149|url-status=dead}}

File:Transgender veteran lives inner truth 161202-F-LM051-002.jpg

{{As of|2020|January|20|df=US}}, transgender women and other individuals assigned male at birth were still required to sign-up for the Selective Service.{{cite web |title=Who Must Register |url=https://www.sss.gov/Registration-Info/Who-Registration |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200120024244/https://www.sss.gov/Registration-Info/Who-Registration |archive-date=January 20, 2020 |access-date=March 19, 2025 |website=Selective Service System}}

On January 25, 2021, the new Biden administration revoked Trump's ban through an executive order, reverting the policy regarding transgender people and military service to what it was in 2016 under the Obama administration. Transgender personnel are now allowed to serve in the military under varying conditions and requirements. On April 30, 2021, the United States Department of Defense enacted a new policy calling for better medical access and gender marker assistance to transgender people serving in the United States Military.{{Cite news|last=Wamsley|first=Laurel|date=March 31, 2021|title=Pentagon Releases New Policies Enabling Transgender People To Serve In The Military|url=https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/983118029/pentagon-releases-new-policies-enabling-transgender-people-to-serve-in-the-milit|access-date=May 3, 2021|work=NPR News|language=en|archive-date=November 7, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211107171552/https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/983118029/pentagon-releases-new-policies-enabling-transgender-people-to-serve-in-the-milit|url-status=live}}{{cite news|url=https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/04/30/free-be-better-soldier-transgender-service-members-cheer-reversal-of-ban.html|title=Free to Be a Better Soldier: Transgender Service Members Cheer Reversal of Ban|author=J.P. Lawrence, Stars and Stripes|publisher=Military.com|date=April 30, 2021|access-date=May 3, 2021|archive-date=May 3, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210503234811/https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/04/30/free-be-better-soldier-transgender-service-members-cheer-reversal-of-ban.html|url-status=live}}

More than 8,400 detained migrants—over a five-year period spanning both the Obama and Trump administrations—were placed in solitary confinement, which remains an ongoing practice as of May 2019. In half of the cases, detainees were being punished, but in the other half, the confinement was due to the person's mental illness, physical disability, or sexual orientation. Journalists identified six suicides among this population.{{cite news|last1=Gutierrez|first1=Gabe|last2=Jansing|first2=Chris|date=May 21, 2019|title=Thousands of immigrants forced into solitary confinement by ICE|url=https://www.msnbc.com/stephanie-ruhle/watch/thousands-of-immigrants-forced-into-solitary-confinement-by-ice-60040261961|access-date=May 23, 2019|work=MSNBC|language=en|archive-date=November 7, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201107235455/https://www.msnbc.com/stephanie-ruhle/watch/thousands-of-immigrants-forced-into-solitary-confinement-by-ice-60040261961|url-status=live}}

{{Main|Conjugal visit#United States|l1 = Conjugal visits in the United States}}

In the United States, four states permit conjugal visits to prisoners: California, Connecticut, New York, and Washington;Speri, Alice. "Inmates Are Losing Their Privilege to Get Laid." Vice. April 17, 2014. Retrieved April 19, 2014. all of these U.S. states have legalized same-sex marriage in June 2015.{{cite web|last=Rodgers|first=Patrick|title=Conjugal Visits: Preserving family bonds behind bars|url=http://www.legalzoom.com/marriage-divorce-family-law/marriage-domestic-partnership/conjugal-visits-preserving-family-bonds|access-date=June 29, 2014|website=LegalZoom|archive-date=April 20, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140420000115/https://www.legalzoom.com/marriage-divorce-family-law/marriage-domestic-partnership/conjugal-visits-preserving-family-bonds|url-status=dead}} In June 2007, California, following the enactment in 2005 of a state law requiring state agencies to provide the same rights to domestic partners as to married couples, became the first U.S. state to allow same-sex conjugal visits. The new rules allowed for visits only by registered same-sex married couples or domestic partners, provided that the same-sex marriage or domestic partnership was established before the prisoner was incarcerated.{{cite news|title=Conjugal visits allowed for inmates and partners in same-sex marriages, civil unions|work=Daily News|location=New York|url=http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/04/23/2011-04-23_paint_the_clinks_pink_conjugal_visits_allowed_for_gay_inmates_and_partners.html|access-date=September 11, 2016|archive-date=April 26, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110426121603/http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/04/23/2011-04-23_paint_the_clinks_pink_conjugal_visits_allowed_for_gay_inmates_and_partners.html|url-status=dead}} In New York, prior to the vote on same-sex visits, this state allowed 27 out of its 60 facilities to allow same-sex conjugal visits, but this law was not enforced state wide until April 2011. In 2014, both New Mexico and Mississippi banned conjugal visits.Speri, Alice. "[https://www.vice.com/en/article/inmates-are-losing-their-privilege-to-get-laid/?trk_source=homepage-in-the-news/ Inmates Are Losing Their Privilege to Get Laid] ." Vice. April 17, 2014. Retrieved April 19, 2014.Sanburn, Josh. "[https://nation.time.com/2014/01/13/mississippi-ending-conjugal-visits-for-prisoners/ Mississippi Ending Conjugal Visits for Prisoners] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180226102913/http://nation.time.com/2014/01/13/mississippi-ending-conjugal-visits-for-prisoners/ |date=February 26, 2018 }}." Time. January 13, 2014. Retrieved April 19, 2014.

{{main|Transgender rights in the United States}}

From April 2022 to January 2025, US Passports gave the sex/gender options of male, female and X by self determination.{{Cite news |date=April 11, 2022 |title=Which countries offer gender-neutral passports? |newspaper=The Economist |url=https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/04/11/which-countries-offer-gender-neutral-passports |access-date=April 19, 2022 |issn=0013-0613 |archive-date=April 18, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220418203417/https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/04/11/which-countries-offer-gender-neutral-passports |url-status=live }} Discrimination rates are very high for the transgender community and especially for transgender people of color.{{cite web |archive-date=May 6, 2015|access-date=October 17, 2017|title=Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey|url=http://www.thetaskforce.org/static_html/downloads/reports/reports/ntds_full.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150506162958/http://www.thetaskforce.org/static_html/downloads/reports/reports/ntds_full.pdf|url-status=dead |website=Thetaskforce.org}} Some frequent examples of discrimination and other forms of oppression faced by the transgender community are violence and hate crimes,{{cite magazine|date=July 27, 2015|title=These Are the Trans Women Killed So Far in the U.S. in 2015|url=http://www.advocate.com/transgender/2015/07/27/these-are-trans-women-killed-so-far-us-2015|magazine=The Advocate|access-date=May 27, 2016|archive-date=May 23, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160523194344/http://www.advocate.com/transgender/2015/07/27/these-are-trans-women-killed-so-far-us-2015|url-status=live}}{{cite magazine|date=October 14, 2016|title=These Are the Trans People Killed in 2016|url=http://www.advocate.com/transgender/2016/5/16/these-are-trans-people-killed-2016|magazine=The Advocate|access-date=May 27, 2016|archive-date=June 14, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160614202134/http://www.advocate.com/transgender/2016/5/16/these-are-trans-people-killed-2016|url-status=live}} homelessness,{{cite web|title=A Blueprint for Equality: Housing and Homelessness|date=June 29, 2015|website=National Center for Transgender Equality|url=http://www.transequality.org/issues/resources/a-blueprint-for-equality-housing-and-homelessness-2015|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160516061650/http://www.transequality.org/issues/resources/a-blueprint-for-equality-housing-and-homelessness-2015|archive-date=May 16, 2016|access-date=May 27, 2016}} poverty,{{cite magazine|date=February 18, 2015|title=REPORT: Trans Americans Four Times More Likely to Live in Poverty|url=http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2015/02/18/report-trans-americans-four-times-more-likely-live-poverty|magazine=The Advocate|access-date=October 17, 2017|archive-date=May 13, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190513122547/https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2015/02/18/report-trans-americans-four-times-more-likely-live-poverty|url-status=live}} sexual assault,{{cite web|date=April 30, 2014|title=Sexual Assault in the LGBT Community|url=http://www.nclrights.org/sexual-assault-in-the-lgbt-community/|website=NCLR|access-date=May 27, 2016|archive-date=May 9, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190509010758/http://www.nclrights.org/sexual-assault-in-the-lgbt-community/|url-status=live}}{{cite magazine|date=July 23, 2015|title=Op-ed: Trans Men Experience Far More Violence Than Most People Assume|url=http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2015/07/23/op-ed-trans-men-experience-far-more-violence-most-people-assume|magazine=The Advocate|access-date=May 27, 2016|archive-date=June 8, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160608101657/http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2015/07/23/op-ed-trans-men-experience-far-more-violence-most-people-assume|url-status=live}}{{cite web |title=Responding to Transgender Victims of Sexual Assault: The Numbers |url=http://www.ovc.gov/pubs/forge/sexual_numbers.html |website=Office for Victims of Crime |access-date=July 7, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150223162130/http://www.ovc.gov/pubs/forge/sexual_numbers.html |archive-date=February 23, 2015}} housing discrimination,{{cite journal |title=Gender Minority & Homelessness: Transgender Population |url=http://www.nhchc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/in-focus_transgender_sep2014_final.pdf |date=September 2014 |journal=In Focus: A Quarterly Research Review of the National HCH Council |volume=3 |issue=1 |access-date=July 7, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190412135101/http://www.nhchc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/in-focus_transgender_sep2014_final.pdf |archive-date=April 12, 2019}} employment discrimination,{{cite web |title=Your Rights Gender Identity Discrimination |url=https://www.workplacefairness.org/gender-identity-discrimination |website=Workplace Fairness |access-date=July 7, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150517001111/https://www.workplacefairness.org/gender-identity-discrimination |archive-date=May 17, 2015}} harassment,{{cite web|date=November 8, 2013|title=Transgender FAQ|url=http://www.glaad.org/transgender/transfaq|website=GLAAD|access-date=May 27, 2016|archive-date=May 8, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190508223747/https://www.glaad.org/transgender/transfaq|url-status=live}} bullying,{{cite web|title=It Takes A Village To Bully A Transgender Kindergartner|url=http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/04/22/3771366/dave-hannah-edwards-transgender-kindergartner/|access-date=October 17, 2017|website=Thinkprogress.org|archive-date=August 5, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160805190930/http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/04/22/3771366/dave-hannah-edwards-transgender-kindergartner/|url-status=live}} disproportionate rates of arrest and incarceration,{{cite magazine|date=May 24, 2016|title=The Criminal Justice System Is Broken and Trans People Are Suffering|url=http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2016/5/24/criminal-justice-system-broken-and-trans-people-are-suffering|magazine=The Advocate|access-date=May 27, 2016|archive-date=October 1, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181001070126/https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2016/5/24/criminal-justice-system-broken-and-trans-people-are-suffering|url-status=live}}

prison and immigration violence and mistreatment,{{cite web|title=Transgender asylum seeker faces abuse in immigration detention – Transgender Law Center|url=http://transgenderlawcenter.org/archives/11347|access-date=October 17, 2017|website=Transgenderlawcenter.org|date=January 13, 2015|archive-date=October 1, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181001031056/https://transgenderlawcenter.org/archives/11347|url-status=dead}} airport security humiliation,{{cite news|title=Transgender Woman Says She Was Delayed by TSA for Anatomical 'Anomaly'|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/transgender-woman-says-she-was-delayed-tsa-anatomical-anomaly-n431326|work=NBC News|archive-date=November 10, 2018|access-date=October 7, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181110211352/https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/transgender-woman-says-she-was-delayed-tsa-anatomical-anomaly-n431326|url-status=live}}{{cite news|title=TSA changes word for trans bodies from 'anomaly' to 'alarm'|url=https://msnbc.com/msnbc/tsa-changes-word-trans-bodies-anomaly-alarm|access-date=October 17, 2017|work=MSNBC}} HIV/AIDS{{cite web|date=April 2, 2015|title=Why Transgender Women Have the Country's Highest HIV Rates|url=http://www.hivplusmag.com/case-studies/2013/04/08/invisible-women-why-transgender-women-are-hit-so-hard-hiv|website=HIV Plus|access-date=May 27, 2016|archive-date=May 18, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190518020322/https://www.hivplusmag.com/case-studies/2013/04/08/invisible-women-why-transgender-women-are-hit-so-hard-hiv|url-status=live}} and health disparities,{{cite web|last=Dupere|first=Katie|title=6 ways the health care system fails transgender patients|url=http://mashable.com/2015/08/05/transgender-health-care/|website=Mashable|date=August 5, 2015|access-date=May 27, 2016|archive-date=December 12, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181212005759/https://mashable.com/2015/08/05/transgender-health-care/|url-status=live}}{{cite news|title=Trans People Are Using #TransHealthFail And It's Making A Difference|url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/sallytamarkin/transhealthfail|work=Buzzfeed|archive-date=March 31, 2019|access-date=May 27, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190331072606/https://www.buzzfeed.com/sallytamarkin/transhealthfail|url-status=live}} governmental/bureaucratic barriers to transitioning (documents and surgery requirements),{{cite web|title=State Bill Would Modernize Process To Change Gender on Illinois Birth Certificates|url=http://progressillinois.com/quick-hits/content/2016/02/15/state-bill-would-modernize-process-change-gender-illinois-birth|website=progressillinois.com|date=May 28, 2023|access-date=May 27, 2016|archive-date=June 2, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180602060426/http://progressillinois.com/quick-hits/content/2016/02/15/state-bill-would-modernize-process-change-gender-illinois-birth|url-status=live}} economic and societal barriers to transitioning (the high costs of medical care and the frequent denial of care),{{cite news|first=Alyssa|last=Jackson|title=The high cost of being transgender|publisher=CNN|url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/31/health/transgender-costs-irpt/index.html|archive-date=January 4, 2019|access-date=August 25, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190104122115/https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/31/health/transgender-costs-irpt/index.html|url-status=live}}{{cite news|title=Costs of Transgender Transition Can Have Dark Financial Legacy|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/business/personal-finance/high-costs-transgender-transition-can-have-dark-financial-legacy-n454701|work=NBC News|archive-date=November 10, 2018|access-date=October 7, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181110202818/https://www.nbcnews.com/business/personal-finance/high-costs-transgender-transition-can-have-dark-financial-legacy-n454701|url-status=live}} to name only a few.

Some who experience exclusion from the workforce, turn to survival crimes, such as sex work, in order to have an income as a direct result of economic oppression and discrimination. With the passage of the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) and Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA) bills, those individuals who turn to sex work are put in more danger because they are forced to turn back to more dangerous methods of finding work, such as through pimps and working on the streets, than online forums where they were able to vet clients.{{cite web|date=March 24, 2018|title=Trump signs controversial 'sex-trafficking' bill that could hurt the future of the internet|url=https://www.dailydot.com/debug/what-is-sesta-fosta-bill/|access-date=March 7, 2019|website=The Daily Dot|language=en|archive-date=May 16, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190516192532/https://www.dailydot.com/debug/what-is-sesta-fosta-bill/|url-status=live}}{{cite web|date=March 3, 2018|title=Sex workers explain why the House's online sex-trafficking bill is bulls**t|url=https://www.dailydot.com/irl/sex-workers-sex-trafficking-bill/|access-date=March 7, 2019|website=The Daily Dot|language=en|archive-date=March 8, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190308081402/https://www.dailydot.com/irl/sex-workers-sex-trafficking-bill/|url-status=live}}{{cite web|last1=Stahl|first1=Aviva|last2=Schrupp|first2=Lindsay|date=August 2, 2018|title='We're Monumentally Fucked': Trans Sex Workers on Life Under FOSTA/SESTA|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/trans-sex-workers-on-life-under-fosta-sesta/|access-date=March 7, 2019|website=Broadly|language=en-US|archive-date=March 8, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190308081621/https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/ev8ayz/trans-sex-workers-on-life-under-fosta-sesta|url-status=live}}{{cite web|title=Position on FOSTA-SESTA and its Impact on Consensual Sex Work and the Chilling of Sexual Speech|publisher=AASECT: American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists|url=https://www.aasect.org/position-fosta-sesta-and-its-impact-consensual-sex-work-and-chilling-sexual-speech|access-date=March 7, 2019|archive-date=March 28, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190328090154/https://www.aasect.org/position-fosta-sesta-and-its-impact-consensual-sex-work-and-chilling-sexual-speech|url-status=live}}{{cite web|last1=Cole|first1=Samantha|last2=Maiberg|first2=Emanuel|date=April 11, 2018|title=Trump Just Signed SESTA/FOSTA, a Law Sex Workers Say Will Literally Kill Them|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/trump-signed-fosta-sesta-into-law-sex-work/|access-date=March 7, 2019|website=Motherboard|language=en-US|archive-date=April 6, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190406155419/https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qvxeyq/trump-signed-fosta-sesta-into-law-sex-work|url-status=live}}

Frequently, the media, and politicians sensationalize transgender identities and oppression is reinforced. Aware of this trend, in 2016, a coalition of over 250 anti-sexual assault and domestic violence organizations have released a joint letter decrying the trend of portraying transgender people in restrooms as sexual predators as untrue and harmful. Likewise, GLAAD has released a media guide{{cite web|date=February 24, 2016|title=Debunking the 'Bathroom Bill' Myth – Accurate Reporting on LGBT Nondiscrimination: A Guide for Journalists|url=http://www.glaad.org/publications/debunking-the-bathroom-bill-myth|publisher=GLAAD|access-date=May 27, 2016|archive-date=April 29, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190429064443/https://www.glaad.org/publications/debunking-the-bathroom-bill-myth|url-status=live}} for reporters covering restroom usage in relation to the transgender community.

In 2022, over 230 anti-transgender bills were introduced in state legislatures in a coordinated national campaign to target transgender rights,{{cite web | url=https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/nearly-240-anti-lgbtq-bills-filed-2022-far-targeting-trans-people-rcna20418 | title=Nearly 240 anti-LGBTQ bills filed in 2022 so far, most of them targeting trans people | website=NBC News | date=March 20, 2022 | access-date=May 26, 2022 | archive-date=August 18, 2022 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220818172620/https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/nearly-240-anti-lgbtq-bills-filed-2022-far-targeting-trans-people-rcna20418 | url-status=live }} and over 350 in 2023.{{Cite web |last=Mayeda |first=Ali |date=April 3, 2023 |title=LGBTQ+ Communities Fight Back Against Coordinated Nationwide Assault |url=https://www.equalityfederation.org/post/lgbtq-communities-fight-back-against-coordinated-nationwide-assault |access-date=2023-11-07 |website=Equality Federation |archive-date=November 7, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231107144349/https://www.equalityfederation.org/post/lgbtq-communities-fight-back-against-coordinated-nationwide-assault |url-status=live }} Many of these bills became law.

Many transgender advocates also advocate for converting single-occupant, gender-segregated restrooms into single-occupant, all-gender restrooms by simply changing the signs due to the high rates of harassment and even violence faced by the transgender community when accessing gender-segregated restrooms according to their gender expression. All-gender/gender-neutral restrooms are also beneficial to nursing mothers, parents with different-sex children, and people with disabilities.{{cite web|title=Chicago Tribune|url=http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-86390263/|website=Chicago Tribune|access-date=May 27, 2016|archive-date=April 13, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200413224112/http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-86390263/|url-status=dead}} Transgender advocates affirm all-gender restrooms as well as access to gendered restrooms as a matter of choice, safety, privacy, and dignity.{{cite magazine|date=April 1, 2016|title=Bathroom Bills, Selfies, and the Erasure of Nonbinary Trans People|url=http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2016/4/01/bathroom-bills-selfies-and-erasure-nonbinary-trans-people|magazine=The Advocate|access-date=May 27, 2016|archive-date=October 6, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181006090716/https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2016/4/01/bathroom-bills-selfies-and-erasure-nonbinary-trans-people|url-status=live}}

[[File:Requirements_for_altering_birth_certificate_sex_in_the_US.svg|right|thumb|upright=1.3|Legal requirements each state has for altering the sex on one's birth certificate.

{{legend|#006400|State updates birth certificates using an administrative process and does not require provider documentation (14 states)}}

{{legend|#228B22|State updates birth certificates using an administrative process and requires provider documentation of "appropriate treatment" (11 states , 1 territory + D.C.)}}

{{legend|#3CB371|State has unclear process and/or unclear medical requirements left to the discretion of individual judges (see citations for more information) (7 states, 3 territories)}}

{{legend|#90EE90|State updates birth certificates using an administrative process but requires proof of surgery (3 states)}}

{{legend|#98FB98|State updates birth certificates but requires both a court order and proof of surgery (8 states, 1 territory)}}

{{legend|Red|State does not allow for amending the gender marker on the birth certificate (7 states)}}]]

One executive order signed in the first hours of President Trump's second administration defined, for all purposes of the federal government, sex as binary, removing the federal recognition of non binary genders. It is also expected to prevent the federal government from allowing gender changes by people who are transgender.{{Cite web |last=Ingle |first=Davis |date=2025-01-21 |title=Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government |url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/ |access-date=2025-01-21 |website=The White House |language=en-US |archive-date=January 21, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250121214116/https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/ |url-status=live }}{{Cite web |title=Donald Trump erases transgender people from federal rules |url=https://www.advocate.com/politics/donald-trump-invalidates-transgender-identities |access-date=2025-01-21 |website=www.advocate.com |language=en |archive-date=January 21, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250121024733/https://www.advocate.com/politics/donald-trump-invalidates-transgender-identities |url-status=live }}{{Cite web |date=2025-01-21 |title=Trump signs executive orders proclaiming there are only two biological sexes, halting diversity programs |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/trump-sign-executive-orders-proclaiming-are-only-two-biological-sexes-rcna188388 |access-date=2025-01-21 |website=NBC News |language=en |archive-date=January 21, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250121004103/https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/trump-sign-executive-orders-proclaiming-are-only-two-biological-sexes-rcna188388 |url-status=live }}

Different procedures and requirements for legal name changes and gender marker changes on birth certificates, drivers licenses, social security identification and passports exist and can be inconsistent. Many states require gender reassignment surgery to change their name and gender marker. Also, documents that do not match each other can present difficulties in conducting personal affairs - particularly those which require multiple, matching forms of identification. Furthermore, having documents that do not match a person's gender presentation has been reported to lead to harassment and discrimination.

U.S. states make their own laws about birth certificates, and state courts have issued varied rulings about transgender people.{{cite web|title=FindLaw's Writ - Grossman: When Parentage Turns on Anatomical Sex An Illinois Court Denies a Female-to-Male Transsexual's Claim of Fatherhood|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20050308.html|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110510080250/http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20050308.html|archive-date=May 10, 2011|work=findlaw.com}}{{Cite book|last=Grenberg|first=Julie|title=Transgender Rights|publisher=Minnesota University Press|year=2006|isbn=0-8166-4312-1|editor-last=Currah|editor-first=Paisley|location=Minneapolis|publication-date=2006|pages=51–73|contribution=The Roads Less Travelled: The Problem with Binary Sex Categories|editor2-last=Juang|editor2-first=Richard|editor3-last=Minter|editor3-first=Minter}}

Most states permit the name and sex to be changed on a birth certificate, either by amending the existing birth certificate or by issuing a new one, although some require medical proof of sex reassignment surgery to do so.

Tennessee will not change the sex on a birth certificate at all, under any circumstances.{{cite web|title=Kansas to allow trans residents to change birth certificates|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/kansas-allow-trans-residents-change-birth-certificates-n1021411|work=NBC News|date=June 25, 2019|access-date=June 28, 2020|archive-date=March 5, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200305175638/https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/kansas-allow-trans-residents-change-birth-certificates-n1021411|url-status=live}}{{cite news|title=Changing Birth Certificate Sex Designations: State-By-State Guidelines|url=http://www.lambdalegal.org/publications/changing-birth-certificate-sex-designations-state-by-state-guidelines|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140618233117/http://www.lambdalegal.org/publications/changing-birth-certificate-sex-designations-state-by-state-guidelines|archive-date=June 18, 2014|work=Lambda Legal}}{{cite web|last=Purifoy |first=Parker |url=https://www.losangelesblade.com/2020/12/16/federal-judge-rules-ohio-birth-certificate-policy-is-unconstitutional/ |title=Federal judge rules Ohio birth certificate policy is unconstitutional |work=Los Angeles Blade |date=December 26, 2020 |access-date=December 31, 2020}} In February 2020, the Idaho House of Representatives passed a similar bill.{{cite web|date=February 27, 2020|title=Idaho House Passes Bill Banning Trans People from Correcting Gender on Birth Certificates|url=https://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/20200227_idaho-anti-trans-birth-certificate-bill|access-date=February 28, 2020|website=Lambda Legal|language=en|archive-date=October 31, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201031055914/https://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/20200227_idaho-anti-trans-birth-certificate-bill|url-status=live}} Oklahoma banned gender change in 2021.{{Cite web |last=Stitt |first=Kevin |date=November 8, 2021 |title=Executive Order 2021-24 |url=https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/executive/2014.pdf |website=Oklahoma Secretary of State}} In 2022, Montana banned gender change.{{Cite web |date=September 9, 2022 |title=Montana permanently blocks transgender people from changing their birth certificates |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/montana-permanently-blocks-transgender-people-from-changing-their-birth-certificates |access-date=December 22, 2022 |website=PBS NewsHour |language=en-us}}

As of February 2024, all U.S. States except for Kansas and Florida allow the gender marker to be changed on a driver's license, although the requirements for doing so vary by state. Often, the requirements for changing one's driver's license are less stringent than those for changing the marker on the birth certificate. For example, until August 1, 2015, the state of Massachusetts required sex reassignment surgery for a birth certificate change,{{cite web|publisher=Commonwealth of Massachusetts|title=General Laws|url=http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter46/Section13|access-date=June 20, 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120702053455/http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter46/Section13|archive-date=July 2, 2012}}{{cite web|publisher=Commonwealth of Massachusetts|title=Transgender People and Amended Birth Certificates|work=Massachusetts Law Updates |date=August 26, 2015|url=https://blog.mass.gov/masslawlib/new-laws/transgender-people-and-amended-birth-certificates|access-date=March 18, 2021|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210127094117/https://blog.mass.gov/masslawlib/new-laws/transgender-people-and-amended-birth-certificates|archive-date=January 27, 2021}} but only a form including a sworn statement from a physician that the applicant is in fact the new gender to correct the sex designation on a driver's license.{{cite web|publisher=Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles|title=Change of Gender|url=https://secure.rmv.state.ma.us/PolicyBrowserPublic/PB/default.htm?turl=WordDocuments%2FTransactions%2Fchangeofgender44.htm|access-date=June 20, 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140201140746/https://secure.rmv.state.ma.us/PolicyBrowserPublic/PB/default.htm?turl=WordDocuments%2FTransactions%2Fchangeofgender44.htm|archive-date=February 1, 2014}}

As of November 2019, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts no longer requires any documentation or a sworn statement from a medical doctor in order to change one's gender marker on their drivers license/state ID. In order to change the gender marker, one only needs to fill out a new drivers license/ID card application reflecting the correct information.{{cite web|publisher=Commonwealth of Massachusetts|title=Massachusetts Allows Nonbinary Marker on Licenses, IDs|url=https://www.mass.gov/news/massachusetts-allows-nonbinary-marker-on-licenses-ids|access-date=March 18, 2021|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210203143515/https://www.mass.gov/news/massachusetts-allows-nonbinary-marker-on-licenses-ids|archive-date=February 3, 2021}}

The state of Virginia had policies similar to those of Massachusetts, requiring Sex reassignment surgery (SRS) for a birth certificate change, but not for a driver's license change.{{cite news|title=Sources of Authority to Amend Sex Designation on Birth Certificates|url=http://www.lambdalegal.org/publications/sources-of-authority-to-amend|newspaper=Lambda Legal|access-date=June 20, 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120716231645/http://www.lambdalegal.org/publications/sources-of-authority-to-amend|archive-date=July 16, 2012}}{{cite web|url=http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/pdf/dl17.pdf|title=Gender Change Request|publisher=Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles|access-date=June 20, 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130514080328/http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/pdf/dl17.pdf|archive-date=May 14, 2013}} Virginia removed the requirement for surgery to change the gender marker in September 2020.{{Cite web|title=LIS > Bill Tracking > HB1041 > 2020 session|url=https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+HB1041|access-date=2020-10-03|website=lis.virginia.gov}}

Sometimes, the states' requirements and laws conflict with and are dependent on each other; for example, a transgender woman who was born in Tennessee but living in Kentucky will be unable to have the gender marker changed on her Kentucky driver's license. This is due to the fact that Kentucky requires an amended birth certificate reflecting the person's accurate gender, but the state of Tennessee does not change gender markers on birth certificates at all.{{cite web|title=Driver's License Policies by State|url=http://transequality.org/Resources/DL/DL_policies.html|publisher=National Center for Transgender Equality|access-date=June 21, 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120701163135/http://transequality.org/Resources/DL/DL_policies.html|archive-date=July 1, 2012}}

On July 1, 2023, Kansas Senate Bill 180 went into effect, mandating that gender markers on birth certificates and driver's licenses reflect a person's sex at birth – reversing a 2019 federal equal protection lawsuit settlement which allowed birth certificates to be changed to reflect a person's gender identity.{{cite web|last=Ebrahimji|first=Alisha|url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/11/us/kansas-transgender-drivers-license-law/index.html|title=A state judge ordered Kansas to stop letting transgender people change their gender marker on their driver's licenses|website=CNN|access-date=10 February 2024|date=11 July 2023|archive-date=July 25, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230725043500/https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/11/us/kansas-transgender-drivers-license-law/index.html|url-status=live}}

In January 2024, Florida banned changing the gender marker on driver's licenses. Additionally, any person "misrepresenting" their gender would be subject to criminal and civil penalties.{{cite web|last=Migdon|first=Brooke|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4438514-florida-bars-transgender-residents-from-changing-gender-on-drivers-licenses/|title=Florida bars transgender residents from changing gender on driver's licenses|website=The Hill|date=30 January 2024}}{{cite web|last1=Crowley|first1=Kinsey|last2=Soule|first2=Douglas|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/30/florida-transgender-drivers-license-change/72409088007/|title=Florida barring gender changes on driver's license puts trans residents at risk, critics say|website=USA Today|date=30 January 2024|access-date=March 2, 2024|archive-date=February 17, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240217012858/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/30/florida-transgender-drivers-license-change/72409088007/|url-status=live}}

In addition, a number of states and city jurisdictions have passed legislation to allow a third gender marker on official identification documents (see below).

