Politics
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.
“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.’”
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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
(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)
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.”
Politics
Video: Supreme Court May Allow States to Bar Transgender Athletes
new video loaded: Supreme Court May Allow States to Bar Transgender Athletes
transcript
transcript
Supreme Court May Allow States to Bar Transgender Athletes
The Supreme Court heard two cases from West Virginia and Idaho on Tuesday. Both concerned barring the participation of transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports teams.
-
“It is undisputed that states may separate their sports teams based on sex in light of the real biological differences between males and females. States may equally apply that valid sex-based rule to biological males who self-identify as female. Denying a special accommodation to trans-identifying individuals does not discriminate on the basis of sex or gender identity or deny equal protection.” “West Virginia argues that to protect these opportunities for cisgender girls, it has to deny them to B.P.J. But Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause protect everyone. And if the evidence shows there are no relevant physiological differences between B.P.J. and other girls, then there’s no basis to exclude her.” “Given that half the states are allowing it, allowing transgender girls and women to participate, about half are not, why would we at this point, just the role of this court, jump in and try to constitutionalize a rule for the whole country while there’s still, as you say, uncertainty and debate, while there’s still strong interest in other side?” “This court has held in cases like V.M.I. that in general, classification based on sex is impermissible because in general, men and women are simply situated. Where that’s not true is for the sorts of real, enduring, obvious differences that this court talked about in cases like V.M.I., the differences in reproductive biology. I don’t think the pseudoscience you’re suggesting has been baked.” “Well, it’s not pseudo. It’s good science.” “It’s not pseudoscience to say boys’ brain development happens at a different stage than girls does.” “Well, with all respect, I don’t think there’s any science anywhere that is suggested that these intellectual differences are traceable to biological differences.” “Can we avoid your whole similarly situated argument that you run because I don’t really like it that much either? And I’m not trying to prejudice anyone making that argument later. But I mean, I think it opens a huge can of worms that maybe we don’t need to get into here.”
By Meg Felling
January 13, 2026
Politics
Venezuela releases multiple American citizens from prison following military operation
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The interim government in Venezuela has released at least four U.S. citizens who were imprisoned under President Nicolás Maduro’s regime, Fox News confirmed.
The release marks the first known release of Americans in the South American country since the U.S. military completed an operation to capture authoritarian Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who is now facing federal drug trafficking charges in New York.
“We welcome the release of detained Americans in Venezuela,” a State Department official said Tuesday. “This is an important step in the right direction by the interim authorities.”
The release of American citizens was first reported by Bloomberg.
TRUMP SIGNS ORDER TO PROTECT VENEZUELA OIL REVENUE HELD IN US ACCOUNTS
Venezuelans celebrate after U.S. President Donald Trump announced that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro had been captured and flown out of the country in Santiago, Chile, Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026. (Esteban Felix/AP Photo)
President Donald Trump said Saturday that Venezuela had begun releasing political prisoners.
“Venezuela has started the process, in a BIG WAY, of releasing their political prisoners,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Thank you! I hope those prisoners will remember how lucky they got that the USA came along and did what had to be done.”
Venezuela’s interim government has reported that 116 prisoners have been released, although only about 70 have been verified by the non-governmental organization Justicia, Encuentro y Perdón, according to Bloomberg.
National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez said prisoner releases would continue, according to the outlet.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION FILES SEIZURE WARRANTS TARGETING SHIPS TIED TO VENEZUELAN OIL TRADE: REPORT
Nicolás Maduro is seen in handcuffs after landing at a Manhattan helipad, escorted by heavily armed federal agents as they make their way into an armored car en route to a Federal courthouse in Manhattan on January 5, 2026, in New York City (XNY/Star Max/GC Images via Getty Images)
The U.S. government issued a new security alert Saturday urging Americans in Venezuela to leave the country immediately, citing security concerns and limited ability to provide emergency assistance, the U.S. Embassy in Caracas said.
“U.S. citizens in Venezuela should leave the country immediately,” the embassy said in the alert.
