Connect with us

Politics

California's protections for transgender care could be tested under Trump

Published

on

California's protections for transgender care could be tested under Trump

When Mars Wright saw that Donald Trump had been elected again as president, the 29-year-old Los Angeles artist and streetwear designer felt relieved he had already undergone surgeries for his gender transition.

Wright, a transgender man, has chronicled his medical journey online, flexing and dancing to show how his body transformed after a masculinization procedure he nicknamed “Dorito chip” for the way it altered his shape. His surgery was covered under an L.A. Care plan he obtained through Covered California, the marketplace set up under the Affordable Care Act for Californians to purchase insurance.

“I’m privileged to be here,” Wright said of living in California. “And I think about how people are going to have to come here … to be able to have medical transition.”

California leaders have sought to protect access to such procedures for transgender people. Health plans licensed by the state must provide transgender enrollees with medically necessary gender-affirming care. Doctors who provide such care in California are legally shielded from laws criminalizing it in other states.

But experts and advocates said that even in California, access to gender-affirming care could be undermined by federal action as Trump takes office for a second time, pledging to stop “left-wing gender insanity” and calling gender transition for minors a form of child abuse. State lawmakers have pledged to push back against efforts to obstruct gender-affirming care, which could tee up future battles in court.

Advertisement

“I’m not going to sit here and say that California can turn back every despicable federal attack on trans people,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who has backed protections for transgender patients and their doctors. “But we are going to do everything in our power to stick up for the community.”

President-elect Trump has vowed to press Congress to block the use of federal funds for gender-affirming care including surgery, a position also reflected in the Republican party platform. Exactly how a ban would be imposed remains to be seen, but experts said the Trump administration could model it on the Hyde Amendment, which for decades has broadly banned using federal funds for abortion.

Eliminating federal funding would have sweeping effects, because “pretty much every corner of the healthcare system has some element of federal funding in it,” said Kellan E. Baker, executive director of the Whitman-Walker Institute, which does research and advocacy on health issues for LGBTQ people. Its effects “would fall most significantly on those who are least positioned to be able to afford the healthcare they need.”

Among those affected, he said, would be transgender people who rely on public programs such as Medicaid. However, experts said that because Medicaid is jointly funded by states and the federal government, California leaders could choose to use state funds to pay for gender-affirming care.

“California has shown a predilection for funding things that are over and above what Medicaid nationally will do,” such as covering low-income Californians regardless of immigration status, said John Baackes, chief executive of L.A. Care, a health plan serving more than 2 million people across L.A. County. “The state could say, ‘OK — we’ll fund it.’”

Advertisement

Mars Wright sits in a small studio space in his apartment with his elderly dog Lucy.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Trump is also expected to seek changes to Medicaid that would reduce federal spending, which could strain for California financially if it wants to continue other existing programs under Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program. But advocates said because transgender people are a small share of the population — estimated at 0.6% of U.S. teens and adults in one analysis — shouldering costs for gender-affirming care wouldn’t be a major expense.

Experts said states have wide latitude over their spending, but Trump has tried to use Medicaid to pressure California over its policies before. Near the end of his first term, the Trump administration threatened to withhold some Medicaid funding from California because the state required insurers to cover abortion care.

Advertisement

That threat ultimately fizzled, but it could hint at how his administration might try to pressure California. A Trump representative didn’t respond to an email seeking comment on that possibility.

At clinics run by the Los Angeles LGBT Center, anxious patients are asking, “Should I get a year’s worth of hormones now? Should I do all the surgeries I’ve ever wanted to do?” said Dr. Kaiyti Duffy, its chief medical officer. She has tried to assure them that “as long as we can provide these services, we will.”

Trump could also pursue more sweeping restrictions that not only bar the use of federal dollars for gender-affirming care, but prohibit providers of such care from getting federal funding.

Some of his proposals specifically target gender-affirming care for youth, which has been a focal point for groups that contend it harms children who don’t understand the implications of such treatment. Greg Burt, vice president of the California Family Council, called it “the biggest lie that this state has ever perpetrated on our young people, to tell kids that it’s possible to be born in the wrong body.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that transgender youth have access to comprehensive gender-affirming care.

Advertisement

In the Central Valley, one mother said puberty blockers had been a “pause button” that relieved despair for her transgender child, who is now 14, and gave the family time to figure out what he needed. The military family, who rely on Tricare insurance for service members that is federally funded, consulted with doctors and eventually moved forward with hormonal treatment with testosterone.