In May 2015, six Michigan transgender people filed Love v. Johnson in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, challenging the state's policy requiring the information on a person's driver's license match the information on their birth certificate.{{cite web |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-lawsuit-michigan-id-policy-exposes-transgender-men-and-women-risk-harassment-violence |title=ACLU Lawsuit: Michigan ID Policy Exposes Transgender Men and Women to Risk of Harassment, Violence |date=May 21, 2015 |website=American Civil Liberties Union |access-date=July 9, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160525092512/https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-lawsuit-michigan-id-policy-exposes-transgender-men-and-women-risk-harassment-violence |archive-date=May 25, 2016}} This policy requires transgender people to change the information on their birth certificates in order to change their driver's licenses, which at the time of filing was not possible in Tennessee, Nebraska and Ohio, where three of the plaintiffs were born, and requires a court order in South Carolina, where a fourth was born. The remaining two residents were born in Michigan, and would be required to undergo surgery to change their birth certificates.{{cite web |first=Khalil |last=AlHajal |url=http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2015/11/judge_refuses_to_dismiss_chall.html |title=Judge refuses to dismiss challenge to Michigan policy on transgender drivers |date=November 16, 2015 |access-date=July 9, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151222153455/http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2015/11/judge_refuses_to_dismiss_chall.html |archive-date=December 22, 2015}} The plaintiffs in the case are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.

In November 2015, Judge Nancy Edmunds denied the State of Michigan's motion to dismiss the case.

The U.S. State Department determines what identifying biographical information is placed on passports. On June 10, 2010, the policy on gender changes was amended to allow permanent gender marker changes to be made with the statement of a physician that "the applicant has had appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition to the new gender.";.{{cite web|date=June 27, 2018|title=8 FAM 403.3 Gender Change|url=https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM040303.html|access-date=July 18, 2018|publisher=United States Department of State|archive-date=December 28, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201228212606/https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM040303.html|url-status=live}} The previous policy required a statement from a surgeon that gender reassignment surgery was completed.{{cite web|date=June 27, 2018|title=8 FAM 1004.1 Passport Amendments|url=https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM100401.html|access-date=July 18, 2018|publisher=United States Department of State|archive-date=December 28, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201228212705/https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM100401.html|url-status=live}} From April 11, 2022 to January 21, 2025, American passports gave the sex/gender options of male, female and X by self determination.{{Cite web|url=https://www.opb.org/article/2022/04/12/u-s-citizens-can-now-choose-the-gender-x-on-their-passport-applications/|title=US citizens can now choose the gender 'X' on their passport applications|access-date=April 15, 2022|archive-date=April 12, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220412182711/https://www.opb.org/article/2022/04/12/u-s-citizens-can-now-choose-the-gender-x-on-their-passport-applications/|url-status=dead}}

Since January 2025, trans and non-binary people have been prevented from altering their gender markers on passports.

File:X Gender Markers.svg

{{main|Legal recognition of non-binary gender#United States}}

From 2022 to 2025, the U.S. federal government recognizes a third gender option on passports. Other countries including Australia, New Zealand, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Germany, Malta, and Canada have begun recognizing this.{{cite web|date=August 10, 2015|title=Nepal issues first third-gender passport, after Australia and N. Zealand|url=http://www.dailysabah.com/asia/2015/08/10/nepal-issues-first-third-gender-passport-after-australia-and-n-zealand|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150817054554/http://www.dailysabah.com/asia/2015/08/10/nepal-issues-first-third-gender-passport-after-australia-and-n-zealand|archive-date=August 17, 2015|work=DailySabah}}{{cite web|first=Jacinta|last=Nandi|title=Germany got it right by offering a third gender option on birth certificates|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/10/germany-third-gender-birth-certificate|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161222091105/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/10/germany-third-gender-birth-certificate|archive-date=December 22, 2016|work=The Guardian|date=November 10, 2013}}{{cite news|first=Joanna|last=Plucinska|date=August 11, 2015|title=Nepal Is The Latest Country to Acknowledge A Third Gender on Passports|magazine=Time|url=https://time.com/3992104/nepal-passport-third-gender-transgender/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150824165124/http://time.com/3992104/nepal-passport-third-gender-transgender/|archive-date=August 24, 2015}}{{cite web|title=Malta becomes first European country to recognize gender identity in Constitution|url=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/15/1292200/-Malta-becomes-first-European-country-to-recognize-gender-identity-in-Constitution|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923231023/http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/15/1292200/-Malta-becomes-first-European-country-to-recognize-gender-identity-in-Constitution|archive-date=September 23, 2015|publisher=Daily Kos}}{{cite news|last1=Busby|first1=Mattha|date=August 31, 2017|title=Canada introduces gender-neutral 'X' option on passports|newspaper=The Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/31/canada-introduces-gender-neutral-x-option-on-passports|url-status=live|access-date=August 31, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170831045455/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/31/canada-introduces-gender-neutral-x-option-on-passports|archive-date=August 31, 2017}} Third genders have traditionally been acknowledged in a number of Native American cultures as "two spirit" people, in traditional Hawaiian culture as the māhū, and as the fa'afafine in American Samoa.{{cite web|title=The 'two-spirit' people of indigenous North Americans|url=https://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/oct/11/two-spirit-people-north-america|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170128231853/https://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/oct/11/two-spirit-people-north-america|archive-date=January 28, 2017|work=The Guardian|date=October 11, 2010}}{{cite news|date=April 28, 2015|title=The Beautiful Way Hawaiian Culture Embraces A Particular Kind Of Transgender Identity|work=HuffPost|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/28/hawaiian-culture-transgender_n_7158130.html|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170130060554/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/28/hawaiian-culture-transgender_n_7158130.html|archive-date=January 30, 2017}}{{cite web|title=Fa'afafines: The Third Gender|url=http://theculturetrip.com/pacific/samoa/articles/fa-afafines-the-third-gender/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151127055906/http://www.theculturetrip.com/pacific/samoa/articles/fa-afafines-the-third-gender/|archive-date=November 27, 2015|work=theculturetrip.com|date=September 15, 2011}}{{cite web|title=Society Of Fa'afafine In American Samoa - S.O.F.I.A.S.|url=https://www.facebook.com/pages/Society-Of-Faafafine-In-American-Samoa-SOFIAS/168150006613160|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180104130543/https://www.facebook.com/pages/Society-Of-Faafafine-In-American-Samoa-SOFIAS/168150006613160|archive-date=January 4, 2018|website=Facebook}} Similarly, immigrants from traditional cultures that acknowledge a third gender would benefit from such a reform, including the muxe gender in southern Mexico and the hijra of south Asian cultures.{{cite web|date=June 5, 2012|title=In Mexico, Mixed Genders And 'Muxes'|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/pictureshow/2012/05/30/153990125/in-mexico-mixed-genders-and-muxes|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150912093840/http://www.npr.org/sections/pictureshow/2012/05/30/153990125/in-mexico-mixed-genders-and-muxes|archive-date=September 12, 2015|publisher=NPR}}{{cite web|first=Homa|last=Khaleeli|title=Hijra: India's third gender claims its place in law|url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/16/india-third-gender-claims-place-in-law|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170415131009/https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/16/india-third-gender-claims-place-in-law|archive-date=April 15, 2017|work=The Guardian|date=April 16, 2014}}{{cite news|date=March 19, 2014|title=Third Gender|work=HuffPost|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/19/non-binary-gender-petition_n_4994200.html|url-status=live|access-date=August 25, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150729090841/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/19/non-binary-gender-petition_n_4994200.html|archive-date=July 29, 2015}}

On June 10, 2016, an Oregon circuit court ruled that a resident, Elisa Rae Shupe, could obtain a non-binary gender designation. The Transgender Law Center believes this to be "the first ruling of its kind in the U.S."{{cite web|last1=O'Hara|first1=Mary Emily|date=June 10, 2016|title='Nonbinary' is now a legal gender, Oregon court rules|url=http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/oregon-court-rules-non-binary-gender-legal/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160610210014/http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/oregon-court-rules-non-binary-gender-legal/|archive-date=June 10, 2016|access-date=June 10, 2016|website=The Daily Dot}}

{{Main article|Legal status of gender-affirming healthcare#United States}}{{Further information|Transgender rights in the United States#Healthcare}}

Gender-affirming care for minors has been available in the U.S. for more than a decade and is endorsed by major medical associations, but it has increasingly come under attack in many conservative legislatures.{{Cite web |title=North Dakota governor signs law criminalizing trans health care for minors |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/north-dakota-governor-signs-law-criminalizing-trans-health-care-for-minors |date=April 20, 2023 |access-date=January 3, 2024 |website=PBS |language=en-US |archive-date=December 24, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231224011815/https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/north-dakota-governor-signs-law-criminalizing-trans-health-care-for-minors |url-status=live}} According to the ACLU, in 2023 alone, over 500 anti-LGBTQ bills were submitted in the US, over 130 of which were about healthcare.{{Cite web |title=Mapping Attacks on LGBTQ Rights in U.S. State Legislatures |url=https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights |access-date=October 7, 2023 |website=American Civil Liberties Union |language=en-US |quote=The ACLU is tracking 501 anti-LGBTQ bills in the U.S. |archive-date=April 5, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230405055418/https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights |url-status=live}} Efforts to prohibit gender-affirming care for minors had begun several years earlier, but did not receive much attention from state legislatures until more recently.{{cite web |date=6 April 2021 |title=Arkansas Lawmakers Override Veto, Enact Transgender Youth Treatment Ban |url=https://www.ualrpublicradio.org/post/arkansas-lawmakers-override-veto-enact-transgender-youth-treatment-ban |website=Associated Press |access-date=May 24, 2023 |archive-date=July 31, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210731220458/https://www.ualrpublicradio.org/post/arkansas-lawmakers-override-veto-enact-transgender-youth-treatment-ban |url-status=live}} The conservative organization Do No Harm was influential in developing model legislation that appeared starting in 2022 in Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, and West Virginia legislatures.{{Cite web |last1=McMillan |first1=Jeff |last2=Kruesi |first2=Kimberlee |date=2023-05-20 |title=Meet the influential new player on transgender health bills |url=https://apnews.com/article/transgender-bills-lobbying-do-no-harm-94f56059d24608d724eb78fefecf4e09 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230704191142/https://apnews.com/article/transgender-bills-lobbying-do-no-harm-94f56059d24608d724eb78fefecf4e09 |archive-date=2023-07-04 |access-date=2023-09-06 |website=AP News |language=en}}{{Cite web |last=Balevic |first=Katie |date=20 May 2023 |title=Do No Harm, a group of 'medical professionals' fighting 'woke healthcare,' is behind many anti-trans laws |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/do-no-harm-behind-anti-trans-laws-fighting-woke-healthcare-2023-5 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230606063139/https://www.businessinsider.com/do-no-harm-behind-anti-trans-laws-fighting-woke-healthcare-2023-5 |archive-date=2023-06-06 |access-date=2023-09-06 |website=Business Insider |language=en-US}}

In February 2024, the American Psychological Association approved a policy statement supporting unobstructed access to health care and evidence-based clinical care for transgender, gender-diverse, and nonbinary children, adolescents, and adults, as well as opposing state bans and policies intended to limit access to such care.{{Cite web |date=February 2024 |title=APA Policy Statement on Affirming Evidence-Based Inclusive Care for Transgender, Gender Diverse, and Nonbinary Individuals, Addressing Misinformation, and the Role of Psychological Practice and Science |url=https://www.apa.org/about/policy/transgender-nonbinary-inclusive-care |access-date=2024-02-29 |website=American Psychological Association |archive-date=March 11, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240311074408/https://www.apa.org/about/policy/transgender-nonbinary-inclusive-care |url-status=live }}{{cite news |last1=Reed |first1=Erin |title=World's largest psych association supports trans youth care |url=https://www.advocate.com/news/apa-gender-affirming-care |access-date=29 February 2024 |work=www.advocate.com |language=en}}

As of February 2025, 27 states had enacted some form of ban on gender-affirming care for minors, 19 of which were enacted in 2023.{{Cite web |orig-date=October 19, 2023 |title=Nearly 100,000 transgender youth live in states that banned access to health care, sports, or school bathrooms in 2023 |url=https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/trans-leg-summary-press-release/ |access-date=December 29, 2023 |website=Williams Institute |language=en-US |archive-date=December 29, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231229171911/https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/trans-leg-summary-press-release/ |url-status=live }}{{Cite web |date=2024-01-11 |title=Efforts to restrict transgender health care endure in 2024, with more adults targeted |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/efforts-restrict-transgender-health-care-endure-2024-adults-targeted-rcna133432 |access-date=2024-02-05 |website=NBC News |language=en |archive-date=February 29, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240229062806/https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/efforts-restrict-transgender-health-care-endure-2024-adults-targeted-rcna133432 |url-status=live }} However, 16 of these bans are being challenged in court as of January 2024.{{Cite web |title=The Proliferation of State Actions Limiting Youth Access to Gender Affirming Care |url=https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/the-proliferation-of-state-actions-limiting-youth-access-to-gender-affirming-care/ |date=January 31, 2024 |access-date=February 5, 2024 |website=KFF |language=en-US |archive-date=February 5, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240205072326/https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/the-proliferation-of-state-actions-limiting-youth-access-to-gender-affirming-care/ |url-status=live }} Furthermore, only 19 of the 27 states have complete bans which are fully in effect. Six states have only partial bans and two are currently blocked from taking effect. While some states have banned all forms of medical transition, others such as Arizona, Nebraska, New Hampshire and Georgia have banned only specific types such as hormone therapy or surgery. Six states have exceptions which allow minors who were already receiving gender affirming care prior to the ban to continue their treatments. Currently, all 27 states make exceptions for puberty blockers, hormones and surgery for cisgender and intersex children. Only one state, West Virginia, makes exceptions in cases of "severe dysphoria". There is also currently only one state, Missouri, that has a ban which is set to expire after a certain period of time. Nearly all states with restrictions include specific provisions with penalties for providers and 4 states include provisions directed at parents or guardians. An additional 4 states include laws/policies that impact school officials such as teachers and counselors, among others.

In May 2024, Tennessee became the first state to prohibit helping a child access gender-affirming care without the consent of their parent or guardian. The child's parents are allowed to sue the person who assisted the pursuit of gender-affirming care. There is no criminal penalty.{{Cite web |last=Kalish |first=Lil |date=2024-05-30 |title=Tennessee Enacts 'Concerning' First-In-The-Nation Law |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tennessee-enacts-first-in-the-nation-law-to-stop-adults-from-helping-minors-access-gender-affirming-care_n_6657b125e4b0169dc7594655 |access-date=2024-05-30 |website=HuffPost |language=en |archive-date=May 30, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240530172230/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tennessee-enacts-first-in-the-nation-law-to-stop-adults-from-helping-minors-access-gender-affirming-care_n_6657b125e4b0169dc7594655 |url-status=live }}

At the same time, many Democrat-controlled states have gone in the opposite direction and enacted laws protecting access to gender affirming care for minors and adults. These laws, often called "shield" laws, often explicitly combine protections for gender-affirming care and abortion and cover a variety of protections including protecting both providers and patients from being punished, mandating insurance providers to cover the procedures and acting as "sanctuary states" that protect patients traveling to the state from other states that have banned such treatments among other things.{{Cite web |last=Panetta |first=Grace |title=Lawmakers in blue states are linking protections for abortion and gender-affirming care |url=https://19thnews.org/2023/06/abortion-trans-health-care-shield-laws/ |access-date=2024-01-01 |website=The 19th |date=June 9, 2023 |language=en-US |archive-date=February 5, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240205155546/https://19thnews.org/2023/06/abortion-trans-health-care-shield-laws/ |url-status=live}}{{cite news |last1=Ferguson |first1=Dana |last2=Maucione |first2=Scott |last3=Birkeland |first3=Bente |last4=Pluta |first4=Rick |last5=Jackson |first5=Colin |last6=Squires |first6=Acacia |title=Minnesota to join at least 4 other states in protecting transgender care this year |url=https://www.npr.org/2023/04/21/1171069066/states-protect-transgender-affirming-care-minnesota-colorado-maryland-illinois |access-date=June 11, 2023 |work=NPR |date=April 21, 2023 |archive-date=June 10, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230610223158/https://www.npr.org/2023/04/21/1171069066/states-protect-transgender-affirming-care-minnesota-colorado-maryland-illinois |url-status=live }} As of June 2024, 16 states and the District of Columbia have enacted "shield" laws.

Of the approximately 1.6 million Americans who are transgender, about 300,000 are under the age of 18.{{cite news |last1=Hassan |first1=Adeel |date=June 27, 2023 |title=States Passed a Record Number of Transgender Laws. Here's What They Say. |work=The New York Times |agency=New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/27/us/transgender-laws-states.html |access-date=January 1, 2024 |archive-date=January 1, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240101090715/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/27/us/transgender-laws-states.html |url-status=live }} As of October 2023, approximately 105,200 transgender youth aged 13 to 17 lived in states where gender affirming care is banned for minors. However, around 26,000 of those youth are currently still able to access care in their state due to court orders that prohibit enforcement of the laws. Conversely, around 146,700 transgender youth live in states that have passed gender-affirming care "shield" laws that support access to care by protecting doctors and parents who prescribe or seek access to medical care for youth. An analysis from KFF in late January 2024 estimated that 38% of trans youth between the ages of 13–17 in the United States lived in states with laws limiting youth access to gender-affirming care.

Bans on gender-affirming care have been criticized as governments interfering with the patient-doctor relationship and taking away healthcare decisions from parents and families for their children.{{cite web|title=Parents raise concerns as Florida bans gender-affirming care for trans kids|vauthors=Block M|website=NPR|date=February 20, 2023 |url=https://www.npr.org/2023/02/20/1157493433/florida-bans-gender-affirming-care-trans-kids|access-date=11 June 2023|archive-date=11 June 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230611072637/https://www.npr.org/2023/02/20/1157493433/florida-bans-gender-affirming-care-trans-kids|url-status=live}}{{cite web |title=Why GOP lawmakers want to stop doctors from prescribing gender-affirming care for Utah's youth |vauthors=Schott B |url=https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2023/01/18/why-gop-lawmakers-want-stop/ |access-date=2023-08-14 |website=The Salt Lake Tribune |language=en-US |archive-date=11 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230611072640/https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2023/01/18/why-gop-lawmakers-want-stop/ |url-status=live }} State level bans on gender-affirming care in the United States have led some families with transgender children to move out of their states.{{cite web |date=27 November 2022 |title=Conservative states are blocking trans medical care. Families are fleeing |vauthors=Connell-Bryan A, Kenen J, Holzman J |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/27/trans-medical-care-red-states-families-00064394 |website=Politico |access-date=30 November 2022 |archive-date=30 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221130110753/https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/27/trans-medical-care-red-states-families-00064394 |url-status=live }}{{cite web|title=As state laws target transgender children, families flee and become 'political refugees'|vauthors=Ramirez M|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/10/29/transgender-children-families-flee-states-restricting-rights/10547110002/|website=USA Today|access-date=30 November 2022|archive-date=30 November 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221130110753/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/10/29/transgender-children-families-flee-states-restricting-rights/10547110002/|url-status=live}}{{cite web |date=19 April 2021 |title='It's not safe': Parents of trans kids plan to flee their states as GOP bills loom |vauthors=Yurcaba J |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/it-s-not-safe-parents-transgender-kids-plan-flee-their-n1264506 |website=NBC News |access-date=30 November 2022 |archive-date=30 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221130110753/https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/it-s-not-safe-parents-transgender-kids-plan-flee-their-n1264506 |url-status=live }}

On October 17, 2024, Texas attorney general Ken Paxton filed suit against a doctor who allegedly provided gender-affirming care to 21 minors after the treatments had been banned for minors in Texas, the first time that such a suit has been brought in the U.S.{{Cite web |last1=Lavietes |first1=Matt |last2=Yurcaba |first2=Jo |date=2024-10-17 |title=Texas AG sues doctor who allegedly provided transgender care to 21 minors |url=https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/texas-ag-sues-doctor-allegedly-provided-transgender-care-minors/5898617/ |access-date=2024-10-17 |website=NBC News |language=en-US |archive-date=November 10, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241110203129/https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/texas-ag-sues-doctor-allegedly-provided-transgender-care-minors/5898617/ |url-status=live }}

{{Legend|#FFE3E3|Laws which are currently unenforceable due to a court injunction}}

{{Legend|#FFD|Laws which only partially ban gender affirming care for minors}}

{{main|Bathroom bill}}

A bathroom bill is the common name for legislation or a statute that defines access to public toilets by gender (restrooms)—or transgender individual. Bathroom bills affect access to sex-segregated public facilities for an individual based on a determination of their sex as defined in some specific way—such as their sex as assigned at birth, their sex as listed on their birth certificate, or the sex that corresponds to their gender identity.{{cite web | url=https://www.vox.com/2016/4/7/11381400/tennessee-transgender-bathroom-bill | title=Tennessee's anti-transgender bathroom bill, explained | work=Vox | date=April 7, 2016 | access-date=April 7, 2016 | author=Lopez, German | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160409005511/http://www.vox.com/2016/4/7/11381400/tennessee-transgender-bathroom-bill | archive-date=April 9, 2016 | url-status=live}} A bathroom bill can either be inclusive or exclusive of transgender individuals, depending on the aforementioned definition of their sex. Unisex public toilets are one option to overcome this controversy.

Critics of bills which exclude transgender individuals from restrooms which conform to their gender identity argue that they do not make public restrooms any safer for cisgender (non-transgender) people, and that they make public restrooms less safe for both transgender people and gender non-conforming cisgender people.{{cite web|url=https://mic.com/articles/114066/statistics-show-exactly-how-many-times-trans-people-have-attacked-you-in-bathrooms|first=Marcie|last=Bianco|title=Statistics Show Exactly How Many Times Trans People Have Attacked You in Bathrooms|date=April 2, 2016|access-date=January 11, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161221020310/https://mic.com/articles/114066/statistics-show-exactly-how-many-times-trans-people-have-attacked-you-in-bathrooms|archive-date=December 21, 2016|url-status=live}}{{cite web|title=Stop Using Women's Safety to Justify Transphobia|url=http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2016-04-stop-using-womens-safety-justify-transphobia/|date=April 12, 2016|first=Lindsay|last=King-Miller|access-date=January 11, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170113123645/http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2016-04-stop-using-womens-safety-justify-transphobia/|archive-date=January 13, 2017|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/04/11/more-republican-politicians-than-trans-people-have-been-arrested-for-sex-acts-in-bathrooms/|title=More Republican Politicians Than Trans People Have Been Arrested For Sex Acts in Bathrooms|last=Firma|first=Terry|date=April 11, 2016|access-date=January 11, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170113131235/http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/04/11/more-republican-politicians-than-trans-people-have-been-arrested-for-sex-acts-in-bathrooms/|archive-date=January 13, 2017|url-status=live}} Additionally, critics claim there have been no cases of a transgender person attacking a cisgender person in a public restroom,{{cite news|last1=Broverman|first1=Neal|title=Trump Supporter Broadcasts Live as She Chases Trans Woman Out of Bathroom|url=https://www.advocate.com/transgender/2018/5/17/trump-supporter-broadcasts-live-she-chases-trans-woman-out-bathroom|access-date=May 18, 2018|publisher=The Advocate|date=May 17, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180518152527/https://www.advocate.com/transgender/2018/5/17/trump-supporter-broadcasts-live-she-chases-trans-woman-out-bathroom|archive-date=May 18, 2018|url-status=live}} although there has been at least one isolated incident of voyeurism in a fitting room.{{cite news|last1=Chokshi|first1=Miraj|title=Transgender Woman is Charged With Voyeurism at Target in Idaho|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/us/target-transgender-idaho-voyeurism.html|access-date=May 31, 2017|work=The New York Times|date=July 14, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170818174917/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/us/target-transgender-idaho-voyeurism.html?_r=2|archive-date=August 18, 2017|url-status=live}} By comparison, a much larger percentage of transgender people have been verbally, physically, and sexually harassed or attacked by cisgender people in public facilities.{{cite web|url=http://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/USTS-Executive-Summary-FINAL.PDF|title=2015 U.S. Transgender Survey : Executive Summary|work=U.S. Transgender Survey|publisher=National Center for Transgender Equality|location=Washington|access-date=January 11, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170201032258/http://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/USTS-Executive-Summary-FINAL.PDF|archive-date=February 1, 2017|url-status=live}} For these reasons the controversy over transgender bathroom access has been labeled a moral panic.{{cite web|url=https://psmag.com/magazine/how-social-bias-is-segregating-americas-bathrooms|title=Stalled Out: How Social Bias is Segregating America's Bathrooms|last=Wheeling|first=Kate|date=August 4, 2017|access-date=August 18, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170818175453/https://psmag.com/magazine/how-social-bias-is-segregating-americas-bathrooms|archive-date=August 18, 2017|url-status=live}}

Proponents say such legislation is necessary to maintain privacy, protect what they claim to be an innate sense of modesty held by most cisgender people, prevent voyeurism, assault, molestation, and rape,{{cite web |title=Florida anti-transgender bathroom bill moves a step closer to passing |last1=Kasperkevic |first1=Jana |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/17/florida-anti-transgender-bathroom-bill |date=March 17, 2015 |website=The Guardian |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170829082617/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/17/florida-anti-transgender-bathroom-bill |archive-date=August 29, 2017 |access-date=July 11, 2017 |url-status=live}} and retain psychological comfort.{{cite news | url=https://time.com/4701658/texas-senate-bathroom-bill-sb6-transgender/ | title=Texas Senate Approves Controversial Bathroom Bill After Five-Hour Debate | magazine=Time | date=March 14, 2017 | access-date=June 27, 2017 | author=Steinmetz, Katy | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170626192211/http://time.com/4701658/texas-senate-bathroom-bill-sb6-transgender/ | archive-date=June 26, 2017 | url-status=live}}{{cite web | url=http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443153/transgender-bathrooms-conservative-defense-transgender-rights | title=A Conservative Defense of Transgender Rights | work=National Review | date=December 17, 2016 | access-date=June 27, 2017 | author=Gelernter, Josh | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170619042711/http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443153/transgender-bathrooms-conservative-defense-transgender-rights | archive-date=June 19, 2017 | url-status=live}}

One bathroom bill, the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act in North Carolina, was approved as a law in 2016, although portions of the measure were later repealed in 2017 as part of a compromise between the Democratic governor and Republican-controlled Legislature.

Public opinion regarding "transgender bathroom rights" in the United States is mixed, see summary table below.

