Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation

Background

Executive Order 13988 had a significant impact on federal law and administrative practices by mandating that federal agencies ensure all regulations were consistent with anti-discrimination policies, particularly concerning gender identity and sexual orientation. Under this directive, the Department of Education was directed to re-evaluate its stance on Title IX, which addresses sex discrimination in educational programs. This resulted in policy changes that enabled transgender students to participate in sports according to their gender identity and ensured their access to facilities consistent with that identity.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) also saw substantial changes as a result of the executive order. It issued guidance allowing individuals to be housed in shelters that align with their gender identity, altering longstanding policies that could have forced people to reside according to their biological sex. Such operational adjustments led to a broader interpretation and enforcement of the Fair Housing Act concerning gender identity, leading to more inclusive housing policies and a reduction in homelessness rates among transgender people.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was another agency affected by this order, as it reinforced directives to investigate complaints of workplace discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This resulted in increased civil rights enforcement and necessitated businesses to comply with adjusted equality standards, sometimes leading to changes in corporate policies and training programs focused on cultivating inclusive workplace environments.

Reason for Revocation

The revocation of the executive order by President Trump on January 20, 2025, marked a significant departure from the preceding administration's policies. This decision was likely rooted in a broader ideological pivot towards conservative values and traditional interpretations of gender roles. Considering Trump's previous policy approaches, the revocation could also be contextualized within a broader framework of reducing federal oversight and regulatory intervention in matters often considered states’ prerogatives.

The revocation could potentially be part of a larger agenda aimed at rolling back regulations perceived as burdensome to businesses or contrary to conservative social values. Trump's administration has historically favored deregulation and limited government intervention in private sector matters, which could explain the removal of policies explicitly created to protect minority rights under broad federal guidelines.

The ideological framework underpinning this policy shift might also emphasize religious freedoms and individual liberties, sometimes positioning them in opposition to protections for gender identity and sexual orientation introduced by Biden. By revoking this order, the administration could be aligning with these ideological priorities, seeking to empower religious institutions and certain states to legislate independently without overarching federal mandates.

Additionally, Trump's decision may stem from a desire to energize his political base, where portions may feel that the emphasis on gender and sexual orientation rights challenges traditional values. This move could be perceived as an attempt to galvanize support by addressing contentious cultural issues and asserting a return to what some in his support base might view as foundational societal norms.

Winners

Corporations and business entities that may find compliance with anti-discrimination policies costly could see financial savings from the revocation of this order. Companies that avoided investing in comprehensive training or modification of their workplace practices to accommodate these regulations would find fewer immediate regulatory requirements imposed at the federal level, potentially reducing operating costs related to compliance.

Religious organizations could also be seen as beneficiaries, especially those that maintained policies based on traditional interpretations of sex and gender roles. With the revocation, these organizations might face fewer legal challenges and reduced pressure to alter their internal policies regarding employment, services, and participation based on gender identity or sexual orientation, thus aligning with their doctrinal views.

Employers in states with more conservative social policies might also gain flexibility in hiring practices and workplace regulations, thereby potentially avoiding federal scrutiny for employment practices that might not fully align with comprehensive anti-discrimination mandates. This shifts the regulatory landscape towards local governance, where some states may opt for less restrictive policies aligned with their sociopolitical contexts.

Losers

The revocation of the executive order could detrimentally impact transgender and non-binary individuals who have experienced discrimination in various spheres like employment, housing, education, and healthcare. The reduction of specific federal protections might lead to challenges in accessing equal opportunities and resources, and increase their vulnerability to discriminatory practices, particularly in less progressive states.

LGBTQ+ advocacy groups could find their efforts considerably hampered, as the rescinding of protective measures would require redoubled efforts to push for policy change across multiple states, potentially leading to fragmented legal protections. The ability to ensure consistent nationwide support for gender identity and sexual orientation could be considerably weakened, leading to state-by-state battles for civil rights.

Educational institutions that sought clear federal guidance to support inclusivity could find themselves in a challenging position, needing to navigate between federal revocations and existing state policies or advocacy demands. The lack of overarching federal direction could lead to uncertain application of best practices or policies concerning inclusivity in athletics and gender-appropriate facilities, potentially impacting students adversely.