“At every stage of medical care, he became more and more himself,” said the mother, who asked not to be identified to protect the privacy of her teen. “He switched from being silent and quiet to active and alive and thriving.”

If her child is blocked from getting such care in California, she said, they are making plans to leave the country.

Trump has called to prohibit gender-affirming care for youth in every state, calling it mutilation. During the campaign, Trump said he would seek to terminate any healthcare provider that “participates in the chemical or physical mutilation of minor youth” from Medicaid and Medicare.

The Medicare and Medicaid programs are “the biggest lever that the federal government has because hospitals get so much money” from them, said Julianna S. Gonen, director of federal policy for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. The threat of losing it “is so severe that hospitals will probably comply before they run the risk of being terminated from the programs.”

Advertisement

Experts said the White House could also seek a federal determination that such care is dangerous or experimental, which would reverberate through federally funded programs.

Alejandra Caraballo, a clinical instructor at the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law, said for many healthcare providers, “when the risk is you losing your federal funding — which means your ability to operate — it’s easier to just drop a trans patient.”

The Trump administration could also roll back federal regulations that bar healthcare providers from denying care to transgender patients if the same kind of care is provided to others. However, California has its own rules prohibiting health plans from denying care based on gender identity.

The Trump administration could also try to clamp down on hormonal therapy through Food and Drug Administration regulations, some believe. However, Amanda McAllister-Wallner, interim executive director of the consumer advocacy group Health Access California, said trying to pinpoint who is providing “gender-affirming care” could be thorny for federal officials because such interventions are also used for other conditions.

“It’s not necessarily obvious — was this service being provided because of someone’s diagnosis of gender dysphoria or for some other reason?” McAllister-Wallner said.

Advertisement

One study of insured patients published in JAMA Network Open found that in a recent year, breast reductions for trans youth were far outnumbered by ones for boys who are not transgender. Researchers said surgeries for transgender teenagers were “rare and almost entirely chest-related procedures” and found no surgeries on trans youth ages 12 or under.

Before election day, Bamby Salcedo planned to push for improvements to gender-affirming care through a Medi-Cal initiative called CalAIM. The election shunted that effort to the back burner, said Salcedo, president and chief executive of the TransLatin@ Coalition, an advocacy group founded by transgender women in L.A.

In its aftermath, Salcedo was continuing to push for an L.A. County budget allocation to support the needs of trans people, saying local government needs to step up. And she was also busy planning for a fashion show celebrating 15 years of her organization, calling it a chance “for that one night to bring joy to our people.”

“In whatever way possible, we are going to get through this,” she said.

Mars Wright, poses for a photo. Wright was able to get body masculinization surgery through Covered California insurance

Mars Wright, poses for a photo. Wright was able to get body masculinization surgery through Covered California insurance

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

Wright was among the designers being showcased at the event. Before getting his surgical procedures, he said, “I was scared to date. I was scared to wear clothes that I liked. I was scared to go to the beach.” Now, he joked, “I can’t keep my shirt on.”

“I’m at a place where I love being trans.”

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

Published

on

Video: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

new video loaded: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

transcript

transcript

Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic bill that would have required President Trump to obtain congressional authorization to continue waging war against Iran.

“The yeas are 47. The nays are 53. The motion to discharge is not approved.” “President Trump decided to attack Iran. That decision was profound, deliberate and correct. The president understands the weight of war.” “Why is Donald Trump hellbent on making history repeat itself? Why is he plunging America headfirst into a war that Americans do not want, and which he cannot even explain? The American people deserve a say, and that is what our resolution is about.”

Advertisement
Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic bill that would have required President Trump to obtain congressional authorization to continue waging war against Iran.

By Shawn Paik

March 5, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’

Published

on

DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

EXCLUSIVE: Newly obtained financial statements shed light on claims that former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s company made millions from a DHS advertising campaign.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem faced intense questioning during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, and Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., specifically called out the agency for contracting a public relations firm headed by McLaughlin’s husband, Benjamin Yoho.

“I have personally reviewed the allegations against Ms. McLaughlin, and I find them to be baseless,” DHS General Counsel James Percival told Fox News Digital. “Nothing illegal or unethical occurred with respect to these contracts. Ms. McLaughlin was not involved in selecting any subcontractors.

“She is, however, a superstar in the public affairs world, so I am not surprised that she married a successful businessman whose services were attractive to these outside firms.”

