Was president trump trying to abolish gay marriage

1. Trump's stated positions: a history of flip and hedge

Across more than a decade Trump’s rhetoric shifted from explicit opposition — saying he favored “traditional marriage” and in 2011 that gay couples should not receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples ^{[1] [4]} — to a post‑2016 posture that he was “fine” with same‑sex marriage and that it wasn’t a priority issue for his administration ^[2]; this inconsistency complicates any simple claim that he pursued a direct abolitionist project.

2. Administration actions: rolling back protections without naming Obergefell

While not formally seeking to repeal the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision in public messaging, the Trump administrations pursued policies and legal briefs that weakened federal enforcement of LGBT nondiscrimination protections, sought exemptions in the name of religious freedom, and implemented measures (such as the military transgender ban and other rollbacks) that advocates say created a broader hostile environment for LGBT rights ^{[5] [3] [6]}. Human Rights Watch and the ACLU documented an “all‑of‑government” effort to erode protections for LGBT people and cited concrete policy moves rather than an explicit campaign to overturn marriage equality ^{[3] [5]}.

3. Courts, Congress and the practical limits of an “abolish” strategy

A literal abolition of nationwide marriage equality would require either the Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell, a constitutional amendment, or new federal legislation — none of which the Trump White House could unilaterally impose — but his administration’s legal positions and support for state religious‑freedom laws helped fuel challenges and legislative pressures at the state level that could undermine practical protections for same‑sex couples even if marriages themselves remained legally recognized ^{[7] [6] [8]}.

4. The perception gap: fear, advocacy, and political signaling

Civil‑rights groups and public‑health researchers warned that Trump‑era policies and allied state initiatives posed real threats to LGBT wellbeing and legal security, advising same‑sex couples and families to secure additional legal documentation in case of policy shifts ^{[3] [6]}. That caution — and the surge in state bills and administrative changes noted by outlets like Context and The Hill — created a public perception that marriage equality was at risk even when the administration stopped short of declaring an intent to rescind Obergefell ^{[7] [9]}.

5. Alternative readings and political motives

Supporters point to episodes where Trump distanced himself from hardline positions, engaged with LGBT Republicans, and publicly said he would not necessarily vote against a gay presidential candidate — moves that critics say are tactical and aimed at electoral outreach rather than a change in policy orientation ^{[10] [2]}. Opponents argue the administration’s legal strategies and embrace of “religious freedom” measures reflect an explicit ideological agenda to roll back LGBT gains; analysts have also highlighted influence from conservative plans such as Project 2025 that recommend policies hostile to marriage‑equality concepts, an implicit agenda cited by reporting on administration policy choices ^{[7] [6]}.

6. Bottom line: not an explicit abolitionist campaign, but active undermining

The record in government actions and legal posture shows an active effort to weaken protections for LGBT people and to enable state‑level reversals or carve‑outs — a strategy that falls short of an openly declared, administratively executed plan to abolish same‑sex marriage nationwide, but which materially increased the legal and political risk to marriage equality and related rights ^{[5] [3] [7]}.