Public disputes over the legal status, medical care, public accommodation, athletic participation and political representation of transgender and non-binary people, and over how candidates, officials and commentators speak about them.
Published coverage on this page: 4+ cases · 24+ statements. Statements are ordered newest first.
Infobip's deposition reportedly identifies a Republican women's fund and John Braun behind texts sent to Texans. The fund denies involvement. TENT says it did not authorize the messages, which used its resources. A separate mailer campaign has different evidence.
Published
Read the case
Published
Published
Published
Labels describe a response to the linked claim or the action explained in the statement summary. Choose one or more.
68 matching statements
Role at the time: Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law and Economics at Georgetown University Law Center, in an email to Dispute Index
Statement summary
Georgetown law professor David Super says agencies often reissue policies after a court sets them aside, so DOJ's choice to reissue grant conditions is not especially unusual, and notes that the court declined to bar new conditions. He adds that the administration has a well-established pattern of reissuing policies it has been enjoined from applying in a new format.
“the Department's choice to reissue grant conditions is not especially unusual. ... That being said, this Administration has a well-established pattern of re-issuing the very policies it has been enjoined from applying in a new format.”
In vacatur cases generally, defendant agencies can and often do reissue parts of their policy that the court did not hold unlawful or issue substitute policies that they believe will avoid the court's objections. These are sometimes challenged, either by the prior plaintiffs or by others disadvantaged by the revised policies. Therefore, the Department's choice to reissue grant conditions is not especially unusual. In this case in particular, plaintiffs asked the court to enter an injunction barring the Department from imposing new conditions in the future and the court found such an order excessive based on the record before it. Therefore, the court clearly contemplated that new conditions would be forthcoming and reserved judgment as to their legality until they are issued and possibly brought before the court. That being said, this Administration has a well-established pattern of re-issuing the very policies it has been enjoined from applying in a new format. We saw this, for example, in the broad funding freeze implemented a few days after it took office. Federal courts in Washington, D.C., and in Rhode Island enjoined the freeze, and the Administration responded by rescinding the OMB calling for the freeze but continued to refuse to release the funds. It reissued sweeping tariffs under questionable legal authority after the Supreme Court enjoined President Trump's initial tariffs. And it has indicated that it wants to re-impose restrictions on birthright citizenship despite losing on that, too, in the Supreme Court. Plaintiffs and other grantees therefore should compare any new grant conditions with the court's opinion to see if they are disregarding adverse legal holdings.
What this label refers to
The case concerns DOJ's domestic-violence grant conditions. Super does not judge the conditions themselves. He says reissuing conditions after a vacatur is not especially unusual and that the court expected new ones, but warns that the administration has a pattern of reissuing enjoined policies in a new format and says grantees should check the new terms against the court's holdings, a conditional assessment.
Role at the time: Political action committee, through its lawyer, Steve Roberts, in an email quoted by the Houston Chronicle
Statement summary
The fund's lawyer denies reports that the fund was involved and disputes the accuracy of the attribution.
“My client vehemently denies the accuracy, authenticity, and attribution of any reporting that it was involved in activity targeting Texans”
What this label refers to
The lawyer denies the fund's involvement in the activity under scrutiny and disputes the attribution in the deposition.
Role at the time: Political action committee, through a spokesperson quoted by The Texas Tribune and CBS News Texas
Statement summary
The fund denies any role in the Texas texts or similar mailers.
“We did not authorize, fund, direct, coordinate, or participate in these activities in any capacity”
What this label refers to
The fund expressly denies the alleged involvement under scrutiny in the case.
Role at the time: Democratic U.S. Senate nominee, speaking to reporters after a Fort Dodge campaign event
Statement summary
Turek says angering people on both sides of the aisle probably means he is in the right place.
“Honestly, I think if you got some folks angry with you on both sides of the aisle, you're probably in the right place”
What this label refers to
Relative to the ad's policy positions under scrutiny, Turek answers the bipartisan criticism by saying that angering people on both sides suggests he is in the right place.