Advertisement

Newly obtained financial statements address allegations that former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s firm improperly profited from a multimillion-dollar DHS ad campaign. Lawmakers pressed Secretary Kristi Noem over the contracts during a heated Senate hearing. (Jack Gruber/USA Today)

Kennedy alleged that Yoho’s firm, The Strategy Group, “got most of the money” out of what the Louisiana Republican senator says was $220 million in “television advertisements that feature [Noem] prominently.”

“I’m sorry,” Kennedy said. “Safe America Media was a company formed 11 days before you picked them. And that the Strategy Group got most of the money. And the head of that is married to your former spokesperson.”

“It’s just hard for me to believe knowing the president as I do, that you said, ‘Mr. President, here’s some ads I’ve cut, and I’m going to spend $220 million running them,’ that he would have agreed to that,” Kennedy explained. “I don’t think Russ Vought at OMB [Office of Management and Budget] would have agreed to that.”

‘YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!’: PROTESTER DRAGGED FROM KRISTI NOEM’S SENATE HEARING

Advertisement

Senate scrutiny intensified over a DHS advertising campaign after Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., questioned whether a firm linked to McLaughlin’s husband benefited unfairly. DHS officials and the company deny any wrongdoing or multimillion-dollar profits. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The Strategy Group is a conservative advertising agency for which Yoho serves as CEO.

Figures obtained by Fox News Digital show a slightly lesser total advertising expenditure of approximately $185 million, with a total of roughly $146.5 million going to a campaign called “Save America.”

However, of the total that went to “Save America,” roughly $348,000 went to production costs, while the remaining $142 million went to “media buys.”

Sources at DHS say that media buys are the cost of actually buying the ads themselves, whether purchased from social media or for a TV ad.

Advertisement

Kennedy also alleged that the bidding process for the contracts never took place and that Safe America Media’s recent founding was a cause for concern and collusion between McLaughlin and her husband’s business. 

WATCH THE MOST VIRAL MOMENTS AS KRISTI NOEM’S HEARING GOES OFF THE RAILS

Debate over DHS’ “Save America” ad campaign intensified as senators challenged its costs and contractor ties, even as agency officials touted the initiative as a historic success in promoting self-deportation. (Graeme Sloan/Getty Images)

“Yes they did,” Noem responded during the hearing. “They went out to a competitive bid, and career officials at the department chose who would do those advertising commercials.”

The Strategy Group posted to X Tuesday that it never had a contract with the department. While it did receive several hundred thousand dollars for production costs associated with the advertising campaigns, The Strategy Group never made millions.

Advertisement

“The Strategy Group has never had a contract with DHS,” the post said. “We had a subcontract with Safe America [Media] for limited production services. Safe America paid us $226,137.17 total for 5 film shoots, 45 produced video advertisements and 6 produced radio advertisements.

DHS SPOKESWOMAN TRICIA MCLAUGHLIN TO LEAVE TRUMP ADMIN, SOURCE CONFIRMS

Critics raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest in a high-dollar DHS advertising effort, but department representatives say McLaughlin recused herself and that subcontracting decisions were made independently. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“If you’re going to try to question our integrity, bring actual evidence — we did,” the post concluded.

Because these ads were purchased using public funds, all contract totals are publicly available. 

Advertisement

Lauren Bis, who took up the role of assistant secretary once McLaughlin left office, told Fox News Digital Tuesday that scrutiny from Republicans and Democrats over the advertising spending was unjustified because the campaigns resulted in “the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history.”

“Sanctuary politicians are attacking this ad campaign because it has been successful in CLOSING our borders and getting more than 2.2 million illegal aliens to LEAVE the U.S.,” Bis said. 

“The DHS domestic and international ad campaign was the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history. The results speak for themselves: 2.2 million illegal aliens self-deported, and we now have the most secure border in American history.”

KRISTI NOEM TO FACE SENATE GRILLING OVER MINNEAPOLIS SHOOTINGS AS DHS SHUTDOWN HITS WEEK 3

The Trump administration reaffirmed that all illegal immigrants are eligible for deportations as they focus on arresting violent criminals first.  (Raquel Natalicchio/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)

Advertisement

Bis also compared the cost of arresting and deporting an illegal migrant to that of the minimal cost of an illegal migrant self-deporting. The department says the advertising campaign played a key role in marketing self-deportation.

A spokesperson at DHS also told Fox News Digital that contractors decide who they hire, fulfilling the terms of a contract, not the department itself. 

