The recent announcement from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that gender-affirming health care will be excluded from the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) and Postal Service Health Benefits (PSHB) programs beginning in 2026 represents a profound step backward in civil rights and health equity. Under this directive, chemical and surgical interventions for gender transition will no longer be covered, though counseling for gender dysphoria must remain available. Insurance carriers are required to develop exceptions processes for individuals currently undergoing such care, yet the parameters of those processes remain undefined. