President Trump wasted no time before turning the right wing’s cherished assault on transgender rights into government policy.

On the very day of his inauguration, he issued an executive order titled, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”

The order purported to “recognize two sexes, male and female,” as federal policy. “These sexes are not changeable,” it stated. It labeled “gender ideology” and “gender identity” as a “false claim.”

The order directed federal agencies to “remove all statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other internal and external messages that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology.”

About a week later, Trump posted an order banning federal spending on gender-affirming therapies for children, which he defined as “mutilation” based on “junk science.”

Under Atty Gen. Pam Bondi, Trump’s Justice Department took action. On July 9, Bondi boasted of having sent “more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics involved in performing transgender medical procedures on children.”

In her news release, Bondi said the subpoenas targeted “medical professionals and organizations that mutilated children in the service of a warped ideology.”

That’s when Trump’s campaign ran into a judicial brick wall. In recent weeks at least three federal judges blocked some of these subpoenas as flagrantly illicit overreach.

At least two questioned the DOJ’s actions in these cases, with one warning that a federal official’s inaccurate declaration could be interpreted as perjury. Another implied that a DOJ filing in his courtroom might have reflected “deliberate misuse … of court procedure.” (I am indebted to Chris Geidner of Lawdork.com for pulling these facts together.)

These cases raise questions about the professionalism of Trump’s DOJ that have been raised by other federal courts on other topics. Those include the invalidation of the appointments of three U.S. Attorneys put in place to pursue criminal charges against Trump’s political enemies, and the rejection by grand juries of indictments proposed by Trump-appointed prosecutors.

“The Department has defeated many of these lawsuits all the way up to the Supreme Court and will continue to defend the President’s agenda with the utmost professionalism,” a DOJ spokeswoman told me by email.

The transgender cases may have a more personal effect on millions of struggling youths and families. As I’ve written, the Trumpian hand-wringing over the “mutilation” of children via gender-affirming therapy or surgery melds medical ignorance with fantasy.

Therapies such as puberty blockers or hormone treatments typically are administered to minors only after painstaking medical consultations, and actual surgeries aren’t commonly performed on minors by reputable medical providers.

Trump made an assault on transgender treatments a plank in his campaign platform, spinning a weird claim that schools had been subjecting innocent children to secret operations. “The school decides what’s gonna happen with your child,” he said. “And you know, many of these childs [sic] 15 years later say, ‘What the hell happened? Who did this to me?’” None of that happens in the real world.

After the Supreme Court invalidated bans on same-sex marriage in 2015, Republican strategists found “the struggle over trans rights” to be “an especially potent wedge issue,” observes political scientist Paisley Currah, a professor of women’s and gender studies at Brooklyn College, in a new report in the New York Review of Books.

Their target, Currah writes, is “a very small proportion of the population (roughly 2.8 million people above the age of thirteen), not well understood by most Americans, living in ways that confounded common assumptions about sex.”

For the most part, this war has unfolded at the state level. North Carolina passed its notorious “bathroom bill,” requiring residents to use only the bathrooms designated for the sex on their birth certificates, in 2016. The measure drew widespread threats of boycotts by sports leagues and corporations, prompting its repeal the following year.

Legislators soon found an approach more tolerable for the public: banning transgender women from participating in women’s sports. In 2015 there were 21 antitrans bills introduced in state legislatures; in 2025 there were more than 1,000.

In June the Supreme Court’s six-member conservative majority appeared to bless this approach by turning away a challenge to a Tennessee law that bans puberty blockers and hormones for trans youth, even when parents and physicians prescribe them. With this ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a ringing dissent, “the Court abandons transgender patients and their families to political whims.”

She might have added that Trump’s intimidation works. Medical providers coast-to-coast, including Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C., and Kaiser Permanente, ended gender-affirming care for minors to avoid legal hassles; some institutions even ended such care for adults, although that care isn’t targeted by the government.

None of that means that there aren’t guardrails on the federal antitrans campaign, which brings us back to the judges placing a collar on the DOJ.

In the most recent ruling issued Nov. 21, federal Judge Mark Kearney of Philadelphia took aim at subpoenas Bondi served on Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Purporting to be investigating the mislabeling and misuse of puberty blockers and hormones, the DOJ demanded the hospital’s “billing and insurance records, communications with manufacturers and sales representatives, and the names and complete medical and psychological records of children receiving gender-affirming care,” Kearney wrote.

The hospital acceded to most of this request, but did not provide the identities of its child patients and their families and their confidential medical files.

Kearney quashed those subpoenas, ruling that the privacy rights of the children and their families “substantially outweighs” the DOJ’s “need to know the children’s names, addresses, and treatment.”

Kearney noted that federal law left questions about medical care entirely to the states; policy disagreements such as those pitting the DOJ against the hospital are not federal crimes. “Congress never authorized a roving mandate to regulate and alter state-licensed medical care,” he wrote.

He also focused on a declaration filed in court on Oct. 6 by DOJ official Lisa K. Hsiao, stating that “the government is aware of a lawsuit filed just this year” with “allegations of a minor being put on puberty blockers after his first visit and cross-sex hormones after his second with no meaningful assessment.”

As it happens, there is no such lawsuit. The day after Hsaio’s declaration was filed “under penalty of perjury,” Kearney observed, it was withdrawn and replaced with one that removed the reference to a lawsuit and substituted the claim that the government was aware only of “concerning allegations” about the treatment.

The hospital said in court that it hadn’t been served with any such lawsuit. Kearney questioned “the veracity of Director Hsiao’s sworn statements” and noted that DOJ lawyers agreed with him that “false statements may be subject to a perjury investigation.”

Kearney’s ruling followed one issued Sept. 9 by federal Judge Myong Joun of Boston. Joun quashed the entire subpoena issued to Boston Children’s Hospital seeking extensive information about its personnel and medical records of patients, including their Social Security numbers and home addresses.

“It is abundantly clear,” he wrote, that the administration’s “true purpose” is to interfere with the state’s right to authorize gender-affirming care, “to harass and intimidate BCH to stop providing such care, and to dissuade patients from seeking such care.”

In the third case, federal Judge Jamal Whitehead of Seattle on Oct. 27 threw out a subpoena the government served on QueerDoc, a telehealth provider serving patients in the West. The subpoena demanded complete personnel files for all QueerDoc employees and all private information about patients for whom it prescribed puberty blockers or hormones.

Whitehead concluded that the subpoena — compounded by Bondi’s news release — was aimed “not to investigate legal violations but to intimidate and coerce providers into abandoning lawful medical care.” (Emphasis his.)

Whitehead also found that a legal filing in which the DOJ cited legal gounds for the subpoena “represents a fundamental misunderstanding — or deliberate misuse — of court procedure”: Filings of its kind generally were used to correct minor clerical errors in a previously filed document, he noted, not for making new legal arguments after the deadline. In this case the filing underscored that the government was targeting “the provision of gender-affirming care itself, not any legitimate federal violation.”

The government appealed the Joun and Whitehead rulings though not, as yet, Kearney’s action. The battle to protect treatment for transgender youths is plainly not over.

Warner Bros. Discovery’s winnowing of bidders is expected to accelerate this week.

Monday marks the deadline for a second round of proposals, which Warner’s board members anticipate will bring sweetened bids from the three rivals vying for the prize. Comcast, Paramount and Netflix each submitted initial nonbinding offers last month, forming the auction’s floor.

Warner bankers privately have signaled to the interested parties that this round may not be the final flex, but they do anticipate that Monday’s bids will help them zero in on a preferred merger partner, according to people close to the process who were not authorized to comment.

Warner Bros. Discovery hopes to make its pick before the winter holidays begin.

“The global media industry stands at the precipice of historic transformation,” Bank of America media analyst Jessica Reif Ehrlich and three colleagues wrote in a Monday research report.

The sale of Warner Bros. would represent Hollywood’s biggest consolidation since a buying spree that began 30 years ago with Walt Disney Co.’s purchase of Capital Cities, which owned ABC and ESPN. That era was capped by Time Warner’s ill-fated sale in the early 2000s to dial-up internet service provider AOL — a disastrous union that plundered the value of Warner’s prestigious properties. It took more than a decade for the company to recover.

Since then, Netflix, Amazon and Apple have swarmed the field, ushering in a streaming revolution that has dramatically altered consumer behavior, leaving the entertainment industry’s financial foundation — bulky cable TV bundles and blockbuster theatrical releases — on shaky legs.

Warner’s current bidding war “reflects the economic reality … that mid-sized legacy media studios/companies can no longer compete with the unit economics of Netflix or the ecosystem of large tech players such as Amazon,” the Bank of America analysts wrote.

They said the Larry Ellison family’s Paramount and Comcast’s NBCUniversal may feel the need to bulk up, prompting both to claw for Warner’s assets, which include the Warner Bros. film and television studios in Burbank, premium channel HBO and streaming service HBO Max.

Representatives of Warner, Paramount, Comcast and Netflix declined to comment.

Paramount is seen as most likely to prevail, given the Ellison family’s vast wealth and political connections.

President Trump considers Larry Ellison among his friends, which could ensure a smooth regulatory review process with the Justice Department. The president has indicated he wants to see Ellison control CBS — currently under the Paramount-Skydance umbrella — and CNN, which is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery.

Paramount offers the most efficient takeover as it has expressed interest in buying all of Warner, including its cable channels, which include TBS, TNT, HGTV, Food Network and Animal Planet. Tech scion and Paramount Chairman David Ellison informally kicked off the bidding in September, making three offers by mid-October.

But Warner’s board rejected all three proposals, considering them to be too low. The company then opened the process to other bidders, allowing Comcast and Netflix to join the field.

Ellison recently visited oil-rich Middle Eastern countries, holding preliminary talks with sovereign-wealth funds about potentially investing should Paramount win the Warner auction, according to two knowledgeable sources.

Warner Bros. Discovery shares inched up less than 1% to $23.87 on Monday.

Some analysts expect a surge from Comcast, which is controlled by Philadelphia cable mogul Brian Roberts.

Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Executive David Zaslav prefers Comcast over Paramount, knowledgeable people say.

Through its ownership of the European broadcaster Sky, Comcast has widened its international footprint.

But Comcast carries significant debt and its stock has been stalled for years.

Comcast and Netflix have each expressed interest in buying only the studios, HBO and the streaming service.

Neither Comcast nor Netflix is interested in Warner’s linear cable channels. Comcast is planning to jettison its own portfolio of cable networks, including USA Network, CNBC, MS NOW (formerly MSNBC) and Golf Channel, in a spin-off that should finalize in January. The cable channels will form an entity called Versant.

“The market is witnessing the endgame of the cable TV era,” the Bank of America analysts wrote. “The Warner Bros. studio is the crown jewel, with [intellectual property] ranging from Harry Potter to DC Comics to Game of Thrones (and much more).”

Buying Warner Bros. and HBO would boost NBCUniversal’s television production capabilities and its lagging Peacock streaming service, which has struggled to mint scripted streaming hits.

Comcast executives also have an eye on Warner’s beloved franchises that include Superman and other DC Comics, “Lord of the Rings” and “The Matrix,” which could provide more characters for its growing Universal Studios theme parks.

Netflix also sees great value in the Warner Bros. franchises. In addition, Warner Bros. Television has long been among the industry’s most successful show producers, giving birth to “The Big Bang Theory,” “Ted Lasso” and “The Pitt.”

Scooping up Warner Bros. would also give Netflix Co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos a legendary movie studio lot — something Netflix currently lacks. The streamer’s L.A. offices sit on a relatively small tract overlooking the 101 Freeway.

Any of the combinations would prompt layoffs in the media industry, which is already reeling from a TV and film production slowdown and the elimination of thousands of workers over the last two years.

Paramount has shed more than 2,600 workers in recent months. The Ellison family and RedBird Capital Partners consolidated their purchase of Paramount in August.

Warner Bros. Discovery also has purged staff as it has struggled under a colossal debt burden brought on by its last merger — Discovery’s $43-billion takeover of WarnerMedia from AT&T in 2022.

Warner still carries about $34 billion of debt.

It is supposed to be the busiest time of year for the Roadies trucking company, but dozens of its trucks sit idle — unlikely casualties of a surprise scrutiny of laborers from India.

The Bakersfield company has 200 big rigs but a dearth of drivers after authorities canceled thousands of commercial driver’s licenses in California, forcing more than 20 Roadies drivers out of the business and spooking others into quitting.

Chief Executive Avninder Singh says he has doubled pay, but still can’t recruit enough drivers. He says he is now losing more each month than he usually makes in a year.

“My trucks are sitting,” with no one to drive them, he said. “It has put my livelihood in danger.”

Outside of tech, medicine, and family businesses, truck driving is one of the largest sources of employment for the Indian diaspora in America. Indian truckers say they are being unfairly targeted after a horrific accident triggered extra scrutiny of migrant drivers and tighter regulations.