[[File:Map of US laws regarding transgender athletes.svg|350px|thumb|Map of current or proposed state laws which ban transgender athletes from participating in the sport of their gender identity:

{{legend|#cc3333|Law enacted which bans trans athletes from participating in sport under their gender identity; enforces gender classifications in sports based on "original" registered biological sex}}

{{legend|#ef6548|Law preventing trans athletes from participating in sport in their gender identity enacted, but currently blocked from enforcement via court order{{cite web | url=https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/bpj-v-west-virginia-state-board-education-order-granting-preliminary-injunction | title=B.P.J. V. West Virginia State Board of Education - Order Granting Preliminary Injunction | work=American Civil Liberties Union | access-date=July 3, 2022 | archive-date=April 5, 2023 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230405054556/https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/bpj-v-west-virginia-state-board-education-order-granting-preliminary-injunction | url-status=live }}{{Cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/cases/hecox-v-little|title=Hecox v. Little|website=American Civil Liberties Union}}}}]]

26 U.S. States have banned transgender people from sports under their gender identity in various capacities. These states include Texas,{{cite web | url=https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/18/texas-transgender-sports-law/ | title=Trans kids and supporters say new Texas law will keep them out of school sports | date=January 18, 2022 }} Arkansas,{{cite web | url=https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/arkansas-governor-signs-transgender-sports-ban-law-n1262162 | title=Arkansas governor signs transgender sports ban into law | website=NBC News | date=March 26, 2021 }} Florida,{{cite web | url=https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002405412/on-the-first-day-of-pride-month-florida-signed-a-transgender-athlete-bill-into-l | title=On the First Day of Pride Month, Florida Signed a Transgender Athlete Bill into Law | website=NPR | date=June 2, 2021 }} Alabama,{{Cite web |title=Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey Signs Anti-Trans Sports Bill into Law |url=https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/alabama-gov-kay-ivey-signs-anti-trans-sports-bill-into-law |access-date=2022-06-03 |website=Human Rights Campaign|date=April 23, 2021 }} Oklahoma,{{cite web | url=https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/oklahoma-governor-signs-transgender-sports-ban-rcna22210 | title=Oklahoma governor signs transgender sports ban | website=NBC News | date=March 30, 2022 }} Kentucky,{{cite web | url=https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/kentucky-legislature-overrides-governors-veto-transgender-sports-ban-rcna24303 | title=Kentucky Legislature overrides governor's veto of transgender sports ban | website=NBC News | date=April 13, 2022 }} Mississippi,{{cite web | url=https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/mississippi-governor-signs-bill-banning-trans-athletes-school-sports-n1260709 | title=Mississippi governor signs bill banning trans athletes from school sports | website=NBC News | date=March 11, 2021 }} Tennessee,{{cite news | url=https://www.si.com/college/2022/05/06/tennessee-governor-signs-legislation-banning-collegiate-transgender-athletes | title=Tennessee Governor Signs Legislation Banning Collegiate Transgender Athletes | newspaper=Sports Illustrated | date=May 6, 2022 }} West Virginia,{{Cite web |title=West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice Signs Anti-Trans Sports Bill into Law |url=https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/west-virginia-gov-jim-justice-signs-anti-trans-sports-bill-into-law |access-date=2022-06-03 |website=Human Rights Campaign|date=April 28, 2021 }} South Carolina,{{cite web | url=https://www.npr.org/2022/05/17/1099501287/south-carolina-trans-transgender-sports-ban | title=South Carolina becomes the latest state to enact a transgender sports ban | website=NPR | date=May 17, 2022 }} Utah,{{cite web | url=https://www.npr.org/2022/03/25/1088908741/utah-transgender-athletes-veto-override | title=Utah bans transgender athletes in girls sports despite governor's veto | website=NPR | date=March 25, 2022 }} South Dakota,{{cite web | url=https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/south-dakota-governor-signs-2022s-first-trans-athlete-ban-law-rcna14725 | title=South Dakota governor signs 2022's first trans athlete ban into law | website=NBC News | date=February 4, 2022 }} Montana,{{cite web | url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/07/montana-transgender-student-athletes-ban-bill | title=Montana governor signs bill banning transgender students from sports teams | website=TheGuardian.com | date=May 8, 2021 }} Iowa,{{cite news | url=https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2022/03/03/trans-transgender-girls-banned-womens-sports-kim-reynolds-lgbtq-iowa-signs-bill/9349887002/ | title=Kim Reynolds bans transgender girls from female sports, signing Republican-backed law | website=The Des Moines Register }} Arizona,{{cite news | url=https://www.si.com/college/2022/03/30/arizona-governor-signs-bill-banning-transgender-girls-sports | title=Arizona Governor Becomes Second Official to Sign Anti-Trans Sports Bill Wednesday | newspaper=Sports Illustrated | date=March 30, 2022 }} Idaho,{{cite web | url=https://www.npr.org/2021/05/03/991987280/idahos-transgender-sports-ban-faces-a-major-legal-hurdle | title=Idaho's Transgender Sports Ban Faces a Major Legal Hurdle | website=NPR | date=May 3, 2021 | last1=Block | first1=Melissa }} Wyoming,{{cite web | url=https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/wyoming-bans-transgender-youth-girls-sports-teams-rcna75894 | title=Wyoming bans transgender youths from girls' sports teams | website=NBC News | date=March 21, 2023 }} Indiana,{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/24/us/indiana-legislature-transgender-sports-ban.html | title=Indiana Lawmakers Override Transgender Sports Veto | newspaper=The New York Times | date=May 24, 2022 | last1=Smith | first1=Mitch }} Louisiana,{{cite web | url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/louisiana-transgender-ban-girls-school-sports_n_62a090b2e4b0c770989a73ea | title=Louisiana Becomes Latest State to Ban Transgender Athletes in Schools | date=June 8, 2022 }} Kansas, Georgia,{{Cite web |title=Georgia High School Association Chooses to Discriminate Against Transgender Student Athletes, Issuing Ban Against Competing in High School Sports |date=May 4, 2022 |url=https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/georgia-high-school-association-chooses-to-discriminate-against-transgender-student-athletes-issuing-ban-against-competing-in-high-school-sports |access-date=2022-06-03}} North Dakota,{{cite news |title=North Dakota Bars Trans Girls and Women From Female Sports Teams |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/12/us/north-dakota-trans-women-girls-sports-ban.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=12 April 2023 |first=David W.|last=Chen}} New Hampshire,{{Cite web |date=2024-07-19 |title=Sununu signs bans on trans girls in girls' sports, gender affirming surgeries for minors |url=https://newhampshirebulletin.com/2024/07/19/sununu-signs-bills-limiting-transgender-youth-rights-sports-surgeries/ |access-date=2024-07-20 |website=New Hampshire Bulletin |language=en}} North Carolina, Alaska and Ohio. The passage of legislation against transgender youth has seen increases in calls to Trans Lifeline, a suicide crisis hotline run by and for transgender people.{{cite web | url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/texas-is-pushing-the-most-anti-trans-bills-in-the-country-advocates-fear-deadly-consequences | title=Texas is pushing the most anti-trans bills in the country. Advocates fear deadly consequences | website=PBS | date=September 13, 2021 }} Some of these bans only apply to school sports and some only apply to transgender women, but not transgender men.

The Human Rights Campaign has argued that these discriminatory laws are not about protecting women's sports, but rather attempt to "undermine the existence of transgender people."{{cite web |url=https://sports.yahoo.com/conservatives-want-ban-transgender-athletes-090041811.html |title=Conservatives want to ban transgender athletes from girls sports. Their evidence is shaky |date=November 15, 2021}} Transgender advocates have noted that hormone replacement therapy and testosterone suppression reduce muscle mass and physical strength in transgender women, reducing the possibility of a competitive advantage.{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/sports/lia-thomas-transgender-swimmer.html |title=As Lia Thomas Swims, Debate About Transgender Athletes Swirls |newspaper=The New York Times |date=January 24, 2022 |last1=Witz |first1=Billy}} Transgender inclusion in sports is supported by the Women's Sports Foundation, the Women's National Basketball Players Association (WNBPA), the National Women's Law Center, and Athlete Ally, as well as United States Women's National Soccer Team Captain Megan Rapinoe, tennis legend Billie Jean King, WNBA Minnesota Lynx coach Cheryl Reeve, and WNBA star Candace Parker.{{cite web | url=https://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/20211014_amicus-soule-v-ciac-0 | title=Soule v. CIAC - Athletes in Women's Sports Amicus Brief}}{{cite web |url=https://www.athleteally.org/bjk-rapinoe-clarendon-turner-ct-amicus-brief/ |title=Billie Jean King, Megan Rapinoe, Layshia Clarendon, and Brianna Turner Join More Than 150 Athletes and WNBPA in Supporting Trans Youth Participation in Sports |date=October 14, 2021}}{{Cite web |title=Georgia High School Association Chooses to Discriminate Against Transgender Student Athletes, Issuing Ban Against Competing in High School Sports |url=https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/georgia-high-school-association-chooses-to-discriminate-against-transgender-student-athletes-issuing-ban-against-competing-in-high-school-sports |access-date=June 3, 2022 |website=Human Rights Campaign|date=May 4, 2022}}{{cite web | url=https://www.athleteally.org/amicus-trans-athletes/ |title=Billie Jean King, Megan Rapinoe, and Candace Parker Join Nearly 200 Athletes Supporting Trans Youth Participation in Sports |date=December 21, 2020}}

The US Department of Education has said transgender students are protected under Title IX.{{cite web | url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trans-students-title-ix-biden_n_60cac64ee4b0587266d83004 | title=Trans Students Protected Under Title IX, Biden Administration Says | date=June 17, 2021}}

In September 2011, a California state court denied the request of a California inmate, Lyralisa Stevens, for sex reassignment surgery at the state's expense.{{cite news|last=Dolan|first=Jack|title=Inmate loses bid for taxpayer-paid sex-change operation|url=https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2011-sep-22-la-me-transgender-20110922-story.html|access-date=January 18, 2014|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|date=September 22, 2011|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140106133202/http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/22/local/la-me-transgender-20110922|archive-date=January 6, 2014}}

On January 17, 2014, in Kosilek v. Spencer a three-judge panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the Massachusetts Department of Corrections to provide Michelle Kosilek, a Massachusetts inmate, with sex reassignment surgery. It said denying the surgery violated Kosilek's Eighth Amendment rights, which included "receiving medically necessary treatment ... even if that treatment strikes some as odd or unorthodox".{{cite news|last1=Finucane|first1=Martin|last2=Ellement|first2=John R.|last3=Valencia|first3=Milton J.|title=Mass. appeals court upholds inmate's right to taxpayer-funded sex change surgery|url=https://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/01/17/mass-appeals-court-upholds-inmate-right-sex-change-surgery/22b7dO1vPQKnrJNjP6kLRN/story.html|access-date=January 17, 2014|newspaper=Boston Globe|date=January 17, 2014|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140119052651/http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/01/17/mass-appeals-court-upholds-inmate-right-sex-change-surgery/22b7dO1vPQKnrJNjP6kLRN/story.html|archive-date=January 19, 2014}}

[[File:Housing of Transgender Inmates in Prisons, Juvenile Detentions, and Jails.png|350px|thumb|Housing of Transgender Inmates in prisons, juvenile detentions, and jails by state according to statute, court ruling, or policy:

{{legend|#238b45|Allows transgender inmates to be housed according to their gender identity}}

{{legend|#99d8c9|Allows transgender inmates to be housed in separate facilities apart from other inmates reserved for transgender people only}}

]]

On April 3, 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice intervened in a federal lawsuit filed in Georgia to argue that denying hormone treatment for transgender inmates violates their rights. It contended that the state's policy that only allows for continuing treatments begun before incarceration was insufficient and that inmate treatment needs to be based on ongoing assessments.{{cite news|last1=Apuzzo|first1=Matt|title=Transgender Inmate's Hormone Treatment Lawsuit Gets Justice Dept. Backing|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/04/us/ashley-diamond-transgender-hormone-lawsuit.html|access-date=April 6, 2015|work=The New York Times|date=April 3, 2015|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150406010153/http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/04/us/ashley-diamond-transgender-hormone-lawsuit.html|archive-date=April 6, 2015}} The case was brought by Ashley Diamond, an inmate who had used hormone treatment for seventeen years before entering the Georgia prison system.{{cite news|last1=Sontag|first1=Deborah|title=Transgender Woman Cites Attacks and Abuse in Men's Prison|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/us/ashley-diamond-transgender-inmate-cites-attacks-and-abuse-in-mens-prison.html|access-date=April 6, 2015|work=The New York Times|date=April 5, 2015|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150406183641/http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/us/ashley-diamond-transgender-inmate-cites-attacks-and-abuse-in-mens-prison.html|archive-date=April 6, 2015}}

On May 11, 2018, the US Bureau of Prisons announced that prison guidelines issued by the Obama administration in January 2017 to allow transgender prisoners to be transferred to prisons housing inmates of the gender which they identify with had been rescinded and that assigned sex at birth would once again determine where transgender prisoners are jailed.{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt-prisons-idUSKCN1ID0O3|title=U.S. rolls back protections for transgender prison inmates|date=May 12, 2018|work=Reuters|access-date=November 22, 2019|language=en}}

As of January 2021, one state, California, allows transgender people to be housed in prison according to their gender identity, and another, New Mexico, has separate facilities entirely, which are segregated off from other inmates, and are reserved for transgender people only.

Transgender Day of Remembrance was founded in 1999 by Gwendolyn Ann Smith and JMEL a transgender woman,{{cite web|last=Smith|first=G.|title=Biography|url=http://www.gwensmith.com/background/biography.html|publisher=Gwensmith.com|access-date=November 20, 2013|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080424004720/http://www.gwensmith.com/background/biography.html|archive-date=April 24, 2008}} to memorialize the murder of transgender woman Rita Hester in Allston, Massachusetts.{{cite news|last=Jacobs|first=Ethan|title=Remembering Rita Hester|url=http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=entertainment&sc=music&sc2=features&sc3&id=83392|newspaper=EDGE Boston|date=November 15, 2008|access-date=November 28, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121008000747/http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=entertainment&sc=music&sc2=features&sc3&id=83392|archive-date=October 8, 2012|url-status=live}} It has slowly evolved from the web-based project started by Smith into an international day of action every November 20. Transgender Day of Remembrance is now a day to honor all transgender lives lost to murder caused by transphobia. Several communities and organizations all over the world have made vigils accessible to all for the lost lives through murder.{{Cite news|title=The Transgender Day of Remembrance|language=en|work=apa.org|url=https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/transgender-day|access-date=November 1, 2019}}

{{main|Intersex rights in the United States}}

Since April 11, 2022, US Passports have given the sex/gender options of male, female and X by self determination. Intersex people in the United States have some of the same rights as others but with significant gaps, particularly in protection from non-consensual cosmetic medical interventions, violence, and discrimination.{{cite web|last1=Elders|first1=M Joycelyn|author1-link=Joycelyn Elders|last2=Satcher|first2=David|author2-link=David Satcher|last3=Carmona|first3=Richard|author3-link=Richard Carmona|date=June 2017|title=Re-Thinking Genital Surgeries on Intersex Infants|url=http://www.palmcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Re-Thinking-Genital-Surgeries-1.pdf|work=Palm Center|access-date=July 20, 2017|archive-date=April 12, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190412134957/http://www.palmcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Re-Thinking-Genital-Surgeries-1.pdf|url-status=dead}}{{cite web|last=interACT|title=Federal Government Bans Discrimination Against Intersex People in Health Care|url=http://interactadvocates.org/federal-government-bans-discrimination-against-intersex-people-in-health-care/|access-date=May 27, 2016|work=interactadvocates|date=May 23, 2016}} Many non-consensual medical surgeries are being performed to align these individuals with a more typically male or female sex when they are babies or children. Some are also put on hormones to ensure that their bodies develop to the sex they were assigned. In August 2018, the California state legislature passed a resolution that condemns these types of surgeries.{{cite web|title=Why Intersex Rights Are Human Rights|url=https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/what-are-intersex-rights|access-date=April 15, 2019|website=Open Society Foundations|language=en}}{{cite web|date=July 25, 2017|title=US: Harmful Surgery on Intersex Children|url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/25/us-harmful-surgery-intersex-children|access-date=April 15, 2019|publisher=Human Rights Watch|language=en}}{{cite web|date=August 28, 2018|title=California: Resolution Affirms Intersex Rights|url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/28/california-resolution-affirms-intersex-rights|access-date=April 15, 2019|publisher=Human Rights Watch|language=en}}{{cite web|title=California becomes first state to condemn intersex surgeries on children|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/08/28/intersex-surgeries-children-california-first-state-condemn/1126185002/|access-date=April 15, 2019|website=USA Today|language=en}} Actions by intersex civil society organizations aim to eliminate harmful practices and promote social acceptance and equality.{{Cite conference|last=interACT|date=June 2016|title=Recommendations from interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth regarding the List of Issues for the United States for the 59th Session of the Committee Against Torture|url=http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CAT/Shared%20Documents/USA/INT_CAT_ICS_USA_24552_E.pdf|access-date=July 20, 2017|archive-date=January 4, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170104000043/http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CAT/Shared%20Documents/USA/INT_CAT_ICS_USA_24552_E.pdf|url-status=dead}}{{cite web|title=Order: Zzymm v Kerry and Portell|url=http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/zzyym_co_20161122_order|access-date=January 30, 2017|work=Lambda Legal}} In recent years, intersex activists have also secured some legal recognition.{{cite web|last=O'Hara|first=Mary Emily|date=December 29, 2016|title=Nation's First Known Intersex Birth Certificate Issued in NYC|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/nation-s-first-known-intersex-birth-certificate-issued-nyc-n701186|access-date=December 30, 2016|work=NBC News}}

[[File:HIV Criminalization in the United States.png|300px|thumb|HIV criminalization laws by state:

{{legend|#7f0000|State has HIV criminalization law and may also require sex offender registration for HIV and AIDS exposure}}

{{legend|#b30000|State has HIV criminalization law}}

{{legend|#cc3333|State has no HIV criminalization law, but does have HIV-specific sentencing enhancements for sex-related convictions}}

]]

{{Main|HIV/AIDS in the United States}}

In 1981, the AIDS epidemic, caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, was reported in the United States. HIV is transferred through infected blood and sexual contact, and in the early 1980s, risk factors were reported to include homosexuality and drug use.{{cite web|url=https://www.amfar.org/thirty-years-of-hiv/aids-snapshots-of-an-epidemic/ |title=HIV/AIDS: Snapshots of an Epidemic |publisher=amfAR |access-date=December 31, 2020}}{{cite web |url=http://www.uky.edu/~lbarr2/gws250spring11_files/Page1186.htm |title=History of Gay Rights Movement in U.S |publisher=Uky.edu |access-date=December 31, 2020 |archive-date=November 18, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191118054142/http://www.uky.edu/~lbarr2/gws250spring11_files/Page1186.htm |url-status=dead}} One of the earliest medical clinics treating the disease was run in New York City by Dr. Joseph Sonnabend. By 1985, thousands of people in the United States had died. Many LGBTQ advocacy organizations began to speak up and raise funds.

{{Main|Blood donation restrictions on men who have sex with men#United States}}

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issues non-binding guidance for deferral of blood donations, which are universally followed.{{cite journal |last1=Sircar |first1=Neiloy |title=Good Public Health Policy, Better Public Health Law: Blood Donation, Individual Risk Assessments, & Lifting the Deferral for Men Who Have Sex With Men |journal=Food and Drug Law Journal |year=2018 |volume=73 |issue=1 |url=https://www.fdli.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Sircar_73.1.pdf |access-date=15 September 2020 |archive-date=16 September 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200916214934/https://www.fdli.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Sircar_73.1.pdf |url-status=live }} In May 2023, the restrictions were updated to focus on behavior rather than sexual orientation or gender. People are ineligible to donate blood if they have:{{Cite web|url=https://www.fda.gov/media/164829/download|title=Recommendations for Evaluating Donor Eligibility Using Individual Risk-Based Questions to Reduce the Risk of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Transmission by Blood and Blood Products|website=Food and Drug Administration|access-date=3 June 2023|archive-date=19 May 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230519112131/https://www.fda.gov/media/164829/download|url-status=dead}}

• Had anal sex within the past 3 months and have a new or multiple sexual partners
• Ever tested positive for HIV or been treated for HIV with anti-retroviral therapy
• Taken any HIV prevention medication (PEP or PrEP; these can affect test results) by mouth within the past 3 months or by injection within the past 2 years
• Ever exchanged sex for payment or barter
• Used non-prescription injection drugs within the past 3 months
• Had sex within the past 3 months with someone who has ever tested positive for HIV
• Received an allogeneic blood transfusion or been exposed to blood of another individual (e.g. through a wound) within the past 3 months
• Gotten a tattoo or body piercing within the last 3 months, unless pierced with single-use equipment or tattooed in a state-approved shop with sterile needles and non-reused ink
• Been infected with or treated for syphilis or gonorrhea within the past 3 months
• Hemophilia or other clotting factor deficiency

Current regulations prohibit tissue and semen donation by any man who has had sex with another man in the preceding five years, even if all infectious testing is negative.{{Cite web|url=https://www.fda.gov/media/73072/download|title=US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: eligibility determination for donors of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps).|website=Food and Drug Administration}} This five-year MSM deferral policy prevents thousands of donations of eye tissue annually, despite a global shortage of donated eye tissue needed for vision-restoring corneal transplant surgeries.{{Cite journal|title=Association of Federal Regulations in the United States and Canada With Potential Corneal Donation by Men Who Have Sex With Men|first1=Michael A.|last1=Puente|first2=Jennifer L.|last2=Patnaik|first3=Anne M.|last3=Lynch|first4=Blake M.|last4=Snyder|first5=Chad M.|last5=Caplan|first6=Binhan|last6=Pham|first7=Helio V.|last7=Neves da Silva|first8=Conan|last8=Chen|first9=Michael J.|last9=Taravella|first10=Alan G.|last10=Palestine|date=November 1, 2020|journal=JAMA Ophthalmology|volume=138|issue=11|pages=1143–1149|doi=10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.3630|pmid=32970105|pmc=7516798}}

{{Main|List of U.S. jurisdictions banning conversion therapy}}

Conversion therapy is the discredited practice of attempting to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.{{Cite web |date=August 27, 2018 |title=Conversion Therapy |url=https://www.glaad.org/conversiontherapy |access-date=May 22, 2023 |website=GLAAD |language=en}} 21 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico ban the practice of conversion therapy on minors.{{Cite web |website=Movement Advancement Project |title=Conversion "Therapy" Laws |url=https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/conversion_therapy |access-date=July 8, 2023 |language=en |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141009174550/https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/conversion_therapy |archive-date=October 9, 2014}}

{{See also|List of LGBT-related cases in the United States Supreme Court}}

In March 1956, a Federal District Court ruled that ONE: The Homosexual Magazine, was obscene under the Federal Comstock laws and thus could not be sent through the United States Postal Service. This ruling was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but in 1958, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in One, Inc. v. Olesen, {{Ussc|volume=355|page=371|year=1958|source=no}}, which overturned the previous rulings under a new legal precedent that had been established by the landmark case, Roth v. United States, {{Ussc|volume=354|page=476|year=1957|source=no}}. As a result, gay newspapers, magazines and other publications could be lawfully distributed through the public mail service.

On May 22, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Boutilier v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, {{Ussc|volume=387|page=118|year=1967|source=no}}, to uphold the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which among other things banned homosexuals, as constitutional. This ban remained in effect until 1991.{{cite book |last1=Congress |first1=Elaine P. |last2=Chang-Muy |first2=Fernando |title=Social Work with Immigrants and Refugees: Legal Issues, Clinical Skills and Advocacy |date=2008 |publisher=Springer Publishing Company |isbn=9780826133366 |page=258 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XLkG9HR2yFsC |access-date=November 18, 2019}}

In 1972, a Tacoma, Washington teacher of twelve years with a perfect record was terminated after a former student outed him to the vice-principal. The Washington Supreme Court found that homosexuality was immoral and impaired his efficiency as a teacher. The court supported its conclusion in various ways, including the definition of homosexuality in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the criminal nature of homosexual conduct, and finding that an "immoral" person could not be trusted to instruct students as his presence would be inherently disruptive. On October 3, 1977, the Supreme Court denied certiorari, although Justices Brennan and Marshall would have granted cert. This was the first homosexual discrimination decision to be aired on national network news. In fact, it was simultaneously aired on all three national network evening news shows, reaching approximately 60 million viewers.{{cite web |url=http://stateofthemedia.org/2006/network-tv-intro/audience/ |title=Network Audience |publisher=State of the Media |access-date=June 29, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150920121116/http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2006/network-tv-intro/audience/ |archive-date=September 20, 2015 |url-status=dead}}{{cite web|url=http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=491117 |title=Supreme Court / Homosexuality and Women's Pensions Cases / Bakke / Protests NBC News broadcast from the Vanderbilt Television News Archive |publisher=Tvnews.vanderbilt.edu |date=October 3, 1977 |access-date=April 26, 2011}}{{cite web|url=http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=249215 |title=Supreme Court / Homosexuality Case / Nixon Tapes / Other Cases To Come CBS News broadcast from the Vanderbilt Television News Archive |publisher=Tvnews.vanderbilt.edu |date=October 3, 1977 |access-date=April 26, 2011}}{{cite web|url=http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=46346 |title=Supreme Court / Washington Homosexual Firing / Bakke / Other Cases ABC News broadcast from the Vanderbilt Television News Archive |publisher=Tvnews.vanderbilt.edu |date=October 3, 1977 |access-date=April 26, 2011}}{{cite web|url=http://www.qrd.org/qrd/www/orgs/glstn/teachers.legal.rights |title=Overview of the Rights of Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Teachers |access-date=November 2, 2013}}

In 1985, the Supreme Court heard Board of Education v. National Gay Task Force, which concerned First and Fourteenth Amendment challenges against a law that allowed schools to fire teachers for public homosexual conduct.{{cite news |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2457&dat=19850115&id=_xE9AAAAIBAJ&pg=4067,5624349 |title=Supreme Court Hears Debate on Law Banning Gay Teachers |first=Aaron |last=Epstein |work=Bangor Daily News |date=January 15, 1985 |via=Google News |access-date=July 6, 2012}} The Court affirmed the lower court by an equally divided vote 4–4 allowing the Tenth Circuit's ruling that partially struck down the law to stand without setting precedent.{{Ussc|volume=470|page=159|year=1985|name=Board of Education v. National Gay Task Force}}{{cite news |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-03-27-mn-20077-story.html |title=Justices Affirm Ruling Upholding Gay Teachers' Rights |first=Phil |last=Hager |work=Los Angeles Times |date=March 27, 1985 |access-date=July 6, 2012}}

Also in 1985, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of Gay Student Services v. Texas A&M University, letting stand an appellate ruling ordering the university to provide official recognition of a student organization for homosexual students.{{cite web|url=http://www.danpinello.com/GSS.htm|title=Gay Student Services v. Texas A&M University. U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 737 F.2d 1317. August 3, 1984|publisher=DanPinello|access-date=July 26, 2015|archive-date=August 14, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180814232649/http://danpinello.com/GSS.htm|url-status=dead}}{{cite web|title=Free Speech and Expression Rights of Students|url=http://lawhighereducation.org/66-free-speech-and-expression-rights-of-students.html|website=Law and Higher Education|access-date=July 26, 2015|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150423194339/http://lawhighereducation.org/66-free-speech-and-expression-rights-of-students.html|archive-date=April 23, 2015}}

On June 30, 1986, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Bowers v. Hardwick, that same-sex intimate conduct was not protected under the right to privacy established under the Fourteenth Amendment.

On May 20, 1996, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Romer v. Evans against an amendment to the Colorado state constitution that would have prevented any city, town or county in the state from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action to protect homosexual or bisexual citizens from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation.

On March 4, 1998, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services that federal laws banning on-the-job sexual harassment also applied when both parties are the same sex. The lower courts, however, have reached differing conclusions about whether this ruling applies to harassment motivated by anti-gay animus.

On June 28, 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale that the Boy Scouts of America had a First Amendment right to exclude people from its organization on the basis of sexual orientation, irrespective of any applicable civil rights laws.

On June 26, 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that intimate consensual sexual conduct is part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, explicitly overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, a 1986 decision that found sodomy laws to be constitutional.

Ten years after the Lawrence decision, the Supreme Court ruled on June 26, 2013, by a 5–4 vote in United States v. Windsor that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, that forbade the federal government from recognizing lawfully performed same-sex marriages, was found to violate the Fifth Amendment. The federal government then began to recognize lawfully performed same-sex marriages, and provide federal rights, privileges and benefits.{{cite news|last=Barnes|first=Robert|date=June 26, 2013|title=Supreme Court strikes down key part of Defense of Marriage Act|newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court/2013/06/26/f0039814-d9ab-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html|access-date=June 27, 2013}}{{cite web|author=Supreme Court of the United States|author-link=Supreme Court of the United States|date=June 26, 2013|title=United States v. Windsor|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130627013713/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf|archive-date=June 27, 2013|access-date=June 27, 2013|publisher=supremecourt.gov}}

File:SCOTUS APRIL 2015 LGBTQ 54663.jpg outside the Supreme Court during Obergefell v. Hodges]]

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited by a state. Consequently, same-sex marriages are licensed and recognized as valid and enforced in all states and areas subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution.

On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the protections provided by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are also extended to LGBTQ individuals, thereby making it illegal for workplaces with 15 or more employees to discriminate on the basis of sexuality or gender identity.{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-lgbt/u-s-supreme-court-endorses-gay-transgender-worker-protections-idUSKBN23M20N|title=U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker protections|first=Hurley|last=Lawrence|date=June 15, 2020|work=Reuters}} The three consolidated cases were Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda; Bostock v. Clayton County; and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. USA Today afterwards stated that in addition to LGBTQ employment discrimination, "The court's ruling is likely to have a sweeping impact on federal civil rights laws barring sex discrimination in education, health care, housing and financial credit."{{cite web|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/15/supreme-court-denies-job-protection-lgbt-workers/4456749002/|title=Supreme Court grants federal job protections to gay, lesbian, transgender workers|first=Richard|last=Wolf|website=USA Today}}

On June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled by a 6–3 vote in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis that businesses can refuse to create works that recognize same-sex marriage if it goes against their values, on the basis of the First Amendment's protection of free speech.{{Cite news |last1=Dwyer |first1=Devin |last2=Hutzler |first2=Alexandra |date=2023-06-30 |title=In sweeping decision, SCOTUS rules for Christian web designer's free speech rights over LGBTQ+ protections |work=ABC News |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-rules-website-designer-case-involving-free/story?id=99239572 |url-status=live |access-date=2024-01-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230702102033/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-rules-website-designer-case-involving-free/story?id=99239572 |archive-date=2023-07-02}}

{{see also|LGBTQ history in the United States}}

To train the new American Army in the latest military drills and tactics, General George Washington brought in Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben (1730–94), who had been an officer on the German General staff. Von Steuben escaped Germany where he was threatened with prosecution for homosexuality. He joined Washington's army at Valley Forge in February 1778 accompanied by two young aides. Steuben became an American general, and a senior advisor to Washington. Despite rumors about sexual behavior at his parties, there never was an investigation of Steuben, and he received a congressional pension after the war.{{cite book|last=Adam|first=Thomas|title=Germany and the Americas: Culture, Politics, and History; a Multidisciplinary Encyclopedia|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8uxfTF4Lm-kC&pg=PA1007|year=2005|publisher=ABC-CLIO|page=1007|isbn=9781851096282}}{{cite book|first=Alexander M.|last=Bielakowski|title=Ethnic and Racial Minorities in the U.S. Military: An Encyclopedia|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5ufJEa6u3BcC&pg=PA667|year=2013|publisher=ABC-CLIO|pages=667–69|isbn=9781598844276}}

The first evidence of discrimination to homosexuals serving in the United States military dates from March 11, 1778, when Lieutenant Frederick Gotthold Enslin was brought to trial before a court-martial. According to General Washington's report: "...Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcolm's Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy ..." Washington's secretary described the results of the trial: "His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence & Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieut. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning...."[https://books.google.com/books?id=D_k7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA83 The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources 1745–1799, Vol. 11], John C. Fitzpatrick, Ed., United States Government Printing Office, 1934.

In 1801, Congress enacted the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801 that continued all criminal laws of Maryland and Virginia in the now formally structured District, with those of Maryland applying to that portion of the District ceded from Maryland, and those of Virginia applying to that portion ceded from Virginia. At the time, Maryland had a sodomy law applicable only to free males with a punishment of "labour for any time, in their discretion, not exceeding seven years for the same crime, on the public roads of the said county, or in making, repairing or cleaning the streets or bason [sic] of Baltimore-town;" it imposed the death penalty for slaves committing sodomy. Similarly, Virginia had a penalty of 1–10 years for free persons committing sodomy, but imposed the death penalty for slaves committing sodomy. The law went into effect on February 27, 1801.{{cite web|url=http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/districtofcolumbia.htm |title=District of Columbia |publisher=Glapn.org |access-date=June 29, 2014}}

In 1779, Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in Virginia which contained a maximum punishment of castration for men who engaged in sodomy.{{cite web|url=http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs10.html |title=Amendment VIII: Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments |publisher=Press-pubs.uchicago.edu |access-date=March 11, 2014}} However, what was intended by Jefferson as a liberalization of the sodomy laws in Virginia at that time was rejected by the Virginia Legislature, which continued to prescribe death as the maximum penalty for the crime of sodomy in that state.{{cite web |last=Ticer |first=Patricia S. |author-link=Patsy Ticer |url=https://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/virginia/virginia.htm |title=Sodomy Laws Virginia |publisher=GLAPN |access-date=April 17, 2024}}

In 1831, Congress established penalties in the District of Columbia for a number of crimes, but not for sodomy. It specified that "every other felony, misdemeanor, or offence not provided for by this act, may and shall be punished as heretofore[.]" At the time, Maryland and Virginia had a penalty of 1–10 years for committing sodomy. It went into effect on March 2, 1831.

In 1807, William Henry Harrison signed into law a comprehensive criminal code that included the first sodomy law for the Indiana Territory that eliminated the gender-specifics, reduced the penalty for a maximum of 1 to 5 years in prison, a fine of $100 to $500, up to 500 lashes on the back, and a permanent loss of civil rights.{{cite web|url=http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/indiana.htm|title=The History of Sodomy Laws in the United States – Indiana|website=Glapn.org|access-date=April 6, 2016}}

In 1892, Congress passed a law for the District of Columbia that states that "for the preservation of the public peace and the protection of property within the District of Columbia." Labeled in the law as vagrants were "all public prostitutes, and all such persons who lead a notoriously lewd or lascivious course of life[.]" All offenders had to post bond of up to $200 for good behavior for a period of six months. The law went into effect on July 29, 1892.

In 1898, Congress deleted the word "notoriously" from the provision concerning a lewd or lascivious course of life, thereby allowing prosecution of persons without the condition of notoriety. The bond for good behavior was raised to $500, and the law was made gender-neutral. The law went into effect on July 8, 1898.

In 1901, Congress adopted a new code for the District of Columbia that expressly recognized common-law crimes, with a penalty for them of up to five years and/or a $1,000 fine. The law went into effect on March 3, 1901.

On December 14, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson vetoed the Immigration Act of 1917, which would have excluded individuals from entering the United States who were found "mentally defective" or who had a "constitutional psychopathic inferiority." A similar Public Health Service definition of homosexuals was used simultaneously by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to reinforce the language of the Immigration Act of 1917 and effectively ban all homosexual immigrants who disclosed their sexual minority status. On February 5, 1917, the Congress overrode Wilson's veto, implementing the Immigration Act of 1917 into law.{{cite web |url=http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/v6i3/immigration.htm |title=Opening the Doors of Immigration: Sexual Orientation and Asylum in the United States |publisher=Wcl.american.edu |access-date=June 29, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20020822211541/http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/v6i3/immigration.htm |archive-date=August 22, 2002}}

On March 1, 1917, the Articles of War of 1916 are implemented. This included a revision of the Articles of War of 1806, the new regulations detail statutes governing U.S. military discipline and justice. Under the category Miscellaneous Crimes and Offences, Article 93 states that any person subject to military law who commits "assault with intent to commit sodomy" shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.{{cite web|url=http://www.usni.org/news-and-features/dont-ask-dont-tell/timeline |title=Key Dates in US Policy on Gay Men and Women in the United States Military |publisher=usni.org |access-date=March 22, 2014}}

On June 4, 1920, Congress modified Article 93 of the Articles of War of 1916. It was changed to make the act of sodomy itself a crime, separate from the offense of assault with intent to commit sodomy. It went into effect on February 4, 1921.{{cite web|url=http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/AW/index.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081004163647/http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/AW/index.html |archive-date=October 4, 2008 |title=The Articles of War |access-date=June 29, 2014}}

In 1919, Democratic Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin D. Roosevelt requested an investigation into "vice and depravity" in the sea services after a sting operation in which undercover operatives attempt to seduce sailors suspected of being homosexual had already begun at the Naval base in Newport, Rhode Island. At least 17 sailors were jailed and court-martialed before public outcry prompted a Republican-led Senate committee to condemn the methods of the operation. Roosevelt denied he had any knowledge that entrapment had been used or that he would have approved of it.Lawrence R. Murphy, "Perverts by Official Order: The Campaign Against Homosexuals by the United States Navy," Lawrence R. Murphy, Haworth Press, 1988, {{ISBN|0866567089}}

In 1935, Congress passed a law for the District of Columbia that made it a crime for "any person to invite, entice, persuade, or to address for the purpose of inviting, enticing, or persuading any person or persons...to accompany, to go with, to follow him or her to his or her residence, or to any other house or building, inclosure, or other place, for the purpose of prostitution, or any other immoral or lewd purpose." It imposed a fine of up to $100, up to 90 days in jail, and courts were permitted to "impose conditions" on anyone convicted under this law, including "medical and mental examination, diagnosis and treatment by proper public health and welfare authorities, and such other terms and conditions as the court may deem best for the protection of the community and the punishment, control, and rehabilitation of the defendant." The law went into effect on August 14, 1935.

In 1941, Congress enacted a new solicitation law for the District of Columbia that labeled a "vagrant" any person who "engages in or commits acts of fornication or perversion for hire." The law went into effect on December 17, 1941.

In 1948, Congress enacted the first sodomy law in the District of Columbia, which established a penalty of up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $1,000 for sodomy. Also included with this sodomy law was a psychopathic offender law and a law "to provide for the treatment of sexual psychopaths in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes." The law went into effect on June 9, 1948.

On May 5, 1950, the Uniform Code of Military Justice was passed by Congress and was signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on May 31, 1951. Article 125 forbids sodomy among all military personnel, defining it as "any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offence."

On June 25, 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was vetoed by President Truman because he regarded the bill as "un-American" and discriminatory. The bill prohibits "aliens afflicted with a psychopathic personality, epilepsy, or a mental defect" from entry into the United States.{{cite book |last1=Jacobson |first1=David |title=Rights Across Borders: Immigration and the Decline of Citizenship |date=September 5, 1997 |publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press |isbn=978-0801857706 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/rightsacrossbord0000jaco/page/49 49–50] |url=https://archive.org/details/rightsacrossbord0000jaco/page/49}}{{cite book |last1=Tichenor |first1=David J. |title=Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America |series=Princeton Studies in American Politics |date=May 6, 2002 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-0691088051 |page=195 |quote=quotes part of this passage}}{{cite web |url=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=14175 |title=Harry S. Truman: "Veto of Bill To Revise the Laws Relating to Immigration, Naturalization, and Nationality.," June 25, 1952 |author1=Peters, Gerhard |author2=Woolley, John T |work=The American Presidency Project |publisher=University of California – Santa Barbara |access-date=August 24, 2013}} Congress would later override his veto and implemented the act into law.

On April 27, 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed Executive Order 10450 which prohibits Federal employees from being members of a group or organization considered subversive. The order lists "sexual perversion" as a security risk constituting grounds for termination or denial of employment. The order went into effect on May 27, 1953.

Without explicitly referring to homosexuality, the executive order responded to several years of charges that the presence of homosexual employees in the State Department posed blackmail risks. Attorney General Herbert Brownell Jr. explained that the new order was designed to encompass both loyalty and security risks and he differentiated between the two: "Employees could be a security risk and still not be disloyal or have any traitorous thoughts, but it may be that their personal habits are such that they might be subject to blackmail by people who seek to destroy the safety of our country."David K. Johnson, The Lavender Scare: the Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 123–4. Eisenhower in his memoirs written years later explicitly referenced "instability, alcoholism, homosexuality."

The press recognized the revolutionary nature of the new executive order. The Washington Post said that it established not a loyalty test but a "suitability test." Some in government referred to their new "integrity-security" program. Some of those the press expected to be excluded from federal employment included "a person who drinks too much," "an incorrigible gossip," "homosexuals," and "neurotics."

In 1953, Congress changed the solicitation law in the District of Columbia so that the jail term of up to 90 days was retained, but the maximum fine was raised to $250, and the reference to the power of judges to "impose conditions" on the defendant was removed. The law went into effect on June 29, 1953.

File:JFKWHCNF-1418-002-p0002.jpg

In late 1961, Frank Kameny co-founded the Washington D.C. branch of the national gay rights organization, Mattachine Society. In the year following the group's founding, Kameny led an initiative to declare the existence of the Mattachine Society of Washington publicly. The group sent letters to every government branch, including the entirety of Congress.{{Cite book |last=Cervini |first=Eric |title=The Deviant's War : The Homosexual vs. the United States of America |publisher=Farrar, Straus and Giroux |year=2020 |isbn=978-0-374-13979-7 |location=New York |pages=101–2}} Kameny also wrote to President John F. Kennedy asking him to change the rules on homosexuals being purged from the government.{{Cite web |title=Kameny, Franklin E. |url=http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKWHCNF-1418-002.aspx |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160524153258/http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKWHCNF-1418-002.aspx |archive-date=May 24, 2016 |access-date=June 16, 2016 |website=www.jfklibrary.org – John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum}} The content of the letters included harsh criticism of the government's treatment of homosexuals and asserted that there were over three hundred members of the group. The letter was signed by the president of the Mattachine Society of Washington, Franklin E. Kameny.

The Mattachine Society of Washington discussed the prospect of public protest in 1963. The FBI and J. Edgar Hoover had made advancements to ban the Washington branch and had been threatened with the prospect of a march on behalf of the organization.{{Cite journal |last=Meeker |first=Martin |date=2001 |title=Behind the Mask of Respectability: Reconsidering the Mattachine Society and Male Homophile Practice, 1950s and 1960s |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3704790 |journal=Journal of the History of Sexuality |volume=10 |issue=1 |pages=78–116 |doi=10.1353/sex.2001.0015 |jstor=3704790 |issn=1043-4070}} Although supportive of the idea, Kameny restrained from taking part in a march due to the threat of damaging his public image.{{Cite book |last=Cervini |first=Eric |title=The Deviant's War : The Homosexual vs. the United States of America |publisher=Farrar, Straus and Giroux |year=2020 |isbn=978-0-374-13979-7 |location=New York |pages=172}}

In 1963, Kameny and Mattachine launched a campaign to overturn D.C. sodomy laws.

On February 2, 1950, Senator Lyndon B. Johnson voted for Uniform Code of Military Justice.{{cite web|url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/81-1950/s243 |title=HR 4080. Unite, Consolidate, Revise and Clarify the Articles of War, the Articles for the Gov't of the Navy, and the Disciplinary Laws of the Coast Guard, and Enact and Establish a Uniform Code of Military Justice. Mc Carran Motion to Refer to the Judiciary Committee |publisher=Govtrack.us |date=February 2, 1950 |access-date=June 29, 2014}}

On October 19, 1964, Walter Jenkins, a longtime top aide to President Johnson, had been arrested by District of Columbia Police in a YMCA restroom. He and another man were booked on a disorderly conduct charge.{{cite magazine |magazine=Time |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,876303,00.html |title=The Jenkins Report |date=October 30, 1964 |access-date=November 15, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629031053/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,876303,00.html |archive-date=June 29, 2011}}

After becoming a controversy prior to the 1964 presidential election, the American Mental Health Foundation wrote a letter to President Johnson protesting the "hysteria" surrounding the case:{{cite news |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1964/10/22/archives/jemins-defended-by-mental-group.html |title=Jenkins Defended by Mental Group |date=October 22, 1964 |access-date=November 13, 2010}}

:The private life and inclinations of a citizen, Government employee or not, does not necessarily have any bearing on his capacities, usefulness, and sense of responsibility in his occupation. The fact that an individual is homosexual, as has been strongly implied in the case of Mr. Jenkins, does not per se make him more unstable and more a security risk than any heterosexual person.

After reelection during his second term on October 3, 1965, Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which added "sexual deviation" as a medical ground for denying prospective immigrants entry into the United States. The bill went into effect on June 30, 1968.

File:Stonewall Inn 5 pride weekend 2016.jpg in the gay village of Greenwich Village, Manhattan, adorned with rainbow flags during a pride event. The Inn was the site of the eponymous Stonewall riots in June 1969: a series of events which precipitated the modern LGBTQ rights movement. Stonewall has since become an icon of LGBTQ culture and gay pride in the United States.{{cite web|last=Goicichea|first=Julia|date=August 16, 2017|title=Why New York City Is a Major Destination for LGBT Travelers|url=https://theculturetrip.com/north-america/usa/new-york/articles/why-new-york-city-is-a-major-destination-for-lgbt-travelers/|access-date=February 2, 2019|publisher=The Culture Trip}}{{cite news|last=Rosenberg|first=Eli|date=June 24, 2016|title=Stonewall Inn Named National Monument, a First for the Gay Rights Movement|newspaper=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/25/nyregion/stonewall-inn-named-national-monument-a-first-for-gay-rights-movement.html|access-date=June 25, 2016}}{{cite web|title=Workforce Diversity The Stonewall Inn, National Historic Landmark National Register Number: 99000562|url=https://www.nps.gov/diversity/stonewall.htm|access-date=April 21, 2016|publisher=National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior}}]]

In August 1970, Richard Nixon, on the issue of same-sex marriage, said "I can't go that far; that's the year 2000! Negroes and whites, okay. But that's too far!"{{cite book |title=Witness to Power: The Nixon Years |last=Ehrlichman |first=John |date=January 1, 1982 |page=239}}

In 1972, San Francisco's Gay Activists Alliance disbanded and formed the Gay Voters League, a group that campaigned for the reelection of President Richard Nixon. In October 1972, a representative of the Committee to Re-elect the President addressed gay voters on behalf of Nixon's campaign in San Francisco. The event was organized by the Gay Voters League of San Francisco.{{cite web|url=http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/10252975/league-due-nixon-pitch |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140331113749/http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/10252975/league-due-nixon-pitch |url-status=dead |archive-date=March 31, 2014 |title=League due Nixon pitch |work=The Advocate |date=October 11, 1972 |page=20 |via=EBSCOhost |access-date=June 29, 2014}}

On August 25, 1965, Rep. Gerald Ford voted for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.{{cite web|url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/89-1965/h125 |title=TO PASS H.R. 2580, THE AMENDED IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT |publisher=Govtrack.us |date=August 25, 1965 |access-date=June 29, 2014}}{{Context needed|date=February 2025|reason=no explanation of the law or significance}}

On March 5, 1976, when asked about the issue of gay rights, with respect to hiring, employment, and housing, Gerald Ford said "I recognize that this is a very new and serious problem in our society. I have always tried to be an understanding person as far as people are concerned who are different than myself. That doesn't mean that I agree with or would concur in what is done by them or their position in society. I think this is a problem we have to face up to, and I can't give you a pat answer tonight. I just would be dishonest to say that there is a pat answer under these very difficult circumstances".{{cite web|url=http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Gerald_Ford_Civil_Rights.htm |title=Gerald Ford on Civil Rights |publisher=Ontheissues.org |access-date=June 29, 2014}}

In 1976, during that year's presidential campaign, President Gerald Ford was "zapped" by activists in Ann Arbor, Michigan over federal immigration rules. The protests forced President Ford to admit that he was not aware that homosexuality was used as a basis for exclusion in immigration rulings.

Gerald Ford, as former president, formally opposed the Briggs Initiative in 1977, which sought to ban homosexuals from teaching in public school. In October 2001, he broke with conservative members of the Republican Party by stating that gay and lesbian couples "ought to be treated equally. Period." He became the highest ranking Republican to embrace full equality for gays and lesbians, stating his belief that there should be a federal amendment outlawing anti-gay job discrimination and expressing his hope that the Republican Party would reach out to gay and lesbian voters.Price, Deb. [http://pageoneq.com/news/2006/ford122806.html "Gerald Ford: Treat gay couples equally"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130120021813/http://pageoneq.com/news/2006/ford122806.html |date=January 20, 2013}}. The Detroit News, October 29, 2001. Retrieved December 28, 2006 He also was a member of the Republican Unity Coalition, which The New York Times described as "a group of prominent Republicans, including former President Gerald R. Ford, dedicated to making sexual orientation a non-issue in the Republican Party".Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. "Vocal Gay Republicans Upsetting Conservatives", The New York Times, June 1, 2003, p. N26.

In February 1976, Carter said he opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but in June 1976 he withdrew his support of a gay rights plank in the Democratic Party platform.

In 1977, under the guidance of Jimmy Carter, a policy was removed which barred employment of gays in the foreign service and Internal Revenue Service. That same year, fourteen gay and lesbian activists were invited to the White House for the first official visit ever. Jimmy Carter publicly opposed the Briggs Initiative. However, in March 1980, Carter issued a formal statement indicating he would not issue an executive order banning anti-gay discrimination in the U.S. federal government and that he would not support including a gay rights plank in the Democratic Party platform.{{cite book |title=Gay and Lesbian Americans and Political Participation: A Reference Handbook |last=Haider-Markel |first=Donald P. |year=2002}}{{cite book |title=Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the US Military |last=Shilts |first=Randy |author-link=Randy Shilts |year=1993|title-link=Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the US Military}} In September 1980, the United States Department of Justice announced that immigration officials would no longer be allowed to ask whether an individual entering the United States was gay and therefore ineligible for admission.Nunes, Donnel. "Rules on Immigration By Homosexuals Eased". The Washington Post. September 10, 1980. p. A15. An individual would only be denied admission into the United States if the traveler self-identified as gay to the immigration official.

In 2004, Carter came out for civil unions and stated that he "opposes all forms of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and believes there should be equal protection under the law for people who differ in sexual orientation".{{cite web|url=http://www.sovo.com/2004/12-24/news/localnews/carter.cfm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150913004919/http://www.sovo.com/2004/12-24/news/localnews/carter.cfm|url-status=dead|title=Carter backs civil unions for gay couples – Southern Voice Atlanta|archive-date=September 13, 2015}} In 2007, he called for ending the ban on gays in the military.{{cite news|last1=Allen|first1=Bob|title=Jimmy Carter on gay rights: Jesus didn't discriminate|url=https://baptistnews.com/ministry/people/item/29265-jimmy-carter-on-gay-rights-jesus-didn-t-discriminate|access-date=August 16, 2015|work=Baptist News Global|date=September 25, 2014}} In March 2012, Jimmy Carter came out in favor of same sex marriage.{{cite news | url=https://huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/president-jimmy-carter-bible-book_n_1349570.html | title=President Jimmy Carter Authors New Bible Book, Answers Hard Biblical Questions | work=HuffPost | date=March 19, 2012 | access-date=March 19, 2012 | last=Raushenbush | first=Paul Brandeis | quote=I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies.}}

The first chapter of what would become the national Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) formed in 1978 to fight California's Briggs Initiative, a ballot initiative that would have banned homosexuals from teaching in public schools. The chapter worked diligently and successfully convinced Governor Reagan to publicly oppose the measure. Reagan penned an op-ed against the Briggs Initiative in which he wrote, "Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this."{{cite web|last=Carpenter |first=Dale |url=http://igfculturewatch.com/2004/06/10/reagan-and-gays-a-reassessment/ |title=Reagan and Gays: A Reassessment |date=June 10, 2004 |publisher=IGF Culture Watch |access-date=June 29, 2014}}

{{Main|Domestic policy of the Ronald Reagan administration#LGBTQ Rights}}

On the 1980 campaign trail, he spoke of the gay civil rights movement:

{{blockquote|My criticism is that [the gay movement] isn't just asking for civil rights; it's asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I.Shilts 2005: 368}}

No civil rights legislation for LGBTQ individuals passed during Reagan's tenure. Additionally, Reagan has been criticized for ignoring (by failing to adequately address or fund) the growing AIDS epidemic, even as it took thousands of lives in the 1980s. Reagan's Surgeon General from 1982 to 1989, Dr. C. Everett Koop, claims that his attempts to address the issue were shut out by the Reagan administration. According to Koop, the prevailing view of the Reagan administration was that "transmission of AIDS was understood to be primarily in the homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs" and therefore that people dying from AIDS were "only getting what they justly deserve."White, Allen (June 8, 2004). [http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Reagan-s-AIDS-Legacy-Silence-equals-death-2751030.php "Reagan AIDS Legacy/Silence equals death."] San Francisco Gate

On August 18, 1984, President Reagan issued a statement on the issue of same-sex marriage that read:

{{blockquote|Society has always regarded marital love as a sacred expression of the bond between a man and a woman. It is the means by which families are created and society itself is extended into the future. In the Judeo-Christian tradition it is the means by which husband and wife participate with God in the creation of a new human life. It is for these reasons, among others, that our society has always sought to protect this unique relationship. In part the erosion of these values has given way to a celebration of forms of expression most reject. We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality.}}

Reagan made the comment in response to a questionnaire from the conservative publishers of the Presidential Biblical Scoreboard, a magazine-type compilation of past statements and voting records of national candidates.{{cite news|title=CAMPAIGN NOTES; Reagan Would Not Ease Stand on Homosexuals|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1984/08/18/us/campaign-notes-reagan-would-not-ease-stand-on-homosexuals.html|access-date=August 16, 2015|work=The New York Times|date=August 18, 1984}}

In 1988, the Republican Party's nominee, Vice President George H. W. Bush, endorsed a plan to protect persons with AIDS from discrimination.

As President, George H. W. Bush signed legislation that extended gay rights. On April 23, 1990, George H. W. Bush signed the Hate Crime Statistics Act, which requires the Attorney General to collect data on crimes committed because of the victim's race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. It was the first federal statute to "recognize and name gay, lesbian and bisexual people."[http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/hate_crimes_main_page/timeline Hate Crimes Protections Timeline] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140401073246/http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/hate_crimes_main_page/timeline |date=April 1, 2014}}, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Retrieved April 5, 2007. On July 26, 1990, George H. W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. On November 29, 1990, Bush signed the Immigration Act of 1990, which withdrew the phrase "sexual deviation" from the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) so that it could no longer be used as a basis for barring entry of immigration to the U.S. for homosexuals.{{cite web|url=http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/republican_party.html |title=Republican Party (United States) |publisher=glbtq.com |access-date=June 29, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140703032944/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/republican_party.html |archive-date=July 3, 2014}}

In a television interview, Bush said if he found out his grandchild was gay, he would "love his child", but tell him homosexuality was not normal and discourage him from working for gay rights. In February 1992, the chairman of the Bush-Quayle campaign met with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. In May 1992, he appointed Anne-Imelda Radice to serve as the Acting Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts.{{cite web|url=http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/io/unesco/members/111267.htm |title=Anne-Imelda M. Radice |date=October 26, 2008 |publisher=2001-2009.state.gov |access-date=June 29, 2014}} Losing ground in the 1992 Republican president primary to President Bush's far-right challenger, Pat Buchanan, the Bush campaign turned to the right, and President Bush publicly denounced same-sex marriage.{{cite web |url=http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/republican_party,2.html |title=Republican Party (United States) |publisher=glbtq.com |access-date=June 29, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140817104023/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/republican_party,2.html |archive-date=August 17, 2014}}

The 1992 Log Cabin Republican convention was held in Spring, Texas, a Houston exurb. The main issue discussed was whether or not LCR would endorse the re-election of President George H. W. Bush. The group voted to deny that endorsement because Bush did not denounce anti-gay rhetoric at the 1992 Republican National Convention.{{cite news|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/2004/04/19/gays-long-loyal-to-gop-agonize-over-supporting-bush/ |title=Gays long loyal to GOP agonize over supporting Bush |date=April 19, 2004 |first=Lisa |last=Anderson |work=Chicago Tribune}} Many in the gay community believed President Bush had not done enough on the issue of AIDS. Urvashi Vaid argues that Bush's anti-gay rhetoric "motivated conservative gay Democrats and loyal gay Republicans, who had helped defeat Dukakis in 1988, to throw their support behind Clinton."

In 1992, the Council of the District of Columbia passed the "Health Benefits Expansion Act", which was signed into law by the Mayor of Washington, D.C. The bill, which established domestic partnerships in the District of Columbia, became law on June 11, 1992. Every year from 1992 to 2000, the Republican leadership of the U.S. Congress added a rider to the District of Columbia appropriations bill that prohibited the use of federal or local funds to implement the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act.{{cite web |url=http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000004948.cfm |title=Amendment Would Mean No Money to D.C. Domestic-Partner Registry |publisher=CitizenLink |access-date=June 29, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071107214029/http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000004948.cfm |archive-date=November 7, 2007 |url-status=dead}} On October 5, 1992, Bush signed the H.R. 6056 into law, which included the Republican rider to the appropriations bill.{{cite web|last=Dixon |first=Julian |url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/102/hr6056 |title=H.R. 6056 (102nd) |publisher=Govtrack.us |access-date=June 29, 2014}}

In 2013, former President George H. W. Bush served as a witness at a same-sex wedding of Bonnie Clement and Helen Thorgalsen, who own a general store together in Maine.{{cite news|last=Thorgalsen |first=Helen |url=https://huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/25/george-hw-bush-gay-wedding_n_3991292.html |title=George H.W. Bush Serves As Witness at Gay Wedding (PHOTO) |work=HuffPost |date= September 25, 2013|access-date=June 29, 2014}} In 2015 The Boston Globe reported that Bush "offered to perform the ceremony but had a scheduling conflict."{{cite web|url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/05/23/jeb-bush-having-new-house-built-for-him-family-compound-maine-even-prepares-for-campaign/mrVSwhPYkanfgL6nA4fRVK/story.html|title=New 'cottage' at Maine compound for Jeb Bush|website=The Boston Globe|date=May 23, 2015}}

In 1992, Governor Bill Clinton, as a candidate for president, issued a public statement of support for repeal of Arkansas's sodomy law.{{cite web|url=http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/arkansas.htm |title=Arkansas |publisher=Glapn.org |access-date=June 29, 2014}} Also in 1992, the Human Rights Campaign, America's largest LGBTQ rights organization, issued its first presidential endorsement in 1992 to Bill Clinton.{{cite magazine|last=Socarides |first=Richard |url=https://newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/03/why-clinton-signed-the-defense-of-marriage-act.html |title=Why Bill Clinton Signed the Defense of Marriage Act |magazine=The New Yorker |date=March 8, 2013 |access-date=September 12, 2013}}

Bill Clinton's legacy on gay rights is a matter of controversy. LGBTQ rights activist Richard Socarides credits Clinton as the first president to publicly champion gay rights, but Clinton's signing of DOMA and DADT have led critics like Andrew Sullivan to argue Clinton was a detriment to rather than an ally for the LGBTQ rights movement, though DOMA passed Congress with veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate.Sullivan, Andrew (March 29, 2013). [http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/03/29/dissent-of-the-day-46/ "Dissents of the Day."] The Dish. In December 1993, Clinton implemented a Department of Defense directive known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", which allowed gay men and women to serve in the armed services provided they kept their sexuality a secret, and forbade the military from inquiring about an individual's sexual orientation.{{cite book | last1 = Feder | first1 = Jody | title = "Don't Ask, Don't Tell": A Legal Analysis | publisher = DIANE Publishing | year = 2010 | isbn = 978-1-4379-2208-0}} The policy was developed as a compromise after Clinton's proposal to allow gays to serve openly in the military met with staunch opposition from prominent congressional Republicans and Democrats, including Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Sam Nunn (D-GA). According to David Mixner, Clinton's support for the compromise led to a heated dispute with Vice President Al Gore, who felt that "the President should lift the ban ... even though [his executive order] was sure to be overridden by the Congress".{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0Jeg2X025UgC |title=see pages 495–497 |date= November 25, 2009|access-date=July 22, 2013|isbn=9780307429582|last1=Mixner |first1=David |publisher=Random House Publishing}}

Some gay-rights advocates criticized Clinton for not going far enough and accused him of making his campaign promise to get votes and contributions.{{cite news |title=Stranger Among Friends. – book reviews |url=http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n11_v28/ai_18855826 |newspaper=Washington Monthly |last=Cloud |first=John |date=November 1996 |access-date=August 30, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110826114431/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n11_v28/ai_18855826/ |archive-date=August 26, 2011}} Their position was that Clinton should have integrated the military by executive order, noting that President Harry Truman used executive order to racially desegregate the armed forces. Clinton's defenders argue that an executive order might have prompted the Senate to write the exclusion of gays into law, potentially making it harder to integrate the military in the future.{{Cite book |last=Klein |first=Joe |title=The Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton |publisher=Doubleday |year=2002 |isbn=0-7679-1412-0}} Later in his presidency, in 1999, Clinton criticized the way the policy was implemented, saying he did not think any serious person could say it was not "out of whack".{{cite news|url=http://archives.cnn.com/1999/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/11/clinton.gays.military/index.html|title=President seeks better implementation of 'don't ask, don't tell'|date=December 11, 1999 |work=CNN|access-date=August 30, 2011}} On September 21, 1996, Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as the legal union of one man and one woman, allowing individual states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.{{cite web|url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ199/content-detail.html |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office |title=PUBLIC LAW 104 – 199 – DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT}} Paul Yandura, speaking for the White House gay and lesbian liaison office, said that Clinton's signing of DOMA "was a political decision that they made at the time of a re-election." In defense of his actions, Clinton has said that DOMA was an attempt to "head off an attempt to send a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the states", a possibility he described as highly likely in the context of a "very reactionary Congress."{{cite news|url=https://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/bill-clinton-doma-2012-3/ |work=New York |last=Rich |first=Frank |title=Bill Clinton's shifting justifications for signing the Defense of Marriage Act |date=February 26, 2012}}

Administration spokesman Richard Socarides said, "... the alternatives we knew were going to be far worse, and it was time to move on and get the president re-elected."{{cite news|url=http://www.metroweekly.com/feature/?ak=6613 |work=MetroWeekly |last=Geidner |first=Chris |title=Becoming Law |date=September 29, 2011}} Others were more critical. The veteran gay rights and gay marriage activist Evan Wolfson has called these claims "historic revisionism". In a July 2, 2011, editorial The New York Times opined, "The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 as an election-year wedge issue, signed by President Bill Clinton in one of his worst policy moments."{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/opinion/sunday/03sun1.html |work=The New York Times |title=Unfinished Business: The Defense of Marriage Act |date=July 2, 2011}} Despite DOMA, Clinton, who was the first president to select openly gay persons for administration positions,{{cite web |url=http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/ac399.html |title=Clinton-Gore Accomplishments: Gay and Lesbian Americans |publisher=Clinton2.nara.gov |access-date=September 12, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130319132707/http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/ac399.html |archive-date=March 19, 2013 |url-status=dead}} is generally credited as the first president to publicly champion gay rights. During his presidency, Clinton controversially issued two substantial executive orders on behalf of gay rights, the first was Executive Order 12968 in 1995 that lifted the ban on security clearances for LGBTQ federal employeesVolsky, Igor. (August 5, 1995) [http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/08/05/288942/clinton-issued-order-letting-gays-get-security-clearances-16-years-ago-today/?mobile=nc Clinton Issued Order Letting Gays Get Security Clearances 16 Years Ago Today] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140326175219/http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/08/05/288942/clinton-issued-order-letting-gays-get-security-clearances-16-years-ago-today/?mobile=nc |date=March 26, 2014 }} and the second was Executive Order 13087 in 1998 that outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation in the federal civilian workforce.{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/29/us/clinton-grants-gay-workers-job-protection.html |title=Clinton Grants Gay Workers Job Protection|work=The New York Times |date=May 29, 1998 |access-date=September 12, 2013}} In November 1997, Clinton gave an address to a Human Rights Campaign meeting, and thus becoming the first U.S. President to address a meeting for a gay and lesbian organization.{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/09/us/clinton-is-greeted-warmly-as-he-speaks-to-gay-group.html|title=Clinton Is Greeted Warmly as He Speaks to Gay Group|first=James|last=Bennet|work=The New York Times|date=November 9, 1997|access-date=May 28, 2023}}

Under President Clinton's leadership, federal funding for HIV/AIDS research, prevention and treatment more than doubled.{{cite web |url=http://archive.hhs.gov/news/press/2000pres/00fsaids.html |title=2000.12.01: (Fact Sheet) Clinton Administration Record on HIV/AIDS |publisher=Archive.hhs.gov |access-date=September 12, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130930185839/http://archive.hhs.gov/news/press/2000pres/00fsaids.html |archive-date=September 30, 2013 |url-status=dead}} And Clinton also pushed for passing hate crimes laws for gays and for the private sector Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which, buoyed by his lobbying, failed to pass the Senate by a single vote in 1996.{{cite web |url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/104-1996/s281 |title=S. 2056 (104th): Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 1996 (On Passage of the Bill) |publisher=Govtrack.us |access-date=September 12, 2013}} Advocacy for these issues, paired with the politically unpopular nature of the gay rights movement at the time, led to enthusiastic support for Clinton's reelection in 1996 by the Human Rights Campaign. Clinton was the first president to select openly gay persons for administration positions, appointing over 150 LGBTQ appointees.[http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/ac399.html "The Clinton-Gore Administration A Record of Progress for Gay and Lesbian Americans."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130319132707/http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/ac399.html |date=March 19, 2013 }} The White House The first openly gay U.S. ambassador, James Hormel, received a recess appointment from the President after the Senate failed to confirm the nomination. On June 11, 1999, Clinton declared June to be Gay and Lesbian Pride Month, making him the first Democratic president to do so.{{cite web|url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/WCPD-1999-06-21/pdf/WCPD-1999-06-21-Pg1089.pdf|title=Administration of William J. Clinton, 1999 / June 11|website=govinfo.gov}}

In 2008, Clinton publicly opposed the passage of California's Proposition 8 and recorded robocalls urging Californians to vote against it.{{cite web |url=http://www.queerty.com/bill-clinton-on-prop-8-its-unfair-and-its-wrong-20081031/ |title=Bill Clinton on Prop 8: 'It's Unfair and It's Wrong.' |work=Queerty|date=October 31, 2008 }} In July 2009, he came out in favor of same-sex marriage.{{cite magazine |last=Tracey |first=Michael |date=July 14, 2009 |url=http://www.thenation.com/article/bill-clinton-backs-same-sex-marriage |title=Bill Clinton drops opposition to same-sex marriage |magazine=The Nation}} On March 7, 2013, Clinton called for the overturn of the Defense of Marriage Act by the U.S. Supreme Court.{{cite web |url=https://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/bill-clinton-calls-for-doma-repeal |title=Bill Clinton Calls for DOMA Repeal |publisher=Human Rights Campaign |date=June 25, 2014 |access-date=June 29, 2014 |archive-date=September 11, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150911102944/http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/bill-clinton-calls-for-doma-repeal |url-status=dead }}

In his 1994 campaign to become the Governor of Texas, Bush pledged to veto any effort to repeal Texas's sodomy law, calling it "a symbolic gesture of traditional values."{{cite news|url=http://www.salon.com/2000/10/16/byrds/ |title=Bush angers slain man's family |work=Salon |date=October 16, 2000 |access-date=March 24, 2014}}

In 1997, Governor Bush signed into law a bill adding "A license may not be issued for the marriage of persons of the same sex" into the Texas Family Code.{{cite web|url=http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FA/htm/FA.2.htm#2.001 |title=Sec. 2.001. MARRIAGE LICENSE |publisher=Statutes.legis.state.tx.us |access-date=June 29, 2014}} In a 1998 Texas Gubernatorial election political awareness test, he answered no to the questions of whether Texas government should include sexual orientation in Texas' anti-discrimination laws and whether he supports Texas recognizing same-sex marriage.{{cite web|url=http://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/22369/george-bush/ |title=Texas Gubernatorial Election 1998 National Political Awareness Test |publisher=Votesmart.org |access-date=June 29, 2014}}

In 1999, the Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act, which would have increased punishment for criminals motivated by hatred of a victim's gender, religion, ethnic background or sexual orientation, was killed in committee by Texas Senate Republicans. Governor Bush was criticized for letting the hate crimes bill die in a Texas Senate committee. Bush spokesman Sullivan said the governor never took a position on the bill. According to Louvon Harris, sister of James Byrd, said that Bush's opposition to the bill reportedly revolved around the fact that it would cover gays and lesbians.

The governor's office "contacted the family and asked if we would consider taking sexual orientation out of the bill, and our answer was no, because the bill is for everybody. Everybody should be protected by the law." said Harris. In a 2000 presidential debate, Al Gore would attack Bush for allowing the bill to die in committee, with Bush responding Texas already had a hate crimes statute, and nothing more was needed. George W. Bush also stated his opposition to a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that said the Boy Scouts of America must accept gays in their organization. "I believe the Boy Scouts is a private organization and they should be able to set the standards that they choose to set," Bush said.{{cite web|url=http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Civil_Rights.htm#Gay_Rights |title=George W. Bush on Civil Rights |publisher=Ontheissues.org |access-date=November 9, 2012}} Bush also expressed his support for bans on gay foster parenting and adoption,{{cite web|last=Blakeslee |first=Nate |url=http://www.texasmonthly.com/content/family-values-0/page/0/3 |title=Family Values |work=Texas Monthly |date=March 1, 2007 |access-date=June 29, 2014}} urging agencies to place children in "traditional homes—man and wife."{{cite web|url=https://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/texas/txnews20.htm|title=Bills aim to bar adoption by gays|website=glapn.org|access-date=February 22, 2019}}

During the 2000 campaign he did not endorse a single piece of gay rights legislation. In a 2000 Republican presidential debate, George W. Bush said he opposes same-sex marriage, but supports states' rights when it came to the issue of same-sex marriage. During the campaign he had refused to comment on Vermont's civil unions law. On April 13, 2000, Governor Bush became first presumptive GOP presidential nominee ever to meet publicly with gay Republicans in Austin, Texas.{{cite news|url=http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/How-gay-GOP-group-lost-its-faith-in-Bush-High-2688491.php |title=How gay GOP group lost its faith in Bush / High hopes in 2000 dissolve in dispute over marriage ban |work=San Francisco Chronicle |date=October 10, 2004 |access-date=June 29, 2014 |first1=Carolyn |last1=Lochhead |first2=Zachary |last2=Coile}}

On August 4, 2000, Bush received the endorsement of the Log Cabin Republicans, the GOP's largest gay group, for president.{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-aug-05-mn-65188-story.html |title=Gay Republicans Endorse Bush |work=Los Angeles Times |date=August 5, 2000 |access-date=June 29, 2014}} He also received the endorsement of the newly formed Republican Unity Coalition.{{cite web|url=http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/with-respect-to-mary-cheney/ |title=With Respect to Mary Cheney |publisher=Fair.org |date=February 22, 1999 |access-date=June 29, 2014}} In a 2000 presidential debate with Al Gore, Bush stated he supported the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. However, he stated that he opposed sodomy laws, a reversal of his position as governor of Texas.{{cite web|url=http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Gore+Flips,+and+Flops,+on+Defense+of+Marriage+Act,+AR+Says.-a066005683 |title=Gore Flips, and Flops, on Defense of Marriage Act, AR Says |date=October 12, 2000 |publisher=PR Newswire |via=The Free Library |access-date=June 29, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141221141715/http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Gore+Flips,+and+Flops,+on+Defense+of+Marriage+Act,+AR+Says.-a066005683 |archive-date=December 21, 2014}}{{cite web|url=http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush_Defense.htm |title=George W. Bush on Defense |publisher=Issues2000.org |access-date=June 29, 2014}}

{{Main|Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration#LGBT_issues|Political positions of George W. Bush#LGBT_issues}}

George W. Bush, despite being opposed to LGBTQ rights when Governor of Texas, was relatively moderate in regards to LGBTQ rights as president, though opposed gay marriage and would later voice his support for civil unions. In his eight years of office, Bush's views on gay rights were often difficult to ascertain, but many experts feel that the Bush White House wanted to avoid bad publicity without alienating evangelical conservative Christian voters. Thus, he did not repeal President Clinton's Executive Order banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the federal civilian government, but Bush's critics felt as if he failed to enforce the executive order.{{cite news| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/24/AR2005052401496.html | newspaper=The Washington Post | title=Official Says Law Doesn't Cover Gays | first=Christopher | last=Lee | date=May 25, 2005 | access-date=May 1, 2010}} He retained Clinton's Office of National AIDS Policy and was the first Republican president to appoint an openly gay man to serve in his administration, Scott Evertz as director of the Office of National AIDS Policy.{{cite news| url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/04/10/MN198145.DTL | work=The San Francisco Chronicle | title=NEWSMAKER PROFILE / Scott Evertz / New AIDS Czar Called a Skillful Bridge Builder / Evertz the first gay man to hold position | first=Christopher | last=Heredia | date=April 10, 2001}} Bush also became the second president, after President Clinton, to select openly gay appointees to his administration. Bush's nominee as ambassador to Romania, Michael E. Guest, became the second openly gay man U.S. Ambassador and the first to be confirmed by the Senate. He did not repeal any of the spousal benefits that Clinton had introduced for same-sex federal employees. He did not attempt to repeal don't ask, don't tell, nor make an effort to change it.

In April 2002, White House officials held an unannounced briefing in April for the Log Cabin Republicans. On June 27, 2002, President Bush signed a bill allowing death benefits to be paid to domestic partners of firefighters and police officers who die in the line of duty, permanently extending a federal death benefit to same-sex couples for the first time.{{cite news |last=Allen |first=Mike |url=http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2002-06-27/news/0206260935_1_death-benefits-domestic-partners-federal-benefit |title=Bush Approves Federal Same-sex Death Benefits |work=Sun-Sentinel |date=June 27, 2002 |access-date=June 29, 2014 |archive-date=July 29, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140729191250/http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2002-06-27/news/0206260935_1_death-benefits-domestic-partners-federal-benefit |url-status=dead}} In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that sodomy laws against consenting adults was unconstitutional. President Bush's press secretary Ari Fleischer refused to comment on the decision, noting only that the administration had not filed a brief in the case.Carpenter, Flagrant Conduct, 269 In 2004, Bush said "What they do in the privacy of their house, consenting adults should be able to do."{{cite web|url=http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/usnews104.htm |title=Democrats Ready to Vote on Marriage |publisher=Glapn.org |access-date=June 29, 2014}}

Previously, Bush said he supports states' rights when it came to marriage, however, after the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, Bush announced his support for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on February 24, 2004.{{cite news|title=Transcript of Bush statement|url=http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.transcript/|access-date=August 2, 2013|publisher=CNN|date=February 24, 2004}} Due to his support of the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), the Log Cabin Republicans declined to endorse the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004 by a vote of 22–2.{{cite news|url=http://pridesource.com/article.html?article=9542 |title=Log Cabin nixes Bush, others endorse Kerry |date=September 16, 2004 |work=PrideSource |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131113081019/http://pridesource.com/article.html?article=9542 |archive-date=November 13, 2013}} The Palm Beach County chapter in Florida did endorse him, resulting in the revocation of their charter.{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/03/26/AR2005032604814.html |title=Log Cabins Go Against the GOP Grain |first1=Mike |last1=Allen |first2=Dana |last2=Milbank |date=March 27, 2005 |newspaper=The Washington Post}} On September 22, 2004, the Abe Lincoln Black Republican Caucus (ALBRC), a group of young urban Black gay Republicans, voted in a special call meeting in Dallas, Texas, to endorse President Bush for re-election.{{cite press release |url=http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/black-gay-republicans-break-with-log-cabin-republicans-endorse-bush-73866832.html |title=Black Gay Republicans Break with Log Cabin Republicans, Endorse Bush |agency=PR Newswire |date=September 21, 2004 |access-date=June 29, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304063324/http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/black-gay-republicans-break-with-log-cabin-republicans-endorse-bush-73866832.html |archive-date=March 4, 2016 |url-status=dead }} In an October president debate, Bush said he did not know whether homosexuality is a choice or not. In October 2004, Bush said that he supported allowing the states to establish civil unions for same-sex couples.{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/26/politics/campaign/bush-says-his-party-is-wrong-to-oppose-gay-civil-unions.html |title=Bush Says His Party Is Wrong to Oppose Gay Civil Unions |last=Bumiller |first=Elisabeth |date=October 26, 2004 |website=The New York Times}}

In 2007, Bush threatened to veto the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, which would have included sexual orientation in hate crimes, and Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 2007. In December 2008, the Bush administration refused to support the U.N. declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity at the United Nations that condemns the use of violence, harassment, discrimination, exclusion, stigmatization, and prejudice based on sexual orientation and gender identity.{{cite web|url=http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/news/first-gay-rights-are-pressed-un |title=In a First, Gay Rights Are Pressed at the U.N. |publisher=Atlantic Philanthropies |date=December 19, 2008 |access-date=November 9, 2012}}

Obama supported legalizing same-sex marriage when he first ran for the Illinois State Senate in 1996.{{cite news |author=Baim, Tracy |date=January 14, 2009 |title=Obama changed views on gay marriage; 1996 statement: 'I favor legalizing same-sex marriage' |newspaper=Windy City Times |pages=6–8 |url=http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/images/publications/wct/2009-01-14/current.pdf}} When he ran for re-election to the Illinois Senate in 1998, he was undecided about legalizing same-sex marriage and supported including sexual orientation to the state's non-discrimination laws.{{cite news |author=Baim, Tracy |date=January 21, 2009 |title=Obama marriage story goes national; 1998 survey shows another shift |newspaper=Windy City Times |page=5 |url=http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/images/publications/wct/2009-01-21/current.pdf}}{{cite web|url=http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm#Gay_Rights |title=Barack Obama on Civil Rights |publisher=Ontheissues.org |access-date=June 29, 2014}} During his time as a state senator he cosponsored a bill amending the Illinois Human Rights Act to include protections for LGBTQ people which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace, housing, and all public places and supported Illinois gender violence act.

Obama supported civil unions, but opposed same-sex marriage when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004 and for U.S. President in 2008. He supported civil unions that would carry equal legal standing to that of marriage for same-sex couples, but believed that decisions about the title of marriage should be left to the states.{{cite news |title=CNN/YouTube debate transcript |publisher=CNN |url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript/index.html |access-date=July 23, 2007 |date=July 24, 2007}}{{cite news |first=Philip |last=Elliott |url=http://www.rrstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070213/NEWS/102130025/1004/NEWS |title=Obama's N.H. visit brings little criticism, much love |agency=Associated Press |work=Rockford Register Star |date=February 13, 2007 |access-date=March 2, 2007}} {{dead link|date=September 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes}}

During his time as senator, Obama co-sponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Tax Equity for Domestic Partner and Health Plan Beneficiaries Act, and Early Treatment for HIV Act.{{cite web|url=http://s3.amazonaws.com/hrc-assets//files/documents/Congress_Scorecard-110th.pdf#__utma=149406063.2073489215.1363419975.1395581027.1396032899.119&__utmb=149406063.4.9.1396032917634&__utmc=149406063&__utmx=-&__utmz=149406063.1396032899.119.91.utmcsr=google|title=SCORECARD Measuring Support for Equality in the 110th Congress |access-date=June 29, 2014}}

In the 109th United States Congress, Obama received a score of 89% by the Human Rights Campaign.{{cite web|url=http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/9490/barack-obama-ii |title=Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity |publisher=Votesmart.org |access-date=June 29, 2014}}

In 2006, Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman in the U.S. Constitution.{{cite press release |url=http://obama.senate.gov/press/060607-obama_statement_on_vote_against_constitutional_amendment_to_ban_gay_marriage/index.html |title=Obama Statement on Vote Against Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081020150159/http://obama.senate.gov/press/060607-obama_statement_on_vote_against_constitutional_amendment_to_ban_gay_marriage/index.html |archive-date=October 20, 2008 |publisher=Barack Obama: US Senator for Illinois |access-date=March 2, 2007}}

In 2007, Senator Obama said he opposed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and the don't ask, don't tell policy when it passed and supported repealing it. He also said that homosexuality is not a choice, he supported adoption rights for same-sex couples, and he would work as president to extend the 1,000 federal rights granted to marriage couples to couples in civil unions. He also voted for the Kennedy Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 that would expand federal jurisdiction to reach serious, violent hate crimes perpetrated because of the victim's sexual orientation and gender identity and the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act.

In the 2008 presidential election, he expressed his opposition to state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage in California, and Florida on the November ballot,{{cite news|url=http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2008/06/26/michelle-obama-speaks-to-gay-democrats/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130321071320/http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2008/06/26/michelle-obama-speaks-to-gay-democrats|url-status=dead|archive-date=March 21, 2013|title=Michelle Obama speaks to gay Democrats|access-date=January 22, 2013|date=June 27, 2008|work=Reuters}}{{cite news|url=http://talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/the-audacity-of-hope-from-selm.php |title=The audacity of hope – 'from Selma to Stonewall{{'-}} |access-date=January 22, 2013 |date=June 27, 2008 |work=TMP |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090307001621/http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/the-audacity-of-hope-from-selm.php |archive-date=March 7, 2009 }}{{cite news|url=http://www.towleroad.com/2008/08/michelle-obama.html|title=Michelle Obama Speaks to LGBT Delegates at Convention Lunch|access-date=January 22, 2013|date=August 27, 2008|work=Towleroad}} but stated in a 2008 interview that he personally believes that marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage."{{cite web |author=Dschabner |url=http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i.html |title=Obama Says He Is Against Same-Sex Marriage But Also Against Ending Its Practice in Calif. |work=ABC News |date=November 2, 2008 |access-date=June 29, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150816205307/http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i.html |archive-date=August 16, 2015}} In the 110th United States Congress, Obama received a score of 94% by the Human Rights Campaign. In the 2008 election, Obama received the endorsement of the following gay rights organizations: Houston GLBT Political Caucus,{{cite news|last=Chipman |first=Kim |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a0ZqDAiuYFX0 |title=Gay Clinton Backers Defect to Obama, Eroding Her Base |date=February 29, 2008 |access-date=June 29, 2014}} Human Rights Campaign,{{cite web |url=https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/press-release-human-rights-campaign-endorses-sen-barack-obama-for-presiden |title=PRESS RELEASE -- Human Rights Campaign Endorses Sen. Barack Obama for President of the United States |date=June 6, 2008 |access-date=July 7, 2023 |website=Human Rights Campaign |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210107020619/https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/press-release-human-rights-campaign-endorses-sen-barack-obama-for-presiden |archive-date=January 7, 2021}} and the National Stonewall Democrats.{{Cite web |url=https://www.advocate.com/news/2008/02/01/obama-picks-lgbt-supporters-edwards |title=Obama Picks Up LGBT Supporters From Edwards |last=Eleveld |first=Kerry |date=February 1, 2008 |website=Advocate |access-date=July 7, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160702071913/https://www.advocate.com/news/2008/02/01/obama-picks-lgbt-supporters-edwards |archive-date=July 2, 2016}}{{cite book|last1=Baim|first1=Tracy|last2=Besen|first2=Wayne R.|title=Obama and the Gays: A Political Marriage|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KgB0pfSYbj8C&pg=PA110|access-date=September 1, 2014|year=2010|publisher=Prairie Avenue Productions|isbn=9781453801710|page=110}}{{cite web |url=https://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/12/05/exclusive-national-stonewall-democrats-faces-30000-budget-gap/ |title=EXCLUSIVE: National Stonewall Democrats faces $30,000 budget gap |last=Lavers |first=Michael K |date=December 5, 2012 |website=The Washington Blade |access-date=July 7, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121205182110/https://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/12/05/exclusive-national-stonewall-democrats-faces-30000-budget-gap/ |archive-date=December 5, 2012}}

{{Main|Social policy of the Barack Obama administration}}

Barack Obama took many definitively pro-LGBTQ stances. In March 2009, his administration reversed Bush administration policy and signed the U.N. declaration that calls for the decriminalization of homosexuality.{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rights-gay-usa-idUSTRE52H5CK20090318|title=In turnaround, U.S. signs U.N. gay rights document|last=Pleming|first=Sue|date=March 18, 2009|work=Reuters|access-date=April 2, 2019|language=en}} In June 2009, Obama became the first president to declare the month of June to be LGBTQ pride month; President Clinton had declared June Gay and Lesbian Pride Month. Obama would do the same for every following June of his presidency.{{cite web|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/realitycheck/the_press_office/Presidential-Proclamation-LGBT-Pride-Month|work=whitehouse.gov|title=Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, 2009|via=National Archives|access-date=September 7, 2017}}{{cite news|title=Presidential Proclamation—Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/presidential-proclamation-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-pride-month|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170216125621/https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/presidential-proclamation-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-pride-month|via=National Archives|work=whitehouse.gov|archive-date=February 16, 2017}}{{cite web|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/31/presidential-proclamation-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-pride-mon |title=Presidential Proclamation-Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month |date=May 31, 2011 |via=National Archives |work=whitehouse.gov |access-date=June 29, 2014}}{{cite web|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/01/presidential-proclamation-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-pride-mon|work=whitehouse.gov|title=Presidential Proclamation: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, 2012|via=National Archives|date=June 1, 2012}}{{cite web|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/31/presidential-proclamation-lgbt-pride-month|title=Presidential Proclamation – Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, 2013 |date=May 31, 2013 |via=National Archives|work=whitehouse.gov|access-date=June 29, 2014}}{{cite news|url=http://www.metroweekly.com/2014/05/obama-proclaims-june-lgbt-pride-month/ |title=Obama proclaims June LGBT Pride Month |work=Metro Weekly |date=May 30, 2014 |access-date=June 29, 2014}}{{Cite news|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/05/30/presidential-proclamation-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-pride-mon|title=Presidential Proclamation – Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, 2014|date=May 30, 2014|access-date=September 7, 2017|via=National Archives|work=whitehouse.gov|language=en}}{{cite web|url=http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/05/obama-issues-presidential-proclamation-declaring-june-lgbt-pride-month-2/ |title=Obama issues Presidential Proclamation declaring June LGBT Pride Month |publisher=LGBTQ Nation |date=May 29, 2015 |access-date=June 4, 2015}}{{Cite news|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/05/31/presidential-proclamation-lgbt-pride-month-2016|title=Presidential Proclamation – LGBT Pride Month, 2016|date=May 31, 2016|access-date=September 7, 2017|via=National Archives|work=whitehouse.gov|language=en}} On June 17, 2009, President Obama signed a presidential memorandum allowing same-sex partners of federal employees to receive certain benefits. The memorandum does not cover full health coverage.{{cite web|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-heads-executive-departments-and-agencies-federal-benefits-and-non-discri|title=Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination, 6–17–09|access-date=April 6, 2016|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170120234003/https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-heads-executive-departments-and-agencies-federal-benefits-and-non-discri|via=National Archives|work=whitehouse.gov|date=June 17, 2009|archive-date=January 20, 2017}} On October 28, 2009, Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which added gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability to the federal hate crimes law.{{cite news|url=https://huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/28/hate-crimes-bill-to-be-si_n_336883.html |work=HuffPost |first=Rachel |last=Weiner |title=Hate Crimes Bill Signed into Law 11 Years After Matthew Shepard's Death |date=October 28, 2009}} In October 2009, he nominated Sharon Lubinski to become the first openly gay U.S. marshal to serve the Minnesota district.{{cite news | url=https://huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/28/sharon-lubinski-senate-co_n_405384.html | work=HuffPost | title=Sharon Lubinski: Senate Confirms First Openly Gay US Marshal | date=December 28, 2009 | access-date=December 12, 2019 | archive-date=March 3, 2016 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303200555/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/28/sharon-lubinski-senate-co_n_405384.html | url-status=dead }}

On January 4, 2010, he appointed Amanda Simpson the Senior Technical Advisor to the Department of Commerce, making her the first openly transgender person appointed to a government post by a U.S. President.{{cite news |url=http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/01/president-obama-names-transgender-appointee-to-commerce-department.html |title=President Obama Names Transgender Appointee to Commerce Department |date=January 4, 2010 |access-date=January 4, 2010 |work=ABC News |author=Tapper, Jake |author-link=Jake Tapper |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100107083924/http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/01/president-obama-names-transgender-appointee-to-commerce-department.html |archive-date=January 7, 2010}}{{cite news|url=http://www.queerty.com/obamas-new-queer-appointee-amanda-simpson-brings-some-t-to-the-administration-20091231/|title=Obama's New Queer Appointee Amanda Simpson Brings Some 'T' to the Administration|date=December 31, 2009|access-date=January 4, 2010|work=Queerty| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100119133145/http://www.queerty.com/obamas-new-queer-appointee-amanda-simpson-brings-some-t-to-the-administration-20091231/| archive-date=January 19, 2010}}{{cite web|url=http://www.intraa.org/amanda-simpson/|title=Obama Hires Trans Woman Amanda Simpson|date=December 31, 2009|access-date=January 4, 2010|publisher=National Center for Transgender Equality| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100104220530/http://www.intraa.org/amanda-simpson/| archive-date=January 4, 2010}} He has appointed the most U.S. gay and lesbian officials of any U.S. president.{{cite web|last=Hananel |first=Sam |url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/26/obama-has-appointed-most-us-gay-officials/?page=all |title=Obama has appointed most U.S. gay officials |work=The Washington Times |date=October 26, 2010 |access-date=November 9, 2012}} At the start of 2010, the Obama administration included gender identity among the classes protected against discrimination under the authority of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). On April 15, 2010, Obama issued an executive order to the Department of Health and Human Services that required medical facilities to grant visitation and medical decision-making rights to same-sex couples.{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/us/politics/16webhosp.html|title=Obama Widens Medical Rights for Gay Partners |date=April 16, 2010|work=The New York Times}} In June 2010, he expanded the Family Medical Leave Act to cover employees taking unpaid leave to care for the children of same-sex partners.{{cite news| url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-expands-family-medical-leave-act-to-cover-gay-employees/ |work=Fox News |title=Obama Expands Family Medical Leave Act to Cover Gay Employees |date=June 22, 2010}} On December 22, 2010, Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 into law.{{cite news|title=Obama signs bill repealing 'don't ask, don't tell' policy |agency=Associated Press |newspaper=Los Angeles Times |date=December 22, 2010 |url=https://latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-naw-dont-ask-repeal-20101222,0,4220844.story |archive-url=https://archive.today/20101226005325/http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-naw-dont-ask-repeal-20101222,0,4220844.story |url-status=dead |archive-date=December 26, 2010 |access-date=December 22, 2010}}

On February 23, 2011, President Obama instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court.{{cite news |url=https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/02/president-obama-instructs-justice-department-to-stop-defending-defense-of-marriage-act-calls-clinton/ |title=President Obama Instructs Justice Department to Stop Defending Defense of Marriage Act calls Clinton-Signed Law "Unconstitutional" |work=ABC News |date=February 23, 2011 |access-date=June 29, 2014}} In March 2011, the U.S. issued a nonbinding declaration in favor of gay rights that gained the support of more than 80 countries at the U.N.{{cite news|url=https://huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/un-gay-rights-protection-resolution-passes-_n_879032.html|title=U.N. Gay Rights Protection Resolution Passes, Hailed As 'Historic Moment'|date=June 17, 2011|work=HuffPost|access-date=October 6, 2014|archive-date=November 13, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131113131517/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/un-gay-rights-protection-resolution-passes-_n_879032.html|url-status=dead}} In June 2011, the U.N. endorsed the rights of gay, lesbian, and transgender people for the first time, by passing a resolution that was backed by the U.S., among other countries. On August 18, 2011, the Obama administration announced that it would suspend deportation proceedings against many undocumented immigrants who pose no threat to national security or public safety, with the White House interpreting the term "family" to include partners of lesbian, gay and bisexual people.{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/us/19immig.html|title=Fewer Youths to Be Deported in New Policy|date=August 19, 2011|work=The New York Times|access-date=April 6, 2016}}