“By law, DHS cannot and does not determine, control or weigh in on who contractors hire or use to fulfill the terms of the contract,” a DHS spokesperson told Fox. “Those decisions are made by the contractor alone. We have only become aware of these companies because of this inquiry and did not hire those companies.”

The spokesperson also noted that McLaughlin “recused herself” from interactions with subcontractors to avoid “any perceived appearance of impropriety.”

“Upon hearing who the subcontractors were for production of the ad, Ms. McLaughlin recused herself from any interaction or engagement with any subcontractors to avoid any perceived appearance of impropriety,” the spokesperson continued. “DHS Office of Public Affairs is the program officer. Ms. McLaughlin oversees the DHS Office of Public Affairs, which is simply the vehicle for this contract.”

Advertisement

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem takes her seat as she arrives to testify during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)

McLaughlin told Fox News Digital the criticism of her and her family by senators at the hearing is a matter of public manipulation.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“This is yet another example of politicians intentionally trying to dupe and manipulate the public to try to manufacture division and anger,” McLaughlin told Fox News Digital. “The ad spend and contracts are a matter of public record, and the process was done by the book.

“These politicians would rather smear private citizens and American small businesses than do any basic research.”

Advertisement

Fox News Digital’s Alexandra Koch contributed to this report.

Related Article

DHS defends ad blitz amid Senate scrutiny, says campaign drove 2.2M self-deportations and saved taxpayers $39B
Continue Reading

Politics

Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran

Published

on

Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran

Senate Republicans blocked a war powers resolution Wednesday designed to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities in Iran, as the Trump administration accelerates its military campaign in a conflict that has killed hundreds, including at least six American service members.

The motion failed in a vote of 47-53.

In addition to pulling out military resources from the Middle East, the measure — introduced by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) — would have required Congress’ explicit approval before future engagement with Iran, a power granted to the legislative branch in the Constitution.

The House, where Republicans also hold an advantage, is scheduled to weigh in on a similar measure Thursday. Even if both Democratic-led measures were to succeed, President Trump was widely expected to veto the legislation.

“We are doing very well on the war front, to put it mildly,” President Trump said at a White House event on Wednesday afternoon. The president, who has come under scrutiny for offering shifting explanations on the war’s endgame, said that if he was asked to scale the American military operation from one to 10, he would rate it a 15.

Advertisement

Democrats dispute that Trump possesses the authority to wage the ongoing operation in Iran without explicit congressional approval.

Acknowledging the measure was unlikely to succeed, they framed the vote as a strategy to force lawmakers to put their support for or opposition to the war on record.

“Today every senator — every single one — will pick a side,” Schumer said. “Do you stand with the American people who are exhausted with forever wars in the Middle East, or stand with Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth as they bumble us headfirst into another war?”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and most of his Republican colleagues have maintained that the president carried out a “pre-emptive” and “defensive” strike in Iran, giving him full authority to continue unilateral military operations.

Republicans saw the vote as the “last roadblock” stopping Trump from carrying out his mission against the Islamic Republic.

Advertisement

“I think the president has the authority that he needs to conduct the activities and operations that are currently underway there. There are a lot of controversy and questions around the war powers act, but I think the president is acting in the best interest of the nation and our national security interests,” Thune said at a news conference.

Senators largely held to party loyalties, with the exception of Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, who broke ranks to support the measure, and Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman, who opposed it.

The vote comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the war against Iran is “accelerating,” with American and Israeli forces expanding air operations into Iranian territory. He pointed to evidence released by U.S. Central Command of a submarine strike on an Iranian warship, and also lauded other strikes throughout the region as civilian casualties in Iran surpassed 1,000 on the fourth day of the conflict, according to rights groups.

“We’re going to continue to do well,” Trump said Wednesday. “We have the greatest military in the world by far and that was a tremendous threat to us for many years. Forty-seven years they’ve been killing our people and killing people all over the world, and we have great support.”

Republicans blocked a similar war powers vote in January after the president ordered U.S. special forces to capture and extradite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in Caracas on drug trafficking charges.

Advertisement

GOP leaders argued that the outcome of that mission equated to a quick success in the Middle East, despite an uncertain timeline from the Department of Defense.

In the House, lawmakers will vote on a separate war powers effort Thursday. That bill is led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the two lawmakers who authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

“Instead of sending billions overseas, we need to invest in jobs, healthcare, and education here,” Khanna said on X.

In addition to that proposal, moderate Democrats in the House have introduced a separate resolution that would give the administration a 30-day window to justify continued hostilities in the Middle East before requiring a formal declaration of war or authorization from Congress.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending