Anti-LGBT laws in the United States are the mix of federal executive orders, state statutes, and court rulings that restrict legal recognition, public services, or civil rights protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The landscape changed sharply in 2025: a presidential executive order redefined “sex” throughout the federal government as strictly biological, the Supreme Court upheld state bans on gender-affirming care for minors in United States v. Skrmetti, and federal agencies rolled back protections on identity documents, housing, and schools. Employment discrimination protections from the 2020 Bostock decision remain in force, but their reach outside the workplace is now openly contested.
What Federal Law Still Protects at Work
The Supreme Court held in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) that firing someone for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, because you cannot discriminate on those grounds without also discriminating based on sex.1Supreme Court of the United States. Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia That ruling covers every private and public employer with fifteen or more workers and applies to hiring, firing, promotions, pay, and other workplace decisions.
If you experience discrimination, you file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The deadline is 180 calendar days from the discriminatory act, extended to 300 days in states or localities with their own anti-discrimination agency.2U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Time Limits For Filing A Charge Remedies can include back pay, reinstatement, and compensatory damages.
Bostock is still binding, but its edges are being tested. In Skrmetti (2025), the Supreme Court stated it has “not yet considered whether Bostock’s reasoning reaches beyond the Title VII context.”3Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Skrmetti The EEOC’s acting chair has pulled gender identity materials from the agency’s public guidance, though the 2024 Harassment Guidance adopted by a commission vote could not be rescinded unilaterally.4U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Removing Gender Ideology and Restoring the EEOCs Role Protecting Women in the Workplace The protection exists on paper; enforcement has weakened.
The January 2025 Executive Order on Sex
On January 20, 2025, the president signed an executive order titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” It defines “sex” throughout the federal government as “an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female” and states that sex “is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity.'”5The White House. Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government
That single definition drives a chain of concrete changes. Agencies must strip gender identity references from policies, forms, and communications. Sex fields on federal forms may list only male or female. Federal funds cannot be used to “promote gender ideology,” and the Attorney General was directed to issue guidance keeping Bostock‘s reasoning from being applied outside employment, with Title IX in schools called out specifically.5The White House. Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government
Passports and Social Security Records
The State Department stopped processing gender marker changes on passports and eliminated the “X” (unspecified) option that had existed since April 2022. New passports issue only with M or F reflecting sex assigned at birth. Renewals and replacements revert to sex assigned at birth even if the holder previously carried a different marker. Passports already issued with an X or a changed marker stay valid until they expire.
The Social Security Administration issued matching guidance on January 31, 2025, prohibiting changes to the sex designation on Social Security records. Before the order, applicants could update the marker by selecting M or F on the standard application without medical documentation. That option is gone. Both changes are being challenged in ongoing federal lawsuits.
Military Service Ban
A separate executive order, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” bars transgender individuals from military service. It cites “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria” as inconsistent with military readiness and states that “expressing a false ‘gender identity’ divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.”6The White House. Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness It also bans pronoun usage that does not match a service member’s biological sex and prohibits shared sleeping, changing, or bathing facilities across sex lines.
Lower federal courts initially issued injunctions blocking parts of the policy. The Supreme Court stayed those injunctions, so the ban is in effect while litigation continues. Transgender individuals currently cannot enlist, and active-duty members who have transitioned or been diagnosed with gender dysphoria face separation.
State Bans on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors
About 27 states have laws restricting or banning gender-affirming medical care for people under 18. These laws target puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgical procedures when used to treat gender dysphoria in minors. Penalties for providers vary widely by state and can include felony charges carrying up to ten years in prison, loss of medical licenses, and civil lawsuits brought by patients or their families.
The Supreme Court settled the main constitutional challenge on June 18, 2025, in United States v. Skrmetti. It upheld Tennessee’s ban, applying rational-basis review rather than the heightened scrutiny that usually applies to sex-based classifications. The majority reasoned that the law does not classify based on transgender status but instead removes certain diagnoses from the list of conditions eligible for hormone or puberty-blocker treatment.3Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Skrmetti
The Court pointed to what it called “medical and scientific uncertainty” around treating minors with gender dysphoria, citing risks of irreversible sterility, potential adverse health effects, and reports of patients who later regretted treatment. Rational-basis review gives states broad discretion here, and the ruling effectively ended most pending constitutional challenges to similar bans elsewhere.3Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Skrmetti Major medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, have opposed these bans, but medical consensus alone is not enough to override a state legislature.
School Curriculum, Library Books, and Universities
A growing number of states restrict classroom instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity in public schools. Early versions targeted elementary grades. Later expansions reach further up, and Florida’s is among the broadest, effectively covering all Kâ12 public school students. Teachers who violate these limits can face discipline, including loss of certification.