Role at the time: Advocacy organization whose resources appeared in the campaign
Statement summary
TENT denies authorizing or distributing the materials using its name and resources.
“TENT did not author, authorize, approve, or distribute text messages or send mail.”
What this label refers to
The statement denies TENT's authorship or authorization, a disputed attribution in the text campaign. It does not establish who sent the messages.
Role at the time: Republican U.S. representative and Senate nominee, at a Coralville rally
Statement summary
Hinson says Turek is trying to act like a Republican and run away from his liberal record.
“He is trying to act like a Republican to win this election here in Iowa, and he has to run away from his liberal record”
What this label refers to
Relative to the ad, Hinson disputes its presentation of Turek's record, rather than rejecting the restrictions it advocates.
Role at the time: Iowa LGBTQ advocacy organization
Statement summary
One Iowa Action condemns Turek's ad and what it calls a policy shift on Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care.
“We unequivocally condemn Josh Turek's recently released campaign ad and the policy shift it represents.”
What this label refers to
Relative to Turek's ad and policy, the organization expressly condemns both.
Role at the time: Civic organization, letter by Janet Lenart and Phillippa Kassover
Statement summary
League representatives sign a letter urging a no vote on three initiatives, including I-638. Their I-638 argument is that requiring doctors to certify girl athletes' sex, without a similar requirement for boy athletes, violates privacy and equal protection.
“IL26-638 is likely unconstitutional because it violates Washingtonians' rights to privacy and equal protection by requiring doctors to certify a girl's sex while it has no similar requirements for boy athletes.”
What this label refers to
The reference point is I-638. The organization opposes the requirement and urges a no vote.
Role at the time: Member of Congress
Statement summary
Gluesenkamp Perez opposes I-638 and favors decisions by schools, associations and families.
“What I won't support is a rule that forces girls to prove their sex to the state every year just to play sports”
What this label refers to
The statement criticizes the proposed sports-eligibility requirement.
Role at the time: Family physician
Statement summary
Flores-Rodarte calls the sex verification the measure requires extremely invasive and unnecessary, and says it is discriminatory because it applies only to girls. He warns that families who cannot afford hormone or genetic testing could face genital exams.
“extremely invasive and unnecessary”
What this label refers to
The statement criticizes the proposed sports-eligibility requirement.
Role at the time: State professional association of family physicians
Statement summary
The campaign release reports that the Washington Academy of Family Physicians adopted opposition to I-638. The position recorded here is the academy's documented decision.
“Action: Adopted opposition to Initiative IL26-638.”
What this label refers to
The reference point is I-638. The documented organizational action explicitly opposes the proposal.
Role at the time: State senator and congressional candidate
Statement summary
OPB reports that Braun urges support for I-638. Speaking on Fox News on October 16, he describes the sports issue as one of common sense, fairness and safety and says it is simple biology.
“It's a common sense issue, it's a fairness issue, it's a safety issue”
What this label refers to
The reference point is I-638's sex-verification requirement for girls' sports. Braun backs the measure and describes the issue it addresses as one of fairness and safety.
Role at the time: Labor union, statement by president Faye Guenther
Statement summary
UFCW 3000 says its executive board voted unanimously to oppose I-638 and I-001. It cites medical testing, costs to families and access to school sports.
“Nobody should have to submit their daughter to an invasive exam just to join them.”
What this label refers to
The reference point is I-638. The union explicitly opposes the proposed requirement.
Role at the time: Guest host of ABC's The View
Statement summary
On The View, guest host Raven-Symoné says no one asked Vance whether he was gay, says Republicans keep using gay and vegan as slurs, and calls Vance's line a dad joke that did not land.
“Also, JD Vance, no one asked if you were gay. You're literally just saying it out of nowhere, which makes me go, hmm.”
What this label refers to
The reference point is Vance's remarks about Talarico's internet search history and sexuality. Raven-Symoné criticizes Vance's line about Talarico, saying it came out of nowhere and that using gay as a slur is outdated, so we labeled it Condemned. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization; it loses because she criticizes the joke itself rather than disputing a description of it.