Some drivers — many of whom claim to have fled persecution in India and requested asylum in the U.S. — are sitting on expensive investments they cannot use. Joban Singh, 27, based in Bakersfield, spent $80,000 to buy a truck because even though truck driving is a tough life, it provides a steady income to support his family.

“We have invested everything in trucking, thinking it’ll be good for us,” he said. “Now if we have our licenses canceled, who will buy these trucks and trailers from us?”

Truck driver Rahul Narwal said if the current licensing situation remains, he won’t be able to renew when his license expires in 2028.

(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

Singh is a common surname in the Sikh community from India’s state of Punjab. None of the people mentioned in this story are related.

Punjabi Sikh truckers have emerged as the backbone of the American trucking industry. For decades, many have sought asylum in the U.S. and entered the transportation industry.

There are around 750,000 Punjabi Sikhs in the United States. Of those, about 150,000 work in the trucking industry, with the majority based on the West Coast.

The more devout Sikhs sport turbans and beards as symbols of their faith, which is neither Hindu nor Muslim. This can make them a target on the road, says Manpreet Kaur, the vice mayor of the city of Bakersfield.

“The Sikh community within trucking is really being squished in the middle of a battle between the state of California and the federal government,” said Kaur, whose father was a truck owner and operator.

Instances of racism and racial profiling of the community have risen, with Indian truckers reporting incidents of doors getting slammed in their faces and racial slurs being used at truck stops.

“Feeling a sense of not belonging in a place where you have worked, earned, contributed, [and where] your children have grown up,” is convincing drivers to leave the industry, she said. “All of a sudden, because of the decisions of one administration, the hate is presenting so strongly.”

The surge in negative attention started in August when three people were killed in an accident in Florida after an Indian driver with a license from California allegedly made an illegal U-turn.

The Trump administration blamed California for failing to enforce English proficiency and other driver requirements. In September, the Trump administration issued an emergency rule to try to shut down the issuance of commercial driver’s licenses to noncitizens

Members of the Sikh community gather in support of Harjinder Singh, a truck driver who is accused of manslaughter and vehicular homicide after an accident in Florida.

(Al Diaz/Miami Herald)

The Department of Transportation put pressure on California, revoking $40 million in federal funding for failing to enforce English proficiency tests and threatening to cut additional federal support.

Last month, California’s Department of Motor Vehicles announced plans to revoke 17,000 commercial driver’s licenses issued to immigrants. The licenses were canceled, the DMV said, because they were set to expire after the time the migrants were legally allowed to remain in the U.S.

Sukhdeep Singh, owner of Cali Brothers Truck Lines, which has 60 trucks and is based in Merced, said 10 of his Sikh drivers quit last month. They have valid licenses and work papers, but are afraid to go back on the road, worried that if they get stopped, they could get sent home.

“They don’t want to drive anymore,” he said.

About 25 of Roadies’ truck drivers received the cancellation notice. The company is now losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue each month as its clients go elsewhere.

Policy changes regarding noncitizen commercial licenses and English language proficiency enforcement could remove more than 400,000 commercial drivers from the market over the next three years, according to J.B. Hunt, one of the largest trucking companies.

Some say the driver shortage concerns are overblown and that there are enough U.S. citizens to meet the demand for drivers if they are given sufficient training and salaries.

“I do not buy the idea that there aren’t enough American truck drivers to meet demands in this country,” Transport Secretary Sean Duffy said in an October news conference. “I think you will see American truck drivers fill the space when we do what is right and take out these unlawful drivers.”

Avninder Singh, CEO of Roadies, says about 100 of 300 of his drivers will be affected by the license pause. He walks past nine trucks that are parked at his business because he doesn’t have drivers.

(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

Advocacy groups such as the American Trucking Assn., which in the past has lobbied for looser licensing rules to address driver shortages, have backed the tighter restrictions.

Regulators need to enforce rules requiring truckers to be well-trained and qualified, said ATA Chief Economist Bob Costello.

“Qualified means you can speak English, read road signs, understand safety rules and respect our laws,” he said. “Qualified means you earned your CDL the right way, not through a rubber-stamped process in a state that looks the other way.”

Companies that rely on Indian truckers may have to reconsider their business model.

The trucking industry is packed with small carriers operating 10 or fewer trucks. Most have been operating for years without incident, but many could now go out of business as they wait for the new normal to emerge.

“I am excited about the holiday season,” said Sukhdeep Singh of Cali Brothers Truck Lines. “But for the truckers, it’s not bringing any happiness.”