The warning pointed to reports of armed groups operating on Venezuelan roads.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Venezuelan citizens in Cucuta, Colombia celebrate during a rally on the Colombia-Venezuela border after the confirmation of Nicolás Maduro’s capture in Caracas, on January 3, 2026. (Jair F. Coll/Getty Images)
Following the military operation, Trump suggested that the U.S. would “run” Venezuela for an extended period.
“We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” he said.
Politics
Lawsuits against ICE agents would be allowed under proposed California law
SACRAMENTO — A week after a Minnesota woman was fatally shot by a federal immigration officer, California legislators moved forward a bill that would make it easier for people to sue federal agents if they believe their constitutional rights were violated.
A Senate committee passed Senate Bill 747 by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), which would provide Californians with a stronger ability to take legal action against federal law enforcement agents over excessive use of force, unlawful home searches, interfering with a right to protest and other violations.
California law already allows such suits against state and local law enforcement officials.
Successful civil suits against federal officers over constitutional rights are less common.
Wiener, appearing before Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, said his bill has taken on new urgency in the wake of the death of Renee Nicole Good in Minnesota, the 37-year-old mother of three who was shot while driving on a snowy Minneapolis street.
Good was shot by an agent in self-defense, said Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who alleged that Good tried to use her car as a weapon to run over the immigration officer.
Good’s death outraged Democratic leaders across the country, who accuse federal officers of flouting laws in their efforts to deport thousands of undocumented immigrants. In New York, legislators are proposing legislation similar to the one proposed by Wiener that would allow state-level civil actions against federal officers.
George Retes Jr., a U.S. citizen and Army veteran who was kept in federal custody for three days in July, described his ordeal at Tuesday’s committee hearing, and how immigration officers swarmed him during a raid in Camarillo.
Retes, a contracted security guard at the farm that was raided, said he was brought to Port Hueneme Naval Base. Officials swabbed his cheek to obtain DNA, and then moved him to Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles. He was not allowed to make a phone call or see an attorney, he said.
“I did not resist, I did not impede or assault any agent,” Retes said.”What happened to me that day was not a misunderstanding. It was a violation of the Constitution by the very people sworn to uphold it.”
He also accused Department of Homeland security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin of spreading false information about him to justify his detention. DHS said in a statement last year that Retes impeded their operation, which he denies.
Retes has filed a tort claim against the U.S. government, a process that is rarely successful, said his attorney, Anya Bidwell.
Lawsuits can also be brought through the Bivens doctrine, which refers to the 1971 Supreme Court ruling Bivens vs. Six Unknown Federal Agents that established that federal officials can be sued for monetary damages for constitutional violations. But in recent decades, the Supreme Court has repeatedly restricted the ability to sue under Bivens.
Wiener’s bill, if passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, would be retroactive to March 2025.
“We’ve had enough of this terror campaign in our communities by ICE,” said Wiener at a news conference before the hearing. “We need the rule of law and we need accountability.”
Weiner is running for the congressional seat held by former House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco).
Representatives for law enforcement agencies appeared at Tuesday’s hearing to ask for amendments to ensure that the bill wouldn’t lead to weakened protections for state and local officials.
“We’re not opposed to the intent of the bill. We’re just concerned about the future and the unintended consequences for your California employees,” said David Mastagni, speaking on behalf of the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, which represents more than 85,000 public safety members.
Wiener’s bill is the latest effort by the state Legislature to challenge President Trump’s immigration raids. Newsom last year signed legislation authored by Wiener that prohibits law enforcement officials, including federal immigration agents, from wearing masks, with some exceptions.
The U.S. Department of Justice sued last year to block the law, and a hearing in the case is scheduled for Wednesday.
-
Montana4 days agoService door of Crans-Montana bar where 40 died in fire was locked from inside, owner says
-
Technology1 week agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Delaware5 days agoMERR responds to dead humpback whale washed up near Bethany Beach
-
Dallas, TX5 days agoAnti-ICE protest outside Dallas City Hall follows deadly shooting in Minneapolis
-
Dallas, TX1 week agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Virginia4 days agoVirginia Tech gains commitment from ACC transfer QB
-
Iowa1 week agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Education1 week agoVideo: This Organizer Reclaims Counter Space