Role at the time: CNN anchor
Statement summary
Tapper criticizes the insinuations and compares them with the Vance team's objections to invented couch jokes in 2024. He argues that sexualized attacks may signal concern about the Texas race.
“the tactics against Talarico in the last week have been smears.”
What this label refers to
The reference point is Vance's insinuations about Talarico. Tapper calls them smears and says public officials should not make them.
Role at the time: Co-host of MS NOW's Morning Joe
Response to this claim
People who say the kinds of things James Talarico has said about transgender children and drag tend to have unusual internet search histories, so Talarico's search history would be disturbing to see.
“That is disgusting. You're disgusting because he's going back to a time five years ago, maybe six years ago, whatever.”
The reference point is Vance's remarks about Talarico's internet search history and sexuality. Scarborough calls the remark and Vance disgusting, so we labeled it Condemned. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, because he also questions Vance's use of old statements; it loses because his main point is moral criticism of the remark.
Role at the time: Anchor of CNN's The Lead
Response to this claim
James Talarico, asked what he loves in life besides his own family and friends, answered "trans children."
“It's worse than that. A Talarico statement in the past in which Talarico was trying to express compassion for trans kids was twisted by the vice president into, well, this.”
The reference point is Vance's remarks about Talarico's internet search history and sexuality. Tapper says Vance twisted Talarico's earlier statement about trans kids, disputing the basis Vance gave for the remark, so we labeled it Challenged the characterization. The closest competing label is Condemned, because Tapper also calls the attack a sign of a party unsure it can win on its record; it loses because his central point is that Vance misrepresented Talarico's words.
Role at the time: Vice President of the United States
Response to this claim
People who say the kinds of things James Talarico has said about transgender children and drag tend to have unusual internet search histories, so Talarico's search history would be disturbing to see.
“He says a lot of weird stuff, and I think typically people who say stuff like that tend to have some pretty unusual search histories. Maybe he doesn't, just guessing, but I wouldn't want to see it.”
The reference point is Vance's remarks about Talarico's internet search history and sexuality. Asked to explain his earlier remark, Vance restates it and gives his reasons, so we labeled it Defended or excused. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because he says "Maybe he doesn't, just guessing"; it loses because he keeps the suggestion and says he would not want to see the history.
Role at the time: Vice President of the United States
Response to this claim
James Talarico, asked what he loves in life besides his own family and friends, answered "trans children."
Quotation excerpt
“Now, the best part about this guy is, you know, he was asked what he loves in life besides his own family and friends and he responded without skipping a beat, and I quote, trans children. Now, you got to wonder what the internet search…”
“Now, the best part about this guy is, you know, he was asked what he loves in life besides his own family and friends and he responded without skipping a beat, and I quote, trans children. Now, you got to wonder what the internet search history of a man like that looks like. Ladies and gentlemen, you don't want to find out.”
The reference point is Vance's remarks about Talarico's internet search history and sexuality. After first raising Talarico's browser history at the Republican convention in Dallas in September, Vance repeats the suggestion to the rally crowd and ties it to Talarico's answer about trans children, so we labeled it Defended or excused, meaning he stands by the remark rather than withdrawing it. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional; it loses because he adds no qualification at the rally.
Role at the time: Story editor at The Western Journal
Response to this claim
People who say the kinds of things James Talarico has said about transgender children and drag tend to have unusual internet search histories, so Talarico's search history would be disturbing to see.
“But how "unfounded" is it, really? Even Democrats have to understand that there's something very strange about Talarico”
The reference point is Vance's remarks about Talarico's internet search history and sexuality. Saunders argues that the search-history remark is not unfounded and that Talarico's own record invites it, so we labeled it Defended or excused. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, because he disputes the word "unfounded"; it loses because he goes on to argue that Vance's point is justified.