On September 30, 2011, the Defense Department issued new guidelines that allow military chaplains to officiate at same-sex weddings, on or off military installations, in states where such weddings are allowed.{{cite web|url=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/30/v-print/125813/pentagon-says-chaplains-may-perform.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130602173934/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/30/v-print/125813/pentagon-says-chaplains-may-perform.html|title=Pentagon says chaplains may perform gay weddings |first=Curtis|last=Tate|archive-date=June 2, 2013|work=McClatchy|access-date=April 6, 2016}} On December 5, 2011, the Obama administration announced the United States would use all the tools of American diplomacy, including the potent enticement of foreign aid, to promote LGBTQ rights around the world.{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/world/united-states-to-use-aid-to-promote-gay-rights-abroad.html|title=U.S. to Aid Gay Rights Abroad, Obama and Clinton Say|date=December 7, 2011|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=April 6, 2016}} In March and April 2012, Obama expressed his opposition to state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage in North Carolina, and Minnesota.{{cite news|last=Johnson |first=Luke |url=https://huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/obama-minnesota-gay-marriage-amendment_n_1412902.html |title=Obama Opposes Minnesota Anti-Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendment |work=HuffPost |date=April 9, 2012 |access-date=June 29, 2014}} On May 3, 2012, the Federal Bureau of Prisons has agreed to add an LGBTQ representative to the diversity program at each of the 120 prisons it operates in the United States.{{cite web|url=http://www.advocate.com/society/2012/05/03/lgbt-prison-employees-get-representation|title=LGBT Prison Employees to Get Representation|work=The Advocate|date=May 3, 2012|access-date=April 6, 2016}}

On May 9, 2012, Obama publicly supported same-sex marriage, the first sitting U.S. President to do so. Obama told an interviewer that:{{cite news|url=https://huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/obama-gay-marriage_n_1503245.html|title=Obama Backs Gay Marriage|date=May 9, 2012 |work=HuffPost|first=Sam|last=Stein|access-date=October 17, 2017}}

{{blockquote|over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.}}

In the 2012 election, Obama received the endorsement of the following gay rights organizations: Equal Rights Washington, Fair Wisconsin, Gay-Straight Alliance Network,{{cite web|url=http://www.gsanetwork.org/ |title=Gay-Straight Alliance Network |access-date=October 9, 2012}}{{cite web|last=Raghavan |first=Gautam |url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2012/01/25/special-message-national-gay-straight-alliance-day |title=A Special Message on National Gay-Straight Alliance Day |date=January 25, 2012 |via=National Archives |work=whitehouse.gov |access-date=October 9, 2012}} Human Rights Campaign,{{cite web|last=Adams |first=Jamiah |url=http://www.democrats.org/news/blog/hrc_endorses_president_obama_for_2012 |title=HRC Endorses President Obama for 2012 |publisher=Democrats.org |date=May 27, 2011 |access-date=October 9, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121004231829/http://www.democrats.org/news/blog/hrc_endorses_president_obama_for_2012 |archive-date=October 4, 2012}} and the National Stonewall Democrats. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) gave Obama a score of 100% on the issue of gays and lesbians in the U.S. military and a score of 75% on the issue of freedom to marry for gay people.{{cite web|url=http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/9490/barack-obama-ii |title=2012 Endorsements |publisher=Votesmart.org |access-date=June 29, 2014}}

File:Tracey Hepner, right, and her spouse, U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Tammy Smith, hold a U.S. flag after Hepner received her military dependent identification card at the U.S. Army Reserve headquarters at Fort Bragg 130903-A-XN107-231.jpg

On January 7, 2013, the Pentagon agreed to pay full separation pay to service members discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."{{cite web|url=http://www.ontopmag.com/article/14048/Gay_Troops_Discharged_Under_DADT_To_Receive_Full_Severance_Pay|title=Gay Troops Discharged Under DADT To Receive Full Severance Pay|magazine=On Top Magazine}} Obama also called for full equality during his second inaugural address on January 21, 2013: "Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law—for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well." It was the first mention of rights for gays and lesbians or use of the word gay in an inaugural address.{{cite news |url=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/first-inaugural-use-of-the-word-gay-86499.html |title=First inaugural use of the word 'gay' |work=Politico |date=January 21, 2013 |access-date=January 21, 2013 |last=Robillard |first=Kevin}}{{cite news|title=Obama Inauguration Speech Makes History With Mention of Gay Rights Struggle, Stonewall Uprising|url=https://huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/21/obama-inauguration-speech-stonewall-gays_n_2520962.html |work=HuffPost|access-date=January 21, 2013|first=Noah |last=Michelson|date=January 21, 2013}}

On March 1, 2013, Obama, speaking about Hollingsworth v. Perry, the U.S. Supreme Court case about Proposition 8, said "When the Supreme Court asks do you think that the California law, which doesn't provide any rationale for discriminating against same-sex couples other than just the notion that, well, they're same-sex couples—if the Supreme Court asks me or my attorney general or solicitor general, 'Do we think that meets constitutional muster?' I felt it was important for us to answer that question honestly. And the answer is no." The administration took the position that the Supreme Court should apply "heightened scrutiny" to California's ban—a standard under which legal experts say no state ban could survive.{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/03/01/obama-gay-marriage-supreme-court-states/1956951/|title=Obama: I would rule against all gay marriage bans|date=March 1, 2013 | work=USA Today|first1=Richard|last1=Wolf}}

On August 7, 2013, Obama criticized the Russian gay propaganda law.{{cite web |last1=Parsons |first1=Christi |title=Obama criticizes Russia's new anti-gay law in Leno interview |url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-xpm-2013-aug-07-la-na-pn-obama-leno-russia-snowden-20130807-story.html |website=Los Angeles Times |access-date=March 21, 2021 |date=August 7, 2013}} On December 26, 2013, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 into law, which repealed the ban on consensual sodomy in the UCMJ.{{cite web|last=Deutch |first=Theodore |url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr3304 |title=H.R. 3304: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 |publisher=Govtrack.us |access-date=June 29, 2014}} On February 16, 2014, Obama criticized the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014.{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/world/africa/obama-condemns-tough-antigay-measure-in-uganda.html|title=Obama Condemns Uganda's Tough Antigay Measure|date=February 17, 2014|work=The New York Times}} On February 28, 2014, Obama agreed with the Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer's veto of SB 1062.{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/02/28/carney-brewer-right-thing-vetoing-anti-gay-bill/|title=Carney: Brewer 'did the right thing' by vetoing anti-gay bill|work=Washington Blade: Gay News, Politics, LGBT Rights|date=February 28, 2014|access-date=April 6, 2016}} Obama included openly gay athletes in the 2014 Olympic delegation, namely Brian Boitano and Billie Jean King (who was later replaced by Caitlin Cahow).{{cite news|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-includes-openly-gay-athletes-in-2014-olympic-delegation/|title=Obama includes openly gay athletes in 2014 Olympic delegation|date=December 17, 2013|access-date=October 6, 2014|work=CBS News}}{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/sochi/2014/02/07/winter-games-putin-obama-boitano-gay-propaganda/5275387/|title=U.S. delegation delivers strong message in Sochi|date=February 7, 2014|access-date=October 6, 2014|work=USA Today}} This was done in criticism of Russia's anti-gay law. On July 21, 2014, President Obama signed Executive Order 13672, adding "gender identity" to the categories protected against discrimination in hiring in the federal civilian workforce and both "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the categories protected against discrimination in hiring and employment on the part of federal government contractors and sub-contractors. Obama was criticized for meeting with anti-gay Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni at a dinner with African heads of state in August 2014.{{cite web|url=http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/ugandas-museveni-meets-obama-days-after-repeal-anti-gay-law060814|title=Uganda's Museveni meets with Obama days after repeal of anti-gay law|work=Gay Star News|date=August 6, 2014|access-date=October 6, 2014|archive-date=August 25, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170825104549/https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/ugandas-museveni-meets-obama-days-after-repeal-anti-gay-law060814/|url-status=dead}}

Later in August 2014, Obama made a surprise video appearance at the opening ceremony of the 2014 Gay Games.{{cite web |url=http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/2014/08/09/president-obama-makes-video-appearance-at-gay-games/13844191/ |title=President Obama makes video appearance at Gay Games |publisher=WKYC |date=August 9, 2014 |access-date=October 6, 2014 |archive-date=August 12, 2014 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20140812024938/http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/2014/08/09/president-obama-makes-video-appearance-at-gay-games/13844191/ |url-status=dead}}{{cite web|url=http://www.towleroad.com/2014/08/obama-makes-surprise-video-appearance-to-kick-off-gay-games-9-in-cleveland-watch.html|title=Obama Makes Surprise Video Appearance at Gay Games Opening Ceremony: WATCH|work=Towleroad: A Site With Homosexual Tendencies| date=August 10, 2014 |access-date=October 6, 2014}} On February 10, 2015, David Axelrod's Believer: My Forty Years in Politics was published. In the book, Axelrod revealed that President Barack Obama lied about his opposition to same-sex marriage for religious reasons in 2008 United States presidential election. "I'm just not very good at bullshitting," Obama told Axelrod, after an event where he stated his opposition to same-sex marriage, according to the book.{{cite news|url=https://time.com/3702584/gay-marriage-axelrod-obama/|title=David Axelrod: Barack Obama Misled Nation On Gay Marriage In 2008|author=Zeke J Miller|magazine=Time|access-date=April 6, 2016}} In 2015, the U.S. appointed Randy Berry as its first Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTQ Persons.{{cite web|last=Peralta |first=Eyder |url=https://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/23/388482554/u-s-appoints-first-ever-special-envoy-for-lgbt-rights |title=U.S. Appoints First-Ever Special Envoy For LGBT Rights : The Two-Way |website=NPR |date=February 23, 2015 |access-date=February 24, 2015}}

In April 2015, the Obama administration announced it had opened a gender-neutral bathroom within the White House complex, located in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next door to the West Wing.{{cite web |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/09/politics/white-house-all-gender-bathroom/ |title=White House complex now has a gender-neutral bathroom |work=CNN |date=October 29, 2008 |access-date=April 10, 2015}} President Obama also responded to a petition seeking to ban conversion therapy (inspired by the death of Leelah Alcorn) with his pledge to advocate for such a ban.{{cite news|url=http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/04/08/leelah-alcorn-obama-conversion-therapy/25497485/ |title=Leelah's death moves Obama to respond |newspaper=Cincinnati.com |date=October 17, 2014 |access-date=April 10, 2015}} Also in 2015, when President Obama declared May to be National Foster Care Month, he included words never before included in a White House proclamation about adoption, stating in part, "With so many children waiting for loving homes, it is important to ensure all qualified caregivers have the opportunity to serve as foster or adoptive parents, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. That is why we are working to break down the barriers that exist and investing in efforts to recruit more qualified parents for children in foster care." He was the first president to explicitly say gender identity should not prevent anyone from adopting or becoming a foster parent.{{cite web|last= Ennis |first= Dawn |url=http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2015/05/01/obama-calls-end-discriminatory-parenting-laws |title=Obama Calls for End to Discriminatory Parenting Laws |work=The Advocate|date= May 2015 |access-date=May 4, 2015}}

On October 29, 2015, President Barack Obama endorsed Proposition 1 in Houston, Texas.{{cite web|url=http://www.freedomforallamericans.org/obama-administration-affirms-support-for-lgbt-non-discrimination-hero/|title=Obama Administration Affirms Support for LGBT Non-Discrimination & HERO|website=Freedomforallamericans.org|date=October 29, 2015|access-date=April 6, 2016}} On November 10, 2015, Obama officially announced his support for the Equality Act of 2015.{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-supports-altering-civil-rights-act-to-include-gender-discrimination/2015/11/10/3a05107e-87c8-11e5-9a07-453018f9a0ec_story.html |title=Obama supports altering Civil Rights Act to ban LGBT discrimination |last=Eilperin |first=Juliet |date=November 10, 2015 |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=April 6, 2016}} In June 2016, President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden met with the victims and families of victims of the Orlando nightclub shooting. Obama and Biden laid 49 bouquets of white roses to memorialize the 49 people killed in the tragedy impacting the LGBTQ community.{{cite news|url=http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-obama-in-orlando-to-meet-victims-of-massacre-20160616-story.html|title=Obama in Orlando: 'Our hearts are broken too'|author=Lemongello, Steven|newspaper=The Orlando Sentinel|date=June 16, 2016|access-date=August 24, 2017}} On June 24, 2016, President Obama designated the Stonewall National Monument in Greenwich Village, Lower Manhattan, as the first national monument in the United States to honor the LGBTQ rights movement. On October 20, 2016, Obama endorsed Kate Brown as Governor of Oregon.{{cite web|url=http://www.kgw.com/news/politics/elections/president-obama-endorses-oregon-gov-kate-brown/339263925|title=President Obama endorses Oregon Gov. Kate Brown|author=TEGNA|work=KGW |publisher=KGW}} On November 8, Brown became the first openly LGBTQ person to be elected governor in the United States. Brown is a bisexual woman who has also come out as a survivor of sexual assault and domestic violence.{{cite web|url=https://www.autostraddle.com/bisexual-governor-kate-brown-talks-openly-about-surviving-domestic-violence-shuts-down-opponents-ignorance-354190/|title=Bisexual Governor Kate Brown Talks Openly About Surviving Domestic Violence, Shuts Down Opponent's Ignorance|date=October 6, 2016|publisher=AutoStraddle}}{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/11/08/kate-brown-becomes-first-openly-lgbt-person-elected-governor/|title=Kate Brown becomes first openly LGBT person elected governor|date=November 8, 2016|newspaper=The Washington Blade}} Before being elected in her own right, Brown had assumed the governorship due to a resignation. During that time, she signed legislation to ban conversion therapy on minors.{{cite magazine|url=http://www.advocate.com/ex-gay-therapy/2015/05/19/oregon-s-bisexual-gov-bans-conversion-therapy|title=Oregon's Bisexual Gov. Bans Conversion Therapy|date=May 19, 2015|magazine=The Advocate}}

{{See also|Social policy of Donald Trump}}

Donald Trump opposed expanding LGBTQ rights.{{cite web|url=https://www.glaad.org/tap/donald-trump |title=Donald Trump |date=November 28, 2016 |publisher=GLAAD |access-date=December 31, 2020}} As President, he rolled back LGBTQ rights and appointed anti-LGBTQ officials. He opposed the Equality Act,{{cite web|last=Wolfe |first=Kathi |url=https://www.washingtonblade.com/2019/05/13/exclusive-trump-comes-out-against-equality-act/ |title=EXCLUSIVE: Trump comes out against Equality Act |work=Washington Blade |date=May 13, 2019 |access-date=December 31, 2020}} which has been one of the highest priorities of LGBTQ rights groups since same-sex marriage was enacted by the Supreme Court.{{cite web|url=https://transequality.org/press/releases/congress-must-make-the-equality-act-a-top-priority |title=Congress Must Make The Equality Act A Top Priority |publisher=National Center for Transgender Equality |date=November 7, 2018 |access-date=December 31, 2020}} Long before his 2016 campaign, Trump opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage;{{cite web |last=Towle |first=Andy |url=http://www.towleroad.com/2011/02/trump-4 |title=Donald Trump: It's Great That 'New York Has a Lot of Gays….But I'm Not in Favor of Gay Marriage.' |work=Towleroad |date=February 15, 2011}} during his 2016 campaign, he pledged to appoint anti-LGBTQ Justices to the Supreme Court.{{cite web|url=https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/ted-cruz-attacks-donald-trumps-financial-record-trump-responds/ |title=Ted Cruz attacks Donald Trump's financial record; Trump responds |work=Fox News |date=January 31, 2016 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160201092546/http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/01/31/ted-cruz-attacks-donald-trump-financial-record-trump-responds/ |archive-date=February 1, 2016}} His administration banned transgender people from serving in the military{{cite web |url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/trump-issues-policy-directing-an-end-to-open-transgender |title=Trump Orders an End to Open Transgender Military Service in 2018 |work=BuzzFeed |date=August 30, 2017}} and attempted to legally redefine gender in order to undermine nondiscrimination protections for transgender, non-binary, and intersex people.{{cite web | url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/412418-trump-administration-considering-narrowing-legal-definition-of-gender | title=Trump administration considering narrowing legal definition of gender: Report| date=October 21, 2018 |work=The Hill}}

His administration argued before the Supreme Court that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect gay or transgender Americans from discrimination (though the Court ultimately decided in favor of LGBTQ rights in this matter).{{cite web | url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/413062-justice-department-says-businesses-can-discriminate-against-trans | title=Justice Department says businesses can discriminate against transgender employees| date=October 25, 2018 |work=The Hill}}{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/content/files/2017/07/Zarda-DOJ-brief.pdf |title=Zarda v. Altitude Express Amicus Brief |publisher=United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |date=July 26, 2017 |access-date=December 31, 2020}} His Cabinet rolled back non-discrimination requirements for homeless shelters, allowing them to discriminate against homeless transgender youth.{{cite web |url=https://www.washingtonblade.com/2019/05/22/hud-proposes-rule-change-to-gut-trans-protections-at-homeless-shelters/ |title=HUD proposes rule change to gut trans protections at homeless shelters |date=May 22, 2019 |work=Washington Blade}} His Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, rolled back protections for LGBTQ students.{{cite web |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/438257-dem-asks-devos-if-she-knew-of-potential-harm-to-transgender-students |title=DeVos defends controversial guidance on transgender students |date=April 10, 2019 |work=The Hill}} The Trump administration sought to enable healthcare discrimination.{{cite web | url=https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2018/01/18/hhs-ocr-announces-new-conscience-and-religious-freedom-division.html |title=HHS Announces New Conscience and Religious Freedom Division |date=January 18, 2018 |publisher=U.S. Department of Health & Human Services}} All LGBTQ references were removed from the websites of the White House, Department of State, and Department of Labor minutes after Trump took office.{{cite web |url=http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-administration-removes-lgbtq-content-federal-websites-n711416 |title=Trump Administration removes LGBTQ content from federal websites |work=NBC News |date=January 24, 2017}} Trump did not allow refugees to enter the country on the basis of their fleeing from LGBTQ-related discrimination.{{cite news|first=Dan |last=Merica |url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-plans-to-sign-executive-action-on-refugees-extreme-vetting/ |title=Trump signs executive order to keep out 'radical Islamic terrorists' |work=CNN|date=January 30, 2017 |access-date=December 31, 2020}} Trump was the first president to speak at the Value Voters Summit hosted by the Family Research Council.{{cite web|last=Taylor |first=Jessica |url=http://www.npr.org/2017/10/13/557459193/trump-set-to-address-values-voter-summit-for-first-time-as-president |title=Trump Addresses Values Voter Summit: In America 'We Don't Worship Government, We Worship God' |publisher=NPR |date=October 13, 2017 |access-date=December 31, 2020}}

Cuts to HIV/AIDS policy and funding have a wide-ranging effect. In 2017, Trump dissolved the Office of National AIDS Policy (ONAP, founded in 1993) and the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA, founded in 1995). His 2019 budget proposal did not include any funding for two existing programs run under the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program.

The Trump administration has attacked transgender rights on multiple fronts.

• Students' bathroom access: On February 10, 2017, the Department of Justice dropped a defense of transgender students' access to bathrooms. Obama-era guidance had allowed students to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity. The right had been challenged by a Texas District Court, and the Department of Justice had previously asked the court to lift its stay, but the Department of Justice (under the new Attorney General Jeff Sessions) withdrew its request.{{cite news|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/13/opinions/trump-true-views-on-lgbtq-rights-holbrook-opinion/index.html|title=Trump shows his true hand on LGBTQ rights|last1=Holbrook|first1=Tim|date=February 14, 2017|access-date=December 9, 2018|publisher=CNN}} On February 22, 2017, Trump reversed a directive from the Obama administration that allowed transgender students who attend public schools to use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity.{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/health/transgender-bathrooms-trump-q-and-a/index.html|title=Trump's reversal on transgender directive: How we got here|first1=Faith |last1=Karimi |first2=Emanuella|last2=Grinberg|access-date=August 3, 2017|publisher=CNN}} Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, questioned before the House Education and Labor Committee on April 10, 2019, about the previous rollback, acknowledged that she had been aware of the effects of the stress of discrimination on transgender youth; these effects include depression, anxiety, lower attendance and grades, and attempted suicide.{{cite web|url=https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4791535/education-secretary-stands-transgender-protections-guidance-rollback|title=Education Secretary Stands By Transgender Protections Guidance Rollback|date=April 10, 2019|website=C-SPAN|language=en-us|access-date=April 10, 2019}} In May 2019, the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to a Pennsylvania school regarding its bathroom policy, suggesting that schools may continue to set their own policies to accommodate transgender students.{{cite web|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-wont-take-up-challenge-to-transgender-bathroom-policy/|title=Supreme Court rejects transgender bathroom case, allowing transgender students to use bathroom of choice|agency=Associated Press|date=May 28, 2019|work=CBS News|language=en-US|access-date=May 28, 2019}}
• Student athletics: On May 15, 2020, the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights wrote a 45-page letter threatening to withhold federal funding from specific school districts in Connecticut and from the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) if they continued to allow transgender girls to compete on girls' teams. The Department of Education claimed that including transgender athletes on girls' teams is a violation of Title IX.{{cite web|title=US rules against state allowing transgender athletes to compete in women's sports|url=https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/499960-us-rules-against-state-allowing-transgender-athletes-to|last=Kelley|first=Alexandra|date=May 28, 2020|website=The Hill|language=en|access-date=May 28, 2020}} In September 2020, about $6 million, spread over two years and delivered by a Federal Magnet Schools Assistance Program Grant, was at stake for Connecticut.{{cite web|last=Hays|first=Emily|date=September 10, 2020|title=Showdown Looms On Trans Athletes|work=New Haven Independent|url=http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/feds_push_to_ban_trans_athletes/|access-date=September 12, 2020|language=en}}
• Military ban: Trump succeeded in implementing restrictions on transgender military personnel, an idea he first announced via Twitter. On July 26, 2017, Trump tweeted that transgender individuals would not be accepted or allowed to serve "in any capacity" in the U.S. military, citing medical costs and disruption related to transgender service members.{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/trump-transgender-military.html|title=Trump Says Transgender People Will Not Be Allowed in the Military|last1=Davis|first1=Julie Hirschfeld|date=July 26, 2017|work=The New York Times|access-date=July 27, 2017}}{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/politics/trump-military-transgender/index.html|title=Trump to reinstate US military ban on transgender people|last=Diamond|first=Jeremy|access-date=August 3, 2017|publisher=CNN}} This announcement took Pentagon officials by surprise.{{cite news|url=https://time.com/4874245/president-trumps-tweets-catch-d-c-off-guard/|title=President Trump's Tweets Catch D.C. Off Guard|last1=Miller|first1=Zeke|date=July 26, 2017|magazine=Time|access-date=August 24, 2017}} There are about 6,000 transgender military personnel on active duty, according to a 2014 study,{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/07/transgressive-tweets|title=Donald Trump's ill-considered ban on transgender soldiers|author1=S.M.|date=July 27, 2017|newspaper=The Economist|access-date=July 29, 2017}} and the Trump administration provided no evidence that they pose a problem. Many key military leaders advocated for continuing to support transgender servicemembers. They include "the chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Force; the commandant of the Marine Corps; and the incoming commandant of the Coast Guard,"{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/29/opinion/military-transgender-ban.html|title=A Growing Problem for the Military Transgender Ban: Facts|author1=Editorial Board|date=April 29, 2018|access-date=December 9, 2018|newspaper=The New York Times}} as well as retired leaders like Vice Admiral Donald C. Arthur, Major General Gale Pollock, and Rear Admiral Alan M. Steinman (who served as the Surgeon General or equivalent of the Navy, Army, and Coast Guard respectively and who coauthored a Palm Center report in April 2018).{{cite web|url=https://www.palmcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Transgender-troops-are-medically-fit-1.pdf|title=DoD's Rationale for Reinstating the Transgender Ban Is Contradicted by Evidence|last1=Arthur|first1=Donald C.|last2=Pollock|first2=Gale|last3=Steinman|first3=Alan M.|last4=Frank|first4=Nathaniel|last5=Mazur|first5=Diane H.|last6=Belkin|first6=Aaron|date=April 2018|website=Palm Center|access-date=March 21, 2019|archive-date=April 12, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190412134959/https://www.palmcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Transgender-troops-are-medically-fit-1.pdf|url-status=dead}} On August 25, 2017, Trump directed the Pentagon to stop admitting any new transgender individuals into the military and to stop providing medical treatments for sex reassignment, intended to take effect on March 23, 2018.{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-directs-pentagon-to-implement-ban-on-transgender-service-members-bans-sex-reassignment-surgery/2017/08/25/c8c604d8-89e4-11e7-9ce7-9e175d8953fa_story.html|title=Trump directs Pentagon to implement ban on transgender service members, bans sex-reassignment surgery|last1=Phillip|first1=Abby|date=August 25, 2017|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=August 25, 2017}} On August 29, 2017, Secretary of Defense James Mattis put a freeze on expelling transgender service members who are currently in the military, pending a study by experts within the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security.{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/08/29/pentagon-chief-mattis-freezes-trumps-ban-on-transgender-troops-calls-for-more-study/|title=Transgender ban frozen as Mattis moves forward with new review of options|last1=Lamothe|first1=Dan|date=August 29, 2017|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=August 30, 2017}} Federal courts temporarily delayed the implementation of the Trump administration's proposed ban by issuing four injunctions. On November 23, 2018, the day after Thanksgiving, the Trump administration formally requested the U.S. Supreme Court to issue an emergency ruling on whether transgender personnel may continue to serve,{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/23/donald-trump-supreme-court-transgender-military-ban/2095213002/|title=Trump asks Supreme Court to fast-track ruling on transgender military ban|last1=Hayes|first1=Christal|date=November 23, 2018|access-date=December 9, 2018|newspaper=USA Today}} and on January 22, 2019, without hearing arguments or explaining its own decision, the Court allowed the Trump administration to move ahead with the ban.{{Cite news|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-22/supreme-court-lets-trump-s-transgender-military-ban-take-effect|title=Supreme Court Lets Trump's Transgender Military Ban Take Effect|last=Stohr|first=Greg|date=January 22, 2019|work=Bloomberg|access-date=January 22, 2019}}{{Cite news|url=https://www.abc4.com/news/national/president-trump-s-transgender-ban-goes-into-effect/1716979968|title=President Trump's transgender ban goes into effect|last=Jackson|first=Brie|date=January 22, 2019|work=ABC4|access-date=January 22, 2019|archive-date=January 23, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190123121503/https://www.abc4.com/news/national/president-trump-s-transgender-ban-goes-into-effect/1716979968|url-status=dead}} On March 12, 2019, the Department of Defense released a memorandum with specifics of the ban, essentially allowing existing personnel to continue to serve if they had already come out as transgender prior to the memorandum, but disqualifying anyone who was newly discovered to have a transgender body, identity, or history.
• Employment: On October 4, 2017, the Attorney General published a memo considering "discrimination against transgender individuals" in employment and concluding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity per se. This is a conclusion of law, not policy."{{cite web|url=https://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/20171005-doj-memo-title-vii.pdf|title=Revised Treatment of Transgender Employment Discrimination Claims Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964|last=Office of the Attorney General|website=ThinkProgress|date=October 4, 2017|access-date=May 26, 2019}} On August 16, 2019, the Justice Department filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that "Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against transgender persons based on their transgender status," "gender identity," or "disconnect" between biological sex and gender identity. The brief related to a pending case, Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC.{{cite web|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-administration-supreme-court-transgender-workers_n_5d57254be4b056fafd0be1aa|title=Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court To Legalize Firing Transgender Workers|last=Blumberg|first=Antonia|date=August 16, 2019|website=HuffPost|language=en|access-date=August 17, 2019}}
• Prisoners' rights: In May 2018, the Trump administration ordered the Bureau of Prisons to house transgender prisoners according to their "biological sex." Treating prisoners as members of the gender with which they identify "would be appropriate only in rare cases." This reverses guidance created by the Obama administration in 2012, and it conflicts with the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003.{{cite news|url=https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/05/trump-strips-transgender-prisoners-protections-rape-abuse/|title=Trump strips transgender prisoners of protections against rape & abuse|last1=Browning|first1=Bil|date=May 12, 2018|access-date=December 9, 2018|publisher=LGBTQ Nation}} In 2018, the Cibola County Correctional Center in New Mexico operated a unit for transgender women; the women were housed together regardless of the reason for their detention. The building served as a federal prison, county jail, Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention, and housing for asylum-seekers.{{cite news |last1=DeMarco |first1=Marisa |title=Many Transgender Asylum-Seekers Held In Special ICE Unit |url=https://www.npr.org/2018/08/30/643218345/many-transgender-asylum-seekers-held-in-special-ice-unit |access-date=April 2, 2019 |publisher=NPR |date=August 30, 2018}} Reporters were granted access for the first time in June 2019; there were 27 inmates at that time.{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonblade.com/2019/06/12/reporters-granted-access-to-ice-transgender-detainee-unit/|title=Reporters granted access to ICE transgender detainee unit|last=Lavers|first=Michael K.|date=June 12, 2019|website=Washington Blade: Gay News, Politics, LGBT Rights|language=en-US|access-date=June 15, 2019}}
• Defining gender as sex: On October 21, 2018, The New York Times revealed a Department of Health and Human Services memo that planned to establish a definition of gender based on sex assignment at birth across federal agencies, notably the departments of Education, Justice, and Labor, which, along with Health and Human Services, are responsible for enforcing Title IX nondiscrimination statutes. The Justice Department would have to approve any new definition that Health and Human Services might suggest. The memo argued in favor of a definition of gender "on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable" and the government's prerogative to genetically test individuals to determine their sex.{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/us/politics/transgender-trump-administration-sex-definition.html|title='Transgender' Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration|date=October 21, 2018|work=The New York Times|access-date=October 27, 2018|language=en}} Over the following days, thousands of protesters gathered in Washington, D.C.;{{Cite news|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/412557-trans-advocacy-groups-protest-in-front-of-white-house|title=Trans advocacy groups protest in front of White House|last=Birnbaum|first=Emily|date=October 22, 2018|work=The Hill|access-date=October 29, 2018|language=en}}{{Cite news|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-redefine-gender-protests_us_5bcddf9be4b0a8f17eeed5f2|title=Trump's Reported Proposal To Redefine Gender, Eliminate Trans Rights Prompts Mass Protests|last=Grenoble|first=Ryan|date=October 22, 2018|work=HuffPost|access-date=October 29, 2018|language=es-MX}} San Diego; Portland, Maine;{{Cite news|url=https://www.centralmaine.com/2018/10/24/over-300-protest-trumps-proposed-transgender-policy-in-portland/|title=Over 300 gather in Portland to protest Trump's proposed transgender policy|date=October 24, 2018|work=Kennebec Journal and Morning Sentinel|access-date=October 29, 2018|language=en-US}} Minneapolis;{{Cite news|url=https://www.kare11.com/article/news/minneapolis-council-members-join-crowd-for-rally-for-transgender-rights/89-608917501|title=Minneapolis council members join crowd for rally for transgender rights|publisher=KARE|access-date=October 29, 2018|language=en-US}} Los Angeles;{{Cite news|url=http://www.foxla.com/news/local-news/hundreds-at-la-city-hall-protest-trump-administration-s-new-transgender-policy|title=Hundreds at LA City Hall protest Trump administration's new transgender policy|publisher=KTTV|access-date=October 29, 2018|language=en-US}} Milwaukee;{{Cite news|url=https://www.tmj4.com/news/the-vote/milwaukee-transgender-advocates-rally-following-trump-policy-proposals|title=Milwaukee transgender advocates rally following Trump policy proposals|last=Durian|first=Tom|date=October 26, 2018|publisher=WTMJ-TV|access-date=October 29, 2018|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181029152141/https://www.tmj4.com/news/the-vote/milwaukee-transgender-advocates-rally-following-trump-policy-proposals|archive-date=October 29, 2018|url-status=dead}} Boston;{{cite web|url=https://dailyfreepress.com/blog/2018/10/28/massachusetts-residents-leaders-gather-to-promote-transgender-protections-week-before/|title=Massachusetts residents, leaders gather to promote transgender protections week before elections|work=The Daily Free Press|date=October 28, 2018 |language=en-US|access-date=October 29, 2018}} and other cities across the country, and on November 2, nearly 100 lawmakers signed a letter to HHS Secretary Alex Azar asking him not to implement this change.{{cite web|url=https://www.masslive.com/politics/2018/11/us_rep_joe_kennedy_iii_demands.html|title=US Rep. Joe Kennedy III demands HHS reject effort to redefine 'sex,' says transgender Americans 'will not be erased'|last=Young|first=Shannon|date=November 2, 2018|website=masslive|language=en|access-date=September 23, 2019}} On July 8, 2019, the State Department created the Commission on Unalienable Rights to initiate philosophical discussions of human rights that are grounded in the Catholic concept of "natural law" rather than modern identities based on gender and sexuality. Most of the twelve members of the commission have a history of anti-LGBTQ comments.{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/08/us/politics/state-human-rights.html|title=New Human Rights Panel Raises Fears of a Narrowing U.S. Advocacy|last1=Wong|first1=Edward|date=July 8, 2019|work=The New York Times|access-date=July 12, 2019|last2=Sullivan|first2=Eileen|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}
• Healthcare: Since 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has explicitly interpreted the word "sex" in the nondiscrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act (Section 1557) to recognize and include transgender people, entitling them to the same services to which everyone else is entitled, although a federal court injunction on December 31, 2016, prevented HHS from enforcing its nondiscrimination rule. Under the Trump administration, HHS lawyers began working on permanently reversing the rule,{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/04/24/trump-administration-prepares-rule-that-civil-rights-groups-worry-may-deny-care-transgender-patients/|title=Trump administration prepares a rule civil rights groups worry may deny care to transgender patients|last=Cha|first=Ariana Eunjung|date=April 24, 2019|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=May 22, 2019}} and on May 24, 2019, the proposed reversal was formally announced.{{cite web |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/05/24/726552816/trump-administration-proposes-rule-to-reverse-protections-for-transgender-patien |title=Trump Administration Proposes Rule To Reverse Protections For Transgender Patients |website=NPR |date=May 24, 2019 |language=en |access-date=May 25, 2019 |last1=Kodjak |first1=Alison |last2=Wroth |first2=Carmel}}{{cite web|url=https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2019/05/24/hhs-proposes-to-revise-aca-section-1557-rule.html|title=HHS Proposes to Revise ACA Section 1557 Rule to Enforce Civil Rights in Healthcare, Conform to Law, and Eliminate Billions in Unnecessary Costs|last=Rights (OCR)|first=Office for Civil|date=May 23, 2019|website=HHS.gov|language=en|access-date=May 25, 2019}} On October 15, 2019, federal judge Reed O'Connor vacated the nondiscrimination rule, saying that it violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. His ruling meant that federally-funded healthcare insurers and providers may deny treatment or coverage based on sex, gender identity or termination of pregnancy, even if the services are medically necessary.{{cite web|url=https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/465939-federal-judge-overturns-obamacare-transgender-protections|title=Federal judge overturns ObamaCare transgender protections|last=Weixel|first=Nathaniel|date=October 15, 2019|website=The Hill|language=en|access-date=October 15, 2019}} On November 1, 2019, HHS announced that, effective immediately, recipients of taxpayer-funded grants from HHS are permitted to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, as it will no longer enforce the 2016 rule known as 81 F.R. 89393.{{cite web|url=https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2019/11/01/hhs-issues-proposed-rule-to-align-grants-regulation.html|title=HHS Issues Proposed Rule to Align Grants Regulation with New Legislation, Nondiscrimination Laws, and Supreme Court Decisions|date=November 1, 2019|website=HHS.gov|language=en|access-date=November 1, 2019 |last1=Division |first1=News }}{{cite web|url=https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-2016-12-12/2016-29752/context|title=81 FR 89393 - Health and Human Services Grants Regulation|date=December 12, 2016|website=Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 238|access-date=November 1, 2019}} This change affects "HIV and STI prevention programs, opioid programs, youth homelessness services, health professional training, substance use recovery programs, and many other life-saving services," according to the National Center for Transgender Equality.{{cite web|url=https://transequality.org/press/releases/trump-administration-erases-civil-rights-protections-for-lgbtq-health-programs|title=Trump Administration Erases Civil Rights Protections for LGBTQ Health Programs|date=November 1, 2019|website=National Center for Transgender Equality|language=en|access-date=November 1, 2019}} In April 2020, HHS acknowledged that the pending rule to replace Section 1557 (which was then under review by the Justice Department) followed the federal court order that "vacated the gender identity provisions" of Section 1557.{{cite web|url=https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/24/trump-team-moves-to-scrap-protections-for-lgbtq-patients-206398|title=Trump team moves to scrap protections for LGBTQ patients|last=Diamond|first=Dan|date=April 24, 2020|website=Politico|language=en|access-date=April 24, 2020}} The replacement rule was revealed on June 12, 2020.{{Cite news|last1=Sanger-Katz|first1=Margot|last2=Weiland|first2=Noah|date=June 12, 2020|title=Trump Administration Erases Transgender Civil Rights Protections in Health Care|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/us/politics/trump-transgender-rights.html|access-date=June 13, 2020|issn=0362-4331}}{{cite web|last=Dept of Health and Human Services|title=Nondiscrimination in Health and Health Education Programs or Activities, Delegation of Authority (4153-01-P)|url=https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/1557-final-rule.pdf|access-date=June 12, 2020}}
• Homelessness: On May 22, 2019, HUD proposed a new rule{{cite web|url=https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201904&RIN=2506-AC53|title=RIN: 2506-AC53|website=reginfo.gov|access-date=May 23, 2019}} to weaken the 2012 Equal Access Rule, an existing federal nondiscrimination protection that requires equal access to housing regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. (The previous day, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Ben Carson had told Congress that he had no plans to change this protection.) Under the proposed change, shelters receiving federal funding would be given leeway in "determining sex for admission to any facility" based on factors including the transgender person's "official government documents," the shelter operators' "religious beliefs," and any invented "practical concerns" or concerns about "privacy" or "safety." This could allow shelters to place transgender women in men's housing or to deny transgender people admission altogether. Within the proposed rule, HUD said that the treatment of transgender people would be considered valid as long as the shelter applied its own rules consistently and that this would not conflict with HUD's existing nondiscrimination policy. HUD has been moving in the direction of weakening this rule since 2017 when it withdrew proposals to require emergency shelters to post information about LGBTQ rights and updated its website to remove guidance for serving transgender people.{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/05/22/proposed-hud-rule-would-strip-transgender-protections-homeless-shelters/|title=Proposed HUD rule would strip transgender protections at homeless shelters|last=Jan|first=Tracy|date=May 22, 2019|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=May 22, 2019}} In July 2020, HUD proposed a rule to allow shelters to turn away any women they judged to look physically masculine, examining "factors such as height, the presence (but not the absence) of facial hair, the presence of an Adam's apple, and other physical characteristics which, when considered together, are indicative of a person's biological sex."{{cite web|date=July 24, 2020|title=Making Admission or Placement Determinations Based on Sex in Facilities Under Community Planning and Development Housing Programs|url=https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/24/2020-14718/making-admission-or-placement-determinations-based-on-sex-in-facilities-under-community-planning-and|access-date=July 24, 2020|website=Federal Register}}{{Cite news|last=Cameron|first=Chris|date=July 24, 2020|title=Trump Presses Limits on Transgender Rights Over Supreme Court Ruling|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/24/us/politics/trump-transgender-rights-homeless.html|access-date=July 24, 2020|issn=0362-4331}}{{cite web|last=Burns|first=Katelyn|date=July 17, 2020|title=The Trump administration's proposed homeless shelter rule spells out how to spot a trans woman|url=https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/7/17/21328708/proposed-anti-trans-rule-homeless-shelters-judge-women|access-date=July 21, 2020|website=Vox|language=en}}

