What specific policies did the Trump administration implement that affected LGBTQ+ rights?

1. A “two sexes” executive order and the government’s new definition of gender

On his first day the president issued an executive order and related memoranda that declared the federal government would recognize only two sexes — male and female — and directed agencies to remove references and policies reflecting gender identity, a step reported as removing legal recognition of gender identity across federal programs ^{[1] [5]}. Critics say that framing underpinned subsequent agency guidance to excise transgender‑related language from websites and data collection; defenders framed it as restoring “biological reality” ^{[1] [5]}.

2. Removal and censorship of federal LGBTQI+ resources

Analysts documented large‑scale removal of LGBTQI+ materials from federal websites and guidance: the Center for American Progress found more than 350 webpages, policies and guides removed from the White House and agencies, including health guidance and EEOC resources ^[2]. KFF and other trackers characterize these actions as part of a broader push to suppress data and public‑facing materials that reference gender identity or LGBTQ health ^{[6] [5]}.

3. Limits on gender‑affirming care and the HHS “gender dysphoria” report

The administration ordered HHS to produce reports and guidance that oppose established standards for youth transition care, and an executive order directed HHS to “cease all support for transition of transgender people under the age of 19” and to cut funding tied to transition‑related treatments — policies that medical societies and advocacy groups challenged as being at odds with standard clinical guidance ^[3]. KFF’s tracker shows the administration’s executive actions were explicitly framed as affecting LGBTQ people’s health and spurred litigation ^[6].

4. Transgender military service and identity documents

The administration moved to reinstate a transgender military ban and restricted access to accurate gender markers on travel documents; those policies prompted nationwide lawsuits and mixed court rulings — for example, a preliminary injunction blocked the military ban, while the Supreme Court allowed the administration to continue limiting gender markers on passports during litigation ^[4]. These actions were central targets of litigation by civil‑rights groups and bar associations ^[4].

5. Efforts to weaken nondiscrimination protections and expand religious exemptions

Multiple sources identify a policy thrust to reinterpret or roll back federal nondiscrimination enforcement for sexual orientation and gender identity and to expand religious‑conscience exemptions that would allow businesses or agencies to claim a right to refuse services ^{[7] [8]}. The ACLU and other groups warn that such approaches could create legal uncertainty about enforceability of workplace and public‑accommodation protections and foresee litigation to block such reinterpretations ^[7].

6. Project 2025 as blueprint and administrative staffing changes

Reporting and policy analyses link many early actions to Project 2025, a conservative blueprint that calls for removing federal regulations that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and for dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion infrastructure across government; watchdogs say the administration filled agencies with appointees aligned to that playbook ^{[8] [9] [10]}. Supporters argue Project 2025 is a policy agenda; opponents characterize it as a coordinated blueprint to curtail LGBTQ+ rights ^{[8] [10]}.

7. Litigation, injunctions, and contested federal authority

Across these items the record shows persistent legal pushback: groups like the National LGBTQ+ Bar Association, ACLU and others have filed suits challenging the executive orders and agency actions, leading to injunctions and ongoing appeals ^{[4] [7]}. Coverage emphasizes that while many policies were implemented administratively, courts remain a principal arena for determining their durability ^{[4] [5]}.

8. How to read competing perspectives and limitations of the record

Advocacy groups (e.g., ACLU, GLAAD, NWLC, Center for American Progress) frame these measures as an assault on LGBTQ+ rights and highlight removals, bans, and threats to health care; government statements and some conservative sources frame actions as restoring “biological” definitions, protecting children, or defending religious liberty ^{[7] [1] [11]}. Available sources document many specific executive orders and agency actions and frequent litigation, but they do not uniformly list every administrative memo or every agency change in a single catalogue — available sources do not mention a definitive, exhaustive inventory of every affected regulation ^{[6] [2]}.

Bottom line: multiple, traceable policy steps — executive orders on gender, HHS directives on care, website and data removals, changes to passports and military policy, and efforts to broaden religious exemptions — collectively reshaped federal treatment of LGBTQ+ issues and provoked sustained litigation; readers should weigh both the documented actions and the ongoing court challenges when judging which changes will persist ^{[1] [3] [4] [2]}.