Many of these laws also set up formal review processes for school library materials. Parents can challenge specific books, administrators must respond to every formal objection, and titles found to violate state criteria must be removed. Some statutes include private rights of action letting parents sue districts, with attorney fees on the line. Many districts have preemptively pulled books touching on LGBT themes rather than absorb the litigation risk.
Beyond Kâ12, several states have passed laws eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion offices and programming at public universities, closing LGBTQ+ resource centers and cancelling identity-based events. At the federal level, the January 2025 executive order directed the Department of Education to rescind all Biden-era guidance on supporting transgender and LGBTQ+ students under Title IX, including materials on inclusive school environments, harassment prevention, and treatment of transgender students in school facilities.5The White House. Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government
Housing and Lending
The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination “because of sex” but does not spell out sexual orientation or gender identity. Some federal courts have extended Bostock‘s reasoning to housing, because the Fair Housing Act’s sex discrimination language closely tracks Title VII’s.7Congress.gov. The Fair Housing Act (FHA): A Legal Overview Whether courts keep doing so after Skrmetti is unsettled.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development has proposed rescinding its 2012 and 2016 Equal Access Rules, which required federally funded shelters and housing programs to serve people according to their gender identity. The proposed replacement removes all references to “gender identity,” substitutes the executive order’s definition of “sex,” and lets facility operators request evidence of a person’s biological sex before granting access to single-sex spaces.8Federal Register. Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs Revisions State or local entities that follow conflicting local laws instead of the new federal requirements risk losing federal funding.
On lending, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau withdrew its 2021 interpretive rule treating discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity as sex discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Its enforcement posture has returned to its pre-2021 position. A borrower can still sue privately and argue Bostock applies, but the CFPB is no longer pushing that reading.
Businesses, Religious Objections, and Free Speech
Two Supreme Court decisions shape how businesses can interact with LGBT customers. In Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), the Court ruled narrowly that Colorado’s civil rights commission had shown impermissible hostility toward a baker’s religious beliefs when it penalized him for refusing to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple. It did not resolve whether religious objections override public accommodations laws; it held only that government must evaluate such objections neutrally.9Supreme Court of the United States. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023), the Court ruled that Colorado could not force a website designer to create custom wedding websites celebrating same-sex marriages. The majority treated the websites as “pure speech” under the First Amendment, and the government cannot compel expressive content that contradicts a person’s beliefs.10Supreme Court of the United States. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis That carves out a First Amendment exemption for businesses producing custom, expressive work. It is not a license for blanket refusal of service. A venue renting event space, a caterer serving a standard menu, or a retailer selling off-the-shelf products cannot refuse LGBT customers by claiming expressive speech.
The line between protected expression and ordinary commercial service is where most disputes land, and courts evaluate it case by case. More creative control over the final product strengthens a speech claim; more standardized service weakens it. Businesses that serve the public still face investigations and fines from state civil rights commissions when they refuse non-expressive services to LGBT customers in states with public accommodations protections.
Drag Performance Restrictions
Several states have passed or attempted laws restricting drag performances by classifying them as adult entertainment. These laws typically ban such performances on public property or in the presence of minors and impose criminal penalties on organizers. Tennessee’s law, one of the first, makes a first offense a misdemeanor carrying up to a $2,500 fine and one year in jail, with repeat offenses classified as felonies.
Most of these laws have struggled in court. Federal judges have blocked enforcement through injunctions, finding the statutes unconstitutionally vague and overbroad under the First Amendment because they fail to distinguish between obscenity, which the government can regulate, and protected artistic expression.11Justia. Miller v. California, 413 US 15 (1973) As of mid-2026, only two states have laws that explicitly restrict drag performances, and a handful of others maintain broader “adult performance” statutes that could be applied to drag. At least one state’s drag restriction remains unenforceable due to a standing federal court order.
Legal Name Changes
Legal name changes are handled at the state level. You file a petition in court, pay a filing fee, and attend a hearing. Court filing fees generally range from roughly $65 to $450 depending on the jurisdiction. Some states require the petition to be published in a local newspaper, adding cost. A few states have eliminated publication requirements for transgender applicants for safety reasons.
A court order is only the first step. Updating each record â driver’s license, bank accounts, professional licenses, school transcripts â requires separate action with each institution. The 2025 federal restrictions add a complication: Social Security will change your legal name, but the sex designation on your record must now reflect sex assigned at birth regardless of the name update. The mismatch between a changed name and an unchanged sex marker on federal documents creates practical difficulties that did not exist before 2025.