File:2018-10-27 San Diego transgender rights protest.jpg

Early on, the Trump administration interrupted the government's efforts to begin counting LGBT-identified people. In March 2017, the U.S. Census Bureau released its proposed questions for the 2020 census (the census is conducted once every ten years) and the American Community Survey (conducted annually). For the first time ever, the proposed questions covered topics about sexual orientation and gender identity. However, the questions were immediately retracted. The Census Bureau claimed that the topic had been included "inadvertently" (in fact, it was included because nearly 80 members of Congress had asked for it the previous year). The Census Bureau added: "This topic is not being proposed to Congress for the 2020 Census or American Community Survey. The report has been corrected."{{cite news |last1=Johnson |first1=Chris |title=Trump's U.S. Census proposes, immediately cuts LGBT survey questions |url=https://www.washingtonblade.com/2017/03/28/u-s-census-proposes-immediately-cuts-lgbt-questions/ |access-date=December 9, 2018 |newspaper=Washington Blade |date=March 28, 2017}}{{cite news |last1=O'Hara |first1=Mary Emily |title=LGBTQ Americans Won't Be Counted in 2020 U.S. Census After All |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/lgbtq-americans-won-t-be-counted-2020-u-s-census-n739911 |access-date=December 9, 2018 |work=NBC News |date=March 29, 2017}}

Ultimately, questions about same-sex relationships were added back into the census,{{cite news |last1=Wang |first1=Hansi Lo |title=2020 Census Will Ask About Same-Sex Relationships |url=https://www.npr.org/2018/03/30/598192154/2020-census-will-ask-about-same-sex-relationships |access-date=December 9, 2018 |publisher=NPR |date=March 30, 2018}} but this limited approach doesn't offer a way to attribute lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity to those who are not currently in any relationship or who are in a different-sex relationship, nor can it attribute transgender identity to anyone.{{cite news |last1=Necati |first1=Yas |title=The 2020 US census will fail to recognise all LGBT+ people who aren't currently in a same sex relationship |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-census-lgbt-same-sex-relationship-recognise-donald-trump-a8292561.html |access-date=December 9, 2018 |newspaper=Independent |date=April 6, 2018}} The same month, the Trump administration released a draft of the annual National Survey of Older Americans Act Participants (NSOAAP), administered by Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Questions about sexual orientation and gender identity added in 2014 were removed from the 2017 draft.{{cite news|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-administration-removes-lgbtq-questions-elderly-survey-n735741|title=Trump Administration Removes LGBTQ Questions From Elderly Survey|last1=O'Hara|first1=Mary Emily|date=March 20, 2017|access-date=December 9, 2018|work=NBC News}} In April 2019, HHS indicated their intention to stop asking foster youth, parents and guardians to self-report sexual orientation to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System.

The Trump administration opposed efforts to protect LGBTQ people from employment discrimination. In January 2017, minutes after Trump was inaugurated, LGBTQ-related content was removed from the White House, State Department and Labor Department websites.{{cite web|last=Fitzsimons|first=Tim|date=December 31, 2019|title=Trump trend: LGBTQ mentions quietly axed from discrimination guidelines|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-trend-lgbtq-mentions-quietly-axed-discrimination-guidelines-n1109186|access-date=November 8, 2020|work=NBC News|language=en}} On March 27, 2017, Trump reversed a directive from the Obama administration (Executive Order 13673, "Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces") that had required companies with large federal contracts to prove their compliance with LGBTQ protections and other labor laws. In November 2017, the General Services Administration removed "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" from its Obama-era nondiscrimination guidelines. In March 2018, the Department of Health and Human Services removed lesbian and bisexual resources from its website. In December 2019, the Interior Department removed "sexual orientation" from its nondiscrimination guidelines.

On July 26, 2017, the Trump administration intervened in a private employment lawsuit, Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. The Department of Justice, taking the opposite side of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, urged a federal appeals court to rule that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit job discrimination based on sexual orientation.{{cite news|last1=Barbash|first1=Fred|title=Trump administration, intervening in major LGBT case, says job bias law does not cover sexual orientation|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/07/27/trump-administration-intervening-in-major-lgbt-case-says-job-bias-law-does-not-cover-sexual-orientation/|access-date=August 24, 2017|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=July 27, 2017}}{{cite news|last1=Feuer|first1=Alan|title=Justice Department Says Rights Law Doesn't Protect Gays|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/nyregion/justice-department-gays-workplace.html|access-date=August 25, 2017|work=The New York Times|date=July 27, 2017}} The court ruled, however, that it did. On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court agreed, ruling 6–3 that "an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law."{{cite web|last=Grenoble|first=Ryan|date=June 15, 2020|title=Supreme Court Says LGBTQ Employees Are Protected By Civil Rights Employment Statutes|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/scotus-lgbtq-transgender-decision_n_5ebefe48c5b6299362046713|access-date=June 15, 2020|website=HuffPost|language=en}} On November 30, 2018, Trump signed the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement which contained a footnote exempting the United States from complying with the agreement's call for an end to "sex-based discrimination".{{cite web |url=https://www.washingtonblade.com/2018/11/30/trump-agrees-to-nafta-update-with-lgbt-provisions/ |title=Trump agrees to USMCA agreement with LGBT provisions |last=Johnson |first=Chris |date=November 30, 2018 |website=Washington Blade |access-date=July 8, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181201022159/https://www.washingtonblade.com/2018/11/30/trump-agrees-to-nafta-update-with-lgbt-provisions/ |archive-date=December 1, 2018}} Near the end of Trump's term, on December 7, 2020, the administration finalized a rule allowing faith-based employers to discriminate against LGBTQ employees in their contracts with the federal government.{{Cite web |date=December 7, 2020 |title=U.S. Department of Labor Publishes Final Rule to Implement Legal Requirements for Religious Exemption |website=U.S. Department of Labor |url=https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20201207 |access-date=July 8, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201207165751/https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20201207 |archive-date=December 7, 2020}}{{Cite web|last=Lang|first=Nico|date=December 8, 2020|title=Trump Finalizes Rule OKing Anti-LGBTQ+ Discrimination Days Before Biden Takes Office|url=https://www.them.us/story/trump-finalizes-rule-oking-anti-lgbtq-discrimination|access-date=January 22, 2021|website=them.|language=en-us}}

A major way the Trump administration enabled discrimination is by providing exemptions to antidiscrimination law on the basis of "conscience" or "religious freedom." On December 5, 2017, when asked by a White House reporter if President Trump agreed that it would be okay for bakers to put up signs in their business windows saying "We don't bake cakes for gay weddings," as his solicitor general had argued before the Supreme Court, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that the president believes in religious liberty and "that would include that."{{cite web|url=https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/press-briefing-press-secretary-sarah-sanders-120517/|via=National Archives|work=whitehouse.gov|title=Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sarah Sanders}} On January 18, 2018, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the creation of the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division within its Office for Civil Rights (OCR).{{cite news|url=https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2018/01/18/hhs-ocr-announces-new-conscience-and-religious-freedom-division.html|title=HHS Announces New Conscience and Religious Freedom Division|date=January 18, 2018|access-date=January 21, 2018|publisher=Health and Human Services}}

Its purpose was to enforce federal laws that related to "conscience and religious freedom"; that is, to enable individuals and businesses to exempt themselves from obeying nondiscrimination laws. On January 23, 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said that Miracle Hill Ministries, a foster care agency in Greenville, S.C., could be exempted from an Obama-era nondiscrimination regulation. Miracle Hill would continue to receive federal funds and was allowed to refuse services to prospective foster parents who are non-Christian or LGBT, although it was required to refer the rejected applicants to another agency. HHS cited the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as a basis for allowing federally funded Christian groups to discriminate against non-Christians.{{cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/s-c-group-can-reject-gays-jews-foster-parents-trump-n962306|title=S.C. group can reject gays and Jews as foster parents, admin says|last=Fitzsimons|first=Tim|date=January 24, 2019|work=NBC News|language=en|access-date=January 27, 2019}}{{cite web|url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/trump-adoption-same-sex-couples-jews-miracle-mill.html|title=The Trump Administration Will Let Adoption Agencies Turn Away Jews and Same-Sex Couples. Thank SCOTUS.| author-link = Mark Joseph Stern|last=Stern|first=Mark Joseph|date=January 24, 2019|website=Slate|language=en|access-date=February 9, 2020}}

In August 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor, also referencing the RFRA, proposed a new rule to exempt "religious organizations" from obeying nondiscrimination law in their employment practices if they invoke "sincerely held religious tenets and beliefs" as their reason to discriminate.{{cite web|url=https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20190814|title=U.S. Department of Labor Proposes a Rule Clarifying Civil Rights Protections for Religious Organizations|publisher=U.S. Department of Labor|date=August 14, 2019|access-date=August 14, 2019}} In June 2020, the Justice Department filed a brief with the Supreme Court in support of Catholic Social Services (CSS) of Philadelphia, which sought the right to decline same-sex couples as prospective foster parents within the public foster care system and to refer them to another agency.{{cite web|last=Kelleher|first=Patrick|date=June 4, 2020|title=The Trump administration just asked the Supreme Court to make it legal to ban same-sex couples from adopting|url=https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/06/04/donald-trump-department-of-justice-brief-supreme-court-same-sex-parents-adoption-catholic-social-services/|access-date=June 6, 2020|website=Pink News}}

On October 3, 2017, the Trump administration voted against a UN resolution to condemn the death penalty (which condemned the use of that penalty for homosexuality in particular), thus making the United States one of only 13 countries to vote against the resolution (including Saudi Arabia where the death penalty for gay sex is practiced).{{cite news |last=Embury-Dennis|first=Tom|title=US votes against UN resolution condemning gay sex death penalty, joining Iraq and Saudi Arabia |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-gay-sex-death-penalty-un-same-sex-relations-human-rights-council-saudi-arabia-iraq-nikki-haley-a7980981.html |work=The Independent |date=October 3, 2017}} However, this was in accordance with longstanding policy, as the Obama administration had also voted against it.{{cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/following-backlash-us-clarifies-un-vote-death-penalty-gays-n807151|title=Following backlash, US clarifies UN vote on "death penalty for gays"|work=NBC News|date=October 4, 2017}} Jessica Stern, executive director of the LGBTQ rights group OutRight, said the group criticized the Trump administration's "many rights violations, its many abuses of power from LGBTI violations to xenophobia, but this particular instance is not an example of a contraction of support on LGBTI rights... It would be a mistake to interpret its opposition to a death penalty resolution to a change in policy." In September 2020, the Trump administration (along with co-signatures it had gathered from 57 countries) proposed that the United Nations emphasize "religious freedom" in place of LGBTQ rights when discussing "international human rights."{{cite web|last=Bollinger|first=Alex|date=September 24, 2020|title=Trump administration pushes anti-LGBTQ "religious freedom" at the UN as European countries boycott|url=https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2020/09/trump-administration-pushes-anti-lgbtq-religious-freedom-un-european-countries-boycott/|access-date=November 2, 2020|website=LGBTQ Nation}}

Richard Grenell, the openly gay U.S. Ambassador to Germany, led a single meeting on February 19, 2019, with 11 activists from different European countries; it appeared that no U.S. individuals or groups were invited.{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonblade.com/2019/02/19/key-lgbt-groups-not-invited-to-trump-summit-on-decriminalizing-homosexuality/|title=Key LGBT groups not invited to Trump summit on decriminalizing homosexuality|last=Johnson|first=Chris|date=February 19, 2019|website=Washington Blade |language=en-US|access-date=April 2, 2019}} The Trump administration claimed that this dinner party represented a new campaign to decriminalize homosexuality worldwide.{{Cite news|last=Gilchrist|first=Tracy E.|date=February 19, 2019|title=Trump Launches Campaign to Decriminalize Homosexuality|work=Advocate|url=https://www.advocate.com/politics/2019/2/19/trumps-campaign-launches-campaign-decriminalize-homosexuality|access-date=February 23, 2019}} However, the next day, the president seemed unaware of it. (In the official White House transcript of that interview, Trump asked the reporter to repeat the question, and finally responded, "I don't know, uh, which report you're talking about. We have many reports."){{Cite news|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/i-don-t-know-trump-draws-blank-homosexuality-decriminalization-push-n974161|title='I don't know': Trump draws blank on homosexuality decriminalization push|last=Fitzsimons|first=Tim|date=February 21, 2019|work=NBC News|access-date=February 23, 2019}} Grenell said the United States did not have a "new policy" but was rather simply making a "new push"; this push consisted of asking for support from European countries in treating U.S. economic aid to other countries as a bargaining chip.{{Citation|title=Richard Grenell On Global LGBT Decriminalization: I'm Supported By Both Parties|work=NBC News|date=February 20, 2019|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXPivbhGDwA| archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211107/nXPivbhGDwA| archive-date=November 7, 2021 | url-status=live|access-date=April 2, 2019|via=YouTube}}{{cbignore}}

On May 31, 2019, Trump tweeted that Americans should "stand in solidarity with the many LGBT people who live in dozens of countries worldwide that punish, imprison, or even execute" people for their sexual orientation. He referenced his administration's "global campaign to decriminalize homosexuality." It was the only time during his presidency that he tweeted the word "LGBT" (excepting, one year later, a retweet of his press secretary's praise of his "LGBT community" record). It was also the only time he tweeted the word "Pride" in an LGBTQ context.{{Cite web |title=LGBT Search |url=https://www.thetrumparchive.com/?dates=%5B%222017-01-20%22,%222021-01-08%22%5D&searchbox=%22lgbt%22 |access-date=July 8, 2023 |website=The Trump Archive |language=en |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210709185351/https://www.thetrumparchive.com/?dates=%5B%222017-01-19%22%2C%222021-01-07%22%5D&searchbox=%22lgbt%22 |archive-date=July 9, 2021}} Despite Trump's apparent call for international solidarity, that same week, his administration instructed U.S. embassies not to fly the Pride flag.{{cite web|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-dept-denies-embassies-requests-fly-rainbow-pride/story?id=63566900|title=State Dept denies embassies' requests to fly rainbow pride flag on official flagpoles|last1=Finnegan|first1=Conor|last2=Palmeri|first2=Tara|date=June 7, 2019|website=ABC News|language=en|access-date=June 10, 2019}} Additionally, later in 2019, when Zambia sentenced two men to 15 years in prison for having sex, the U.S. ambassador to the country expressed his outrage. The United States did not support his position but instead recalled him from his role.{{Cite news |date=December 23, 2019 |title=U.S. recalls its ambassador to Zambia after gay rights row: sources |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-zambia-lgbt-idUSKBN1YR1S2 |access-date=October 26, 2022}}

In early 2020, it was reported that Grenell's consulting firm had been paid over $100,000 in 2016 to provide public relations support to Viktor Orbán's government in Hungary (a government widely recognized for its anti-LGBTQ policies),{{cite news |last=Nattrass |first=William |date=June 11, 2021 |title=Orbán's LGBT+ crackdown extends to schools |work=The Independent |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/hungary-homosexuality-law-lgbt-vote-b1864103.html |access-date=August 10, 2021}} which Grenell had not disclosed under the Foreign Agents Registration Act before working for the Trump administration.{{cite web|last=Arnsdorf|first=Isaac|date=February 24, 2020|title=Trump's New Spy Chief Once Got $100,000 from a Group Funded by the Hungarian Government but Never Reported It|url=https://www.propublica.org/article/trumps-new-spy-chief-once-got--100000-from-a-group-funded-by-the-hungarian-government-but-never-reported-it|access-date=February 25, 2020|publisher=ProPublica}} When Grenell resigned his ambassadorship on June 1, 2020,{{cite web|date=June 2, 2020|title=US Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell resigns|url=https://www.dw.com/en/us-ambassador-to-germany-richard-grenell-resigns/a-53659927|access-date=June 12, 2020|publisher=Deutsche Welle|language=en-GB}} he left no one obviously in charge of any pro-LGBTQ "push" or "campaign," and, three months later, a senior advisor at the Council for Global Equality dismissed Grenell's defunct campaign as "a series of self-promoting Twitter photos."{{Cite news|last=Bixby|first=Scott|date=August 26, 2020|title='Smoke and Mirrors': Ric Grenell Claim Trump Helped Legalize Homosexuality Worldwide Is a Lie, Activists Say|language=en|work=The Daily Beast|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/smoke-and-mirrors-grenell-claim-trump-helped-legalize-homosexuality-worldwide-is-fake-news-activists-say|access-date=November 2, 2020}} In August 2020, Grenell began serving as an advisor for the American Center for Law & Justice,{{cite news|date=August 27, 2020|title=Richard Grenell Joins the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) as Special Advisor for National Security and Foreign Policy|agency=American Center for Law and Justice|url=https://aclj.org/aclj/richard-grenell-joins-the-american-center-for-law-and-justice-aclj-as-special-advisor-for-national-security-and-foreign-policy|access-date=November 16, 2021}} an organization that has long supported criminalizing homosexuality in African countries.{{cite journal|author=Kaoma|first=Kapya|date=November 5, 2012|title=Major Christian Right Actors Seek to Criminalize Homosexuality in Africa|url=https://politicalresearch.org/2012/11/05/major-christian-right-actors-seek-criminalize-homosexuality-africa|access-date=November 16, 2021|journal=Political Research Associates}}{{Cite web |title=About Us |url=https://www.eaclj.org/about-us.html |website=East African Center For Law & Justice |access-date=July 8, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110528062349/https://www.eaclj.org/about-us.html |archive-date=May 28, 2011}}

{{See also|Mike Pence#LGBTQ rights|Mike Pence#Religion and LGBTQ rights}}

Mike Pence opposed the expansion of LGBTQ rights throughout his political career. In May 2016, as Indiana governor, he said that states should dictate which bathroom transgender students may use.{{cite magazine |last1=Drabold |first1=Will |title=Here's What Mike Pence Said on LGBT Issues Over the Years |url=https://time.com/4406337/mike-pence-gay-rights-lgbt-religious-freedom/ |access-date=December 9, 2018 |magazine=Time |date=July 15, 2016}} He said this in response to direction given by the Obama administration to allow students nationwide to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender with which they identify. A month later, on June 15, 2016, Trump announced Pence as his vice presidential running-mate.{{cite news|url=https://time.com/4409358/donald-trump-mike-pence-vice-president-announcement/|title=Donald Trump Introduces Mike Pence as Vice President Pick|date=July 16, 2016|access-date=July 24, 2017}}

The decision was criticized by LGBTQ advocates, as Pence was known for opposing same-sex marriage and supporting "religious freedom laws" that allow individuals and companies to claim religious exemptions from providing services to LGBTQ people, including an Indiana law that he signed while governor.{{cite news|url=https://time.com/4406337/mike-pence-gay-rights-lgbt-religious-freedom/|title=Here's What Mike Pence Said on LGBT Issues Over the Years|last=Drabold|first=Will|magazine=Time|access-date=June 22, 2017}} During Trump's presidential campaign, while discussing gay rights with a legal scholar, Trump allegedly joked that Pence "wants to hang them all"; the comment was revealed in October 2017 after Trump and Pence were already in office.{{cite news|last1=Mayer|first1=Jane|title=The Danger of President Pence|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/23/the-danger-of-president-pence|access-date=October 26, 2017|magazine=The New Yorker|issue=October 23, 2017|quote=Two sources also recalled Trump needling Pence about his views on abortion and homosexuality. During a meeting with a legal scholar, Trump belittled Pence's determination to overturn Roe v. Wade. The legal scholar had said that, if the Supreme Court did so, many states would likely legalize abortion on their own. "You see?" Trump asked Pence. "You've wasted all this time and energy on it, and it's not going to end abortion anyway." When the conversation turned to gay rights, Trump motioned toward Pence and joked, "Don't ask that guy—he wants to hang them all!"}}{{cite news|last1=Scott|first1=Eugene|title=Trump's joke about Mike Pence affirms the long-held concerns of many in the LGBT community|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/17/trumps-joke-about-mike-pence-affirms-the-long-held-concerns-of-many-in-the-lgbt-community/|access-date=October 26, 2017|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=October 17, 2017}}{{cite news|last1=Anderson|first1=Travis|title=Trump's joke about Pence must spur action at state level, Mass. LGBT activist says|url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/10/17/mass-lgbt-activist-trump-joke-that-pence-wants-hang-gays-must-spur-action-state-level/a75MuBvGeLN3oU8nDs7tNM/story.html|access-date=October 26, 2017|work=The Boston Globe|date=October 17, 2017}}{{cite news|last1=Feldman|first1=Kate|title=George Takei, Billy Eichner, more lash out about President Trump's 'joke' about Mike Pence wanting to see gay people 'hang'|url=http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/celebrities-attack-mike-pence-wanting-hang-gay-people-article-1.3567569|access-date=October 26, 2017|work=Daily News|location=New York|date=October 16, 2017}} Secretary Hillary Clinton, who ran against Trump in the 2016 presidential election, called Pence "the most extreme pick in a generation."{{cite news|author=Burns, Alexander|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/16/us/politics/mike-pence-donald-trump-vice-president.html|title=How Donald Trump Finally Settled on Mike Pence|work=The New York Times|date=July 15, 2016|access-date=August 24, 2017}} In 1993, Pence published numerous anti-LGBTQ letters in the Indiana Policy Review Foundation publication Indiana Policy Review, allegedly including one that urged employers to not hire members of the LGBTQ community, claiming they are "promiscuous," carry "extremely high rates of disease," and are "not able bodied."{{cite news|last1=Rense|first1=Sarah|title=Here's Why Mike Pence Advised Against Hiring Gay People|url=http://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/sex/news/a48305/mike-pence-anti-lgbt-articles/|access-date=October 26, 2017|work=Esquire|date=September 2, 2017}}{{cite news|last1=Dresden|first1=Hilton|title=Mike Pence Wrote An Article Urging Employers Not to Hire Gay People|url=https://www.out.com/news-opinion/2016/9/01/mike-pence-wrote-article-urging-employers-not-hire-gay-people|access-date=October 26, 2017|work=Out|date=September 1, 2017}}

In 2000, Pence's congressional campaign website stated that Congress should fund the Ryan White Care Act only after an audit confirmed that "organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus" would be ineligible for funding, and that "resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior."{{cite news |last1=Kaczynski |first1=Andrew |title=Here Is Mike Pence's Questionable 2000 Proposal On HIV/AIDS Funding |url=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/here-is-mike-pences-questionable-2000-proposal-on-hivaids-fu#.pbkWWKReO |access-date=December 9, 2018 |publisher=BuzzFeed |date=July 14, 2016}}{{cite web|title=The Pence Agenda for the 107th Congress: A Guide to Renewing the American Dream|url=http://cybertext.net/pence/issues.html|website=Mike Pence for Congress|access-date=September 4, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010119100800/http://cybertext.net/pence/issues.html|archive-date=January 19, 2001}} The latter comment has been interpreted by some as a statement of support for conversion therapy, an accusation that was not addressed until after Pence's election as vice president, when Pence's spokesperson called the accusation a "mischaracterization."{{cite news|last1=Stack|first1=Liam|title=Mike Pence and 'Conversion Therapy': A History|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/us/politics/mike-pence-and-conversion-therapy-a-history.html|access-date=September 4, 2017|work=The New York Times|date=November 30, 2016}} However, conversion therapy was endorsed within the Republican Party platform adopted at the July 2016 convention.{{cite news |last1=Signorile |first1=Michelangelo |title=The Mike Pence (Donald Trump) Assault On LGBTQ Equality Is Already Underway |url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-pence-assault-lgbtq-equality_us_58275a17e4b02d21bbc8ff9b |access-date=December 9, 2018 |work=HuffPost |date=November 12, 2016}}

In a 2006 speech, he said that "the deterioration of marriage and family" causes "societal collapse" and that "God's idea" is to prevent same-sex marriage. In 2007, he voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. In 2010, he opposed allowing soldiers to openly identify as gay. Although gay and bisexual men in the United States remain disproportionately affected by HIV, accounting for two-thirds of all new HIV diagnoses in 2016,{{cite web|url=https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/group/msm/cdc-hiv-msm.pdf|title=HIV and Gay and Bisexual Men|date=September 2018|website=CDC: Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention|access-date=June 9, 2019}} Pence gave a speech for World AIDS Day 2018 without mentioning LGBTQ people.{{cite news|url=https://www.wibc.com/news/national/vp-pence-criticized-not-mentioning-gay-community-aids-speech|title=VP Pence Criticized for Not Mentioning Gay Community in AIDS Speech|last1=Herrick|first1=John|date=December 1, 2018|access-date=December 9, 2018|publisher=WIBC|archive-date=December 9, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181209123832/https://www.wibc.com/news/national/vp-pence-criticized-not-mentioning-gay-community-aids-speech|url-status=dead}} (The previous year, Trump had given the World AIDS Day speech with the same omission.)