Role at the time: Family physician and co-author of the signed opinion
Statement summary
Loft and Manriquez argue that I-638 would require invasive or expensive verification and discourage girls' participation. They urge a no vote.
“a medically unnecessary invasive genital exam or costly genetic testing”
What this label refers to
The reference is the initiative's verification requirement. The physicians expressly reject it as medically unnecessary and harmful.
Role at the time: Study coauthor, writing jointly with Lee Jussim and Ohad Fedida
Statement summary
The authors defended their methods while distinguishing reported attitudes from violent acts.
“Our measures assessed endorsed justification for violence, not actually engaging in violence.”
What this label refers to
They defend the report's methods and interpretation while specifying what it did not measure.
Role at the time: Doctor, medical educator and GenderGP founder
Statement summary
Webberley argues that the report's correlations do not justify treating gender-affirmation support as a cause of radicalisation. She criticizes using that interpretation to shape healthcare policy.
“This is not how evidence-based research works, and it is not how policy affecting trans people's healthcare should be made.”
What this label refers to
Relative to the HHS report's claim linking gender-affirmation support with authoritarianism and violence, the speaker criticizes its methods, framing or use.
Role at the time: Former HHS deputy assistant secretary for health policy
Statement summary
Shanker contrasts the report's commissioning with research practices during his service at HHS. He argues that the administration selected politically aligned researchers to support a conclusion chosen in advance.
Quotation excerpt
“That's vastly different from how this administration seems to already have the answers for the reports they're publishing before they start. And they're partnering with politically-aligned researchers and think tanks to develop reports that…”
“That's vastly different from how this administration seems to already have the answers for the reports they're publishing before they start. And they're partnering with politically-aligned researchers and think tanks to develop reports that meet a political conclusion rather than a scientific one,”
What this label refers to
Relative to the HHS report's claim linking gender-affirmation support with authoritarianism and violence, the speaker criticizes its methods, framing or use.
David A. Super is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law and Economics at Georgetown University Law Center. He teaches and writes about administrative law, constitutional law, legislation including the federal budget, local government law and public welfare law, and contributes to the Balkinization blog. Before teaching, he was general counsel of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and worked for the National Health Law Program and Community Legal Services in Philadelphia. He has also taught at Columbia, Harvard, Howard, Maryland, Penn, Washington and Lee, and Yale.
1 case and 1 statement
Josh Turek is an Iowa state representative, former professional wheelchair-basketball player and Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate. He competed for the United States in four Paralympic Games and won two gold medals. He graduated from Southwest Minnesota State University in 2002 and later earned an MBA. His work has included youth adaptive-sports programs and mobility equipment.
1 case and 1 statement
Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Iowa.
1 case and 1 statement
Jose Flores-Rodarte is a family physician at HealthPoint SeaTac in Washington. His professional interests include refugee and Latino health, LGBTQ+ health, public health and medical education.
1 case and 1 statement
United States Representative and Democratic candidate for U.S. House in Washington's 3rd district.
1 case and 1 statement
Republican candidate for U.S. House in Washington's 3rd district.
1 case and 1 statement
Raven-Symoné is an American actress, singer and television personality. She appeared as a child on The Cosby Show, starred in the Disney Channel series That's So Raven and Raven's Home, and was a co-host of ABC's The View from 2015 to 2016. She has since appeared on The View as a guest host.
1 case and 1 statement
CNN anchor and chief Washington correspondent; host of The Lead with Jake Tapper.
1 case and 2 statements
Co-host of Morning Joe on MS NOW and a former Republican U.S. representative from Florida.
1 case and 1 statement
Joe Saunders is a story editor at The Western Journal, a news and commentary website, where he writes news stories and commentary on politics and culture.
1 case and 1 statement
JD Vance is the vice president of the United States and a former U.S. senator from Ohio. A Marine Corps veteran, he worked as a startup investor and wrote the memoir Hillbilly Elegy before his Senate election.
1 case and 2 statements
Libby Loft is a family physician in Spokane, Washington. She writes publicly about medical care and health policy.
1 case and 1 statement