Upon taking office for a 2nd non-consecutive term, Trump signed a series of executive orders, described as a "shock and awe" campaign, that tested the limits of executive authority, with many drawing immediate legal challenges. On January 20, 2025, an executive order was passed by president Donald Trump the U.S. government removing all federal protections for transgender individuals, or recognition of transgender people, with transgender people being completely written out of the law.

On Joe Biden's first day in office, he signed an executive order banning employment and housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.{{Cite news|title=Biden calls for LGBTQ protections in Day 1 executive order, angering conservatives|language=en-US|newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/01/21/biden-executive-order-transgender-lgbtq/|access-date=June 10, 2021|issn=0190-8286}} This executive order interprets the United States Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County more broadly than the Trump administration had. The executive order also mandates that transgender children be allowed to use the locker rooms and bathrooms of their gender identity, and be allowed to participate in the sport of their gender identity too, and although it does not mandate all schools and states must follow the order, if they were to defy it, the Federal Government could deny funding to said states or schools. Currently, there are multiple states considering bills which would bar transgender athletes from competing in the sport of their gender identity,{{Cite web |url=https://www.advocate.com/transgender/2021/1/21/montana-pushes-anti-trans-bills-sets-battle-biden-admin |title=Montana Pushes Anti-Trans Bills, Sets Up Battle With Biden Admin |last1=Broverman |first1=Neal |last2=Ring |first2=Trudy |date=January 21, 2021 |website=Advocate |access-date=July 8, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210121232511/https://www.advocate.com/transgender/2021/1/21/montana-pushes-anti-trans-bills-sets-battle-biden-admin |archive-date=January 21, 2021}} and even one state, Idaho, has enacted a bill which bans trans girls from playing in the sport of their gender identity, which is currently the subject of an ongoing court battle in the 9th Circuit (see Hecox v. Little). Despite this, the Biden administration has not made any statements on said bills, and whether or not it will deny funding to states that have enacted them, or are considering enacting them.

The court ruling expanded Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to ban employment discrimination against LGBTQ employees but did not explicitly ban discrimination outside of employment. The executive order signed by President Biden ordered all federal agencies to review existing regulations and policies that prohibit sex discrimination, and to revise them as necessary to clarify that "sex" includes sexual orientation and gender identity. Also on Biden's first day in office, his press secretary, Jen Psaki, announced in a press conference that the President would soon reverse the government's ban on transgender people from serving openly in the military.{{Cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/biden-reverse-transgender-military-ban-imminently-white-house-says-n1254988|title=Biden to reverse transgender military ban imminently, White House says|website=NBC News|date=January 20, 2021}} Biden had originally said that reversing the ban would be an action taken "on day one," but this was delayed, perhaps because his nominee for Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, had not been confirmed yet. This ban was reversed by executive order on January 25, 2021, allowing transgender people to serve in the military again.{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55799913|title=Biden overturns Trump transgender military ban|work=BBC News|date=January 25, 2021}}{{Cite web|title=President Biden|url=https://twitter.com/potus/status/1353757273114472449|access-date=June 10, 2021|website=Twitter|language=en}}

On March 26, 2021, Rachel Levine became the U.S. assistant secretary for health and "the highest-ranking openly transgender official in U.S. history" (according to the Washington Post).{{Cite news|last=Goldstein|first=Amy|date=May 10, 2021|title=Biden administration revives anti-bias protections in health care for transgender people|newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/transgender-protection-hhs/2021/05/10/0852ce88-b17d-11eb-a980-a60af976ed44_story.html|access-date=May 10, 2021}} On May 10, 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services affirmed that gay and transgender people's access to healthcare was protected under the Affordable Care Act, reversing a Trump administration policy and restoring an Obama administration policy. On June 15, 2022, Biden signed another executive order designed to blunt recent anti-LGBTQ state legislation. The order directed the Department of Health and Human Services to partner with state child welfare agencies to prevent anti-LGBTQ discrimination, identify and address barriers to LGBTQ people receiving federal anti-poverty benefits, and create a Bill of Rights for LGBTQI+ Older Adults; ordered the Department of Housing and Urban Development to identify and address barriers to housing for LGBTQ people; and expanded the federal government's commitment to data collection on sexual orientation and gender identity by creating a coordinating committee to guide such data collection across all federal agencies.{{Cite web |date=June 15, 2022 |title=Executive Order on Advancing Equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Individuals |url=https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/06/15/executive-order-on-advancing-equality-for-lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-queer-and-intersex-individuals/ |access-date=June 16, 2022 |website=The White House |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |title=Biden executive order strengthens protections for 2 million LGBTQ+ youth |url=https://www.losangelesblade.com/2022/06/15/biden-executive-order-strengthens-protections-for-2-million-lgbtq-youth/ |date=June 15, 2022 |website=Los Angeles Blade |language=en-US |access-date=July 7, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220813055540/https://www.losangelesblade.com/2022/06/15/biden-executive-order-strengthens-protections-for-2-million-lgbtq-youth/ |archive-date=August 13, 2022}}{{Cite web |title=Biden signs executive order to fight anti-LGBTQ state bills |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/biden-sign-executive-order-counter-anti-lgbtq-state-bills-rcna33675 |access-date=June 16, 2022 |website=NBC News |date=June 15, 2022 |language=en}} In addition, it would order the federal government to curb federal funding for the practice of Conversion therapy, and ask the Federal Trade Commission to consider whether it constitutes an unfair or deceptive act. It would also set up programs to expand access to suicide prevention resources for LGBTQ youth.

{{See also|Politics of the United States#LGBT political representation}}

The main supporters of LGBTQ rights in the U.S. have generally been political liberals and libertarians. Regionally, support for the LGBTQ rights movement has been strongest in the areas of the Northeast and the West Coast, and in other states with large urban populations. The national Democratic Party has held the official platform support most initiatives since 2012 for LGBTQ rights. However, there are some Republican groups advocating for LGBTQ issues inside the party include the Log Cabin Republicans, GOProud, Young Conservatives for the Freedom To Marry, and College Republicans of the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University. A CNN News poll in 2021 found that 55% of Republicans support same-sex marriage,{{cite news |last1=Craighill |first1=Peyton M. |last2=Clement |first2=Scott |date=March 5, 2014 |title=Support for same-sex marriage hits new high; half say Constitution guarantees right |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/support-for-same-sex-marriage-hits-new-high-half-say-constitution-guarantees-right/2014/03/04/f737e87e-a3e5-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html |access-date=March 27, 2024 |newspaper=The Washington Post}} a percentage that rose to 55% in a Gallup poll conducted during May 2021.{{Cite web|date=June 8, 2021|title=Record-High 70% in U.S. Support Same-Sex Marriage|url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx|access-date=June 14, 2021|website=Gallup.com|language=en}}

In 2013, 52% of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents between the age of 18 and 49 years old supported same-sex marriage in a joint Washington Post-ABC News poll.{{cite news|date=March 18, 2013|title=Gay marriage support hits new high in Post-ABC poll|newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/18/gay-marriage-support-hits-new-high-in-post-abc-poll/|access-date=March 28, 2013}} A 2014 Pew Forum Poll showed that American Muslims are more likely than Evangelicals to support same-sex marriage 42% to 28%,{{cite web|date=November 3, 2015|title=Chapter 4: Social and Political Attitudes|url=http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/chapter-4-social-and-political-attitudes/|publisher=Pew Forum}} a percentage that according to the Public Religion Research Institute in 2018 rose to 51% and 34%.{{cite web|title=Emerging Consensus on LGBT Issues: Findings From the 2017 American Values Atlas|url=https://www.prri.org/research/emerging-consensus-on-lgbt-issues-findings-from-the-2017-american-values-atlas/|access-date=June 26, 2019|website=PRRI|date=May 2018 |language=en-US}} According to Pew Research Center in 2017, Millennials and Generation X, younger white evangelicals born after 1964, have grown more supportive in favor same-sex marriage, up to 47%.{{cite web|date=June 26, 2017|title=Support for Same-Sex Marriage Grows, Even Among Groups That Had Been Skeptical|url=https://www.people-press.org/2017/06/26/support-for-same-sex-marriage-grows-even-among-groups-that-had-been-skeptical/|access-date=April 15, 2019|work=Pew Research Center|language=en-US}} A 2017 Pew Research Center poll showed that 64% of White Americans, 60% of Hispanic and Latino Americans and 51% of African Americans support the right for same-sex couples to marry.{{cite web|date=June 26, 2017|title=Support for Same-Sex Marriage Grows, Even Among Groups That Had Been Skeptical|url=https://www.people-press.org/2017/06/26/support-for-same-sex-marriage-grows-even-among-groups-that-had-been-skeptical/|access-date=April 13, 2019|work=Pew Research Center|language=en-US}} Religious groups in support of their LGBTQ parishioners and same-sex marriage include the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Metropolitan Community Church, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Moravian Church, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Alliance of Baptists, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, the Reformed Church in America, the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the United Methodist Church.{{Cite news |last=Brumley |first=Jeff |date=December 6, 2022 |title=BJC leaders say religious liberty fears about Respect for Marriage Act are overdrawn |language=en-US |work=Baptist News |url=https://baptistnews.com/?p=139694 |access-date=December 14, 2022}}{{Cite web|url=https://interfaithalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Multifaith-Statement-of-Support-RfMA-Bipartisan-Amend-11-28-22.docx.pdf|title=Multifaith Statement of Support}}

File:Gay Pheleps.JPG at Oberlin College in Ohio]]

{{see also|2020s anti-LGBTQ movement in the United States}}

The main opponents of LGBTQ rights in the U.S. have generally been religious fundamentalists. According to Pew Research Center, the majority, 59%, of evangelical Protestants oppose same-sex marriage. Between 2016 and 2017, views among Baby boomers and the Silent Generation, older evangelicals born before 1964, have shown practically no change from 25% then to 26% now. Conservatives cite various Bible passages from the Old and New Testaments as their justification for opposing LGBTQ rights. Regionally, LGBTQ rights opposition has been strongest in the South and in other states with a large rural and conservative population, particularly the Bible Belt.

Late in 1979, a new religious revival among conservative evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics ushered in the conservatism politically aligned with the Christian right that would reign in the United States during the 1980s,{{cite book |last=Miller |first=Steven P. |year=2014 |title=The Age of Evangelicalism: America's Born-Again Years |chapter=Left, Right, Born Again |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cWLwAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA32 |location=New York |publisher=Oxford University Press |doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777952.003.0003 |pages=32–59 |isbn=9780199777952 |lccn=2013037929 |oclc=881502753}}{{cite book |last=Durham |first=Martin |year=2000 |chapter=The rise of the right |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Ual1NR2WPasC&pg=PA1 |title=The Christian Right, the Far Right, and the Boundaries of American Conservatism |location=Manchester and New York |publisher=Manchester University Press |pages=1–23 |isbn=9780719054860}}{{cite journal |author-last=Gannon |author-first=Thomas M. |date=July–September 1981 |title=The New Christian Right in America as a Social and Political Force |url=https://www.persee.fr/doc/assr_0335-5985_1981_num_52_1_2226 |journal=Archives de sciences sociales des religions |location=Paris |publisher=Éditions de l'EHESS |volume=26 |issue=52–1 |pages=69–83 |doi=10.3406/assr.1981.2226 |doi-access=free |issn=0335-5985 |jstor=30125411}} becoming another obstacle for the progress of the LGBTQ rights movement. During the HIV/AIDS epidemic of the 1980s, LGBTQ communities were further stigmatized as they became the focus of mass hysteria, suffered isolation and marginalization, and were targeted with extreme acts of violence.{{cite book |last=Westengard |first=Laura |year=2019 |chapter=Monstrosity: Melancholia, Cannibalism, and HIV/AIDS |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=b5unDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA99 |title=Gothic Queer Culture: Marginalized Communities and the Ghosts of Insidious Trauma |location=Lincoln, Nebraska |publisher=University of Nebraska Press |pages=99–103 |isbn=978-1-4962-0204-8 |lccn=2018057900}} As the movement for same-sex marriage has developed, many national and/or international organizations have opposed that movement. Those organizations include the American Family Association, the Christian Coalition, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Save Our Children, NARTH, the Catholic Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church),{{cite web|date=April 8, 2008|title=LDS Newsroom – Same-Gender Attraction|url=https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction|access-date=April 8, 2008}} the Southern Baptist Convention,{{cite web|date=July 26, 2003|title=SBC Officially Opposes "Homosexual Marriage|url=http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/news.aspx?story=1264|access-date=July 5, 2006|publisher=The Southern Baptist Convention}} Alliance for Marriage, Alliance Defending Freedom, Liberty Counsel, and the National Organization for Marriage.

The Democratic Party started to support some LGBTQ rights in the 1970s. Despite signing the Defense of Marriage Act, Bill Clinton was the first president who openly supported LGBTQ rights; he appointed several openly gay government officials during his administration. In the 2012 national platform, the Democratic Party supported the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and "equal responsibility, benefits, and protections" for same-sex couples;{{cite web|url=http://www.democrats.org/about/party_platform|title=The 2008 Democratic National Platform: Renewing America's Promise|access-date=August 9, 2009|publisher=Democratic Party|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120723225320/http://www.democrats.org/about/party_platform|archive-date=July 23, 2012}} President Barack Obama came out in support of same-sex marriage in 2012. The Democratic Party explicitly supports same-sex marriage.{{cite news |url=https://huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/03/democratic-party-platform_n_1853120.html |title=Democratic Party Platform: Pro-Gay Marriage, Immigration Reform, Shots At Romney, Squishy On Guns |work=HuffPost |date=August 4, 2012 |access-date=August 4, 2012 |last=Stein |first=Sam}}

In the Democratic Party's 2016 national platform, the Democratic Party adopted its most progressive agenda in supporting LGBTQ rights. According to that agenda, "Democrats believe that LGBT rights are human rights and that American foreign policy should advance the ability of all persons to live with dignity, security, and respect, regardless of who they are or who they love."

The agenda is supportive of:

• Obergefell v. Hodges
• Passing the Equality Act, the comprehensive federal nondiscrimination legislation for LGBTQ Americans in housing, employment, public accommodations, credit, jury service, education, and federal funding
• Including LGBTQ people under sex discrimination laws
• Combating youth homelessness
• Policies to improve school climates for LGBTQ students
• LGBTQ elders
• Access to Transgender health care
• Ending violence against LGBTQ people including the crisis of anti-transgender violence
• Mental health
• "Insuring fair treatment for LGBTQ veterans, including by proactively reviewing and upgrading discharge records for veterans who were discharged because of their sexual orientation."

The agenda opposes:

• Anti-LGBTQ state laws including anti-transgender legislation

In the section on HIV/AIDS:

Democrats believe an AIDS-free generation is within our grasp. But today far too many Americans living with HIV are without access to quality care and too many new infections occur each year. That is why we will implement the National HIV and AIDS Strategy; increase research funding for the National Institutes of Health; cap pharmaceutical expenses for people living with HIV and AIDS; reform HIV criminalization laws; and expand access for harm reduction programs and HIV prevention medications, particularly for the populations most at risk of infection. Abroad, we will continue our commitment to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and increase global funding for HIV and AIDS prevention and treatment. Democrats will always protect those living with HIV and AIDS from stigma and discrimination."{{cite web|url=https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf |title=2016 Democratic Party Platform |date=July 21, 2016 |publisher=Democratic Platform Committee |access-date=2016-11-11 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161110225904/https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf |archive-date=November 10, 2016}}

Pete Buttigieg's run for the 2020 Democratic nomination for President made him America's first openly gay Democratic presidential candidate.{{cite web|last=Schwab |first=Nikki |url=https://nypost.com/2019/01/23/pete-buttigieg-becomes-first-openly-gay-democrat-to-run-for-president/ |title=Pete Buttigieg is first openly gay Democrat to run for president |work=New York Post |date=January 19, 2019 |access-date=January 23, 2019}}

While many in the Republican Party have become more supportive of same-sex marriage throughout recent years, many are still opposed to the recognition of transgender rights within the United States. More than half of those who identify as Republican believe that same-sex marriage should be legal (55% in a Pew Research survey conducted in May 2021).

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump used the acronym "LGBT" at the 2016 Republican National Convention while acknowledging the recent shooting at the Pulse nightclub. Trump, as president, signed a memo in August 2017 prohibiting transgender individuals from joining the armed services in most cases.{{cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/25/546216624/trump-signs-memo-implementing-ban-on-transgender-people-in-the-military|title=Trump Signs Memo Implementing Ban On Transgender People Enlisting In The Military|last=Kane|first=Jim|date=August 25, 2017|publisher=NPR|access-date=August 28, 2017}} Trump appointed the first openly gay member of Cabinet, Richard Grenell. The Republican Party's 2016 platform, which was also used in 2020, opposes:

• Obergefell v. Hodges (the U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage) and same-sex marriage generally.
• Banning conversion therapy on minors.
• Transgender children's right to use the facilities corresponding to their gender.
• Covering LGBTQ people under anti-discrimination policies, including in cases of adoption.{{cite web|url=https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL%5b1%5d-ben_1468872234.pdf?mid=76323&rid=16150088|format=PDF|title=Republican Platform 2016 |publisher=Committee on Arrangements for the 2016 Republican National Convention |access-date=October 17, 2017}}{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/07/18/gop-delegates-ratify-platform-support-anti-lgbt-language/|title=GOP delegates ratify anti-LGBT platform|date=July 18, 2016|newspaper=The Washington Blade}}

Fred Karger's run for the 2012 Republican nomination for President made him America's first openly gay Republican presidential candidate.{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/profile/fred-karger|title=Fred Karger|newspaper=The Guardian}}{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2012/primaries/states/michigan.html|title=Election 2012 - Michigan Republican Primary|work=The New York Times}}

In the 2020s, Republican-led states across the United States began rolling back some LGBTQ rights, particularly those involving children and transgender rights. These mainly include bans on gender transitions for minors, bans on public performances of drag shows, among others.

{{See also|Libertarian perspectives on LGBT rights#United States Libertarian Party|Green Party of the United States|Constitution Party (United States)}}

The Libertarian Party has endorsed libertarian perspectives on LGBTQ rights by supporting the decriminalization of same-sex sodomy and promoting same-sex marriage since it was created in 1971, while also supporting religious freedom. The Libertarian Party wished to lift the bans on same-sex marriage, but with the ultimate goal of marriage privatization.{{cite web|url=http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-applaud-steps-toward-marriage-equality|title=Libertarians applaud steps toward marriage equality|work=Libertarian Party |date=April 13, 2009|access-date=July 9, 2009|quote=America's third largest party Monday praised officials in Iowa, Vermont and the District of Columbia for taking recent steps toward marriage equality, and urged legislators in all states to scrap government licensing, taxation and regulation of marriage.|publisher=Libertarian Party}} Multiple sources, including the Libertarian Party, have referred to John Hospers, who was in 1972 the first presidential nominee of the newly formed Libertarian Party,{{cite encyclopedia |last=Boaz |first=David |author-link=David Boaz |editor-first=Ronald |editor-last=Hamowy |editor-link=Ronald Hamowy |encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism |title=Hospers, John (1918– ) |url=https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/libertarianism/n139.xml|doi=10.4135/9781412965811.n139 |year=2008 |pages=228–229 |publisher= Sage; Cato Institute |location=Thousand Oaks, CA |isbn=978-1412965804 |oclc=750831024 |lccn =2008009151 |url-access=subscription }} as the first openly gay person to run for president of the United States.{{cite news |author-link=Jesse Walker |last=Walker |first=Jesse |date=June 13, 2011 |title=John Hospers, RIP |work=Reason Online |access-date=June 14, 2011 |url=http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/13/john-hospers-rip}}{{cite news|url = https://www.metroweekly.com/2018/11/in-final-tally-libertarian-gay-couple-outperforms-top-republican-in-d-c-election/|title = In final tally, Libertarian gay couple outperforms top Republican in D.C. elections|date = November 23, 2018|accessdate = June 19, 2023|last = Riley|first = John|newspaper = Metro Weekly}}{{cite news|url = https://www.lp.org/gay-libertarian-couple-outpolls-gop-in-dc/|title = Gay Libertarian couple outpolls GOP in DC|website = Libertarian Party|date = November 11, 2018|quote = The first openly gay presidential nominee of any U.S political party was John Hospers}} However, The Guardian{{'}}s obituary stated that his family "strenuously denied" he was gay.{{cite news|url = https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jul/13/john-hospers-obituary|title = John Hospers obituary|date = July 13, 2011|accessdate = June 19, 2023|last = O'Grady|first = Jane|newspaper = The Guardian}} Chase Oliver, who is openly gay,{{Cite web|url=https://www.ajc.com/politics/who-is-chase-oliver/TISUPENCY5F35K3FCFOOXJKWFE/|title=Who is Chase Oliver? Things to know about the Libertarian presidential candidate|first=Michelle|last=Baruchman|work=The Atlanta Journal-Constitution |via=AJC.com}} became the Libertarian Party's presidential nominee in 2024.{{cite news |last=Robertson |first=Nick |date=May 26, 2024 |title=Libertarian Party chooses Chase Oliver as presidential nominee |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4687416-libertarian-party-chooses-chase-oliver-as-presidential-nominee/ |accessdate=May 27, 2024 |work=The Hill}}

While many American socialist and communist political parties initially preferred to ignore the issue, most now support gay rights causes. Socialist groups generally integrate a stronger approach to gender identity issues than mainstream parties. The Socialist Party U.S.A nominated an openly gay man, David McReynolds, as its first openly gay presidential candidate in 1980; he is America's first gay presidential candidate if not counting John Hospers; see above for the controversy regarding Hospers' sexual orientation.{{cite web|url=https://www.thevillager.com/2018/08/david-mcreynolds-pacifist-and-socialist-leader-is-dead-at-88/|title=David McReynolds, pacifist and socialist leader, is dead at 88|date=August 23, 2018|website=The Villager|access-date=June 26, 2019|archive-date=May 30, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190530160102/https://www.thevillager.com/2018/08/david-mcreynolds-pacifist-and-socialist-leader-is-dead-at-88/|url-status=dead}} The Green Party has been in favor of sweeping LGBTQ rights and protections since the party's inaugural platform in 2000.{{cite web|title=Green Party on the Issues|url=http://www.ontheissues.org/Green_Party.htm#Principles_+_Values|website=OnTheIssues.org|access-date=June 11, 2016}} The more informal coalition of State Green Parties that existed in America from 1983 to 2000 also backed LGBTQ rights. The Constitution Party (United States) is strongly opposed to LGBTQ freedoms and supports criminal laws against homosexuality and cross-dressing. The party is very conservative and has ties to Christian Reconstructionism, a far-right, political movement within conservative Christian churches.

Public opinion regarding different individual LGBTQ rights and issues in the United States is very mixed, with some issues having strong majority public opinion on the Progressive side of the argument, where on others, the American population is more Conservative, see summary table below.

{{printworthy self-reference|This is simplified for international comparison with other Wikipedia LGBT rights articles.}}

A {{tick}} denotes that the right exists, while a {{cross}} denotes it does not; a {{tick}} and {{cross}} in the same column means the right varies on a state-by-state basis, or that it varies on the Federal Level.

Employment protections will not be included on the following table, unless the state adopted them before 2020, as they have already been implemented nationwide under Bostock v. Clayton County.

{{See also|Same-sex marriage in tribal nations in the United States}}

{{Portal bar|LGBTQ|United States|Law}}

• Human rights in the United States
• List of LGBTQ members of the United States Congress
• LGBTQ people in the United States
• LGBTQ retirement issues in the United States
• Proposed bans of LGBT-themed books in the United States

• Bisexuality in the United States
• History of bisexuality
• History of gay men in the United States
• History of lesbianism in the United States
• Transgender history in the United States

{{Notelist|30em}}

{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}

• [http://hnn.us/articles/11316.html Bullough, Vern, "When Did the Gay Rights Movement Begin?"], April 18, 2005. Retrieved December 30, 2005.
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20060221073022/http://williamapercy.com/pub-Stonewall.htm Bullough, Vern L. (ed.) Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context.] Harrington Park Press, 2002.
• [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/perfectenemies.htm Gallagher, John & Chris Bull, Perfect Enemies: The Religious Right, the Gay Movement, and the Politics of the 1990s], 1996, Crown, 300 pp. Retrieved December 30, 2005.
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20040317091750/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/stonewall_riots.html Matzner, Andrew, "Stonewall Riots"], glbtq: An Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, & Queer Culture, Claude J. Summers, ed. 2004. Retrieved December 30, 2005.
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20080621122142/http://williamapercy.com/pub-Comments-PercyGlover.htm Percy, William A. & William Edward Glover, "Before Stonewall by Glover & Percy"], November 5, 2005. Retrieved December 30, 2005.

{{Commons category|LGBT rights in the United States}}

{{wikiquote}}

• [https://ucsd.libguides.com/lgbtdocs/home LGBTQ History in Government Documents] from UCSD Library
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20090122233002/http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/ WhiteHouse.gov: Civil Rights] – includes section on LGBTQ rights
• [https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/01/fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-administration-champions-lgbtq-equality-and-marks-pride-month/ FACT SHEET: The Biden-⁠Harris Administration Champions LGBTQ+ Equality and Marks Pride Month June 2022]
• [http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/13/the_fight_for_equality_a_look A Look at the State of the Gay Rights Movement] – video report by Democracy Now!
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20120402122117/http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity]
• [http://www.hrc.org/ Human Rights Campaign] – official website
• [http://www.hrc.org/resources HRC LGBTQ Resources Guide]
• [http://www.refugerestrooms.org/ Refuge Restrooms] – A user-compiled, edited, and evaluatable All-Gender Restroom locator (with disability access feature)
• [http://news.gallup.com/poll/210887/americans-split-new-lgbt-protections-restroom-policies.aspx Gallup News May 18. 2017 online] – Gallup Poll: "Americans Split Over New LGBTQ Protections, Restroom Policies"

{{United States topics}}

{{LGBTQ rights in the United States|state=expand}}

{{LGBTQ in the United States}}

{{Americas in topic|LGBT rights in}}

{{LGBTQ|state=collapsed}}

{{Early U.S. gay rights movement}}

{{Social issues in the United States}}

Category:History of LGBTQ civil rights in the United States

Rights

Category:Discrimination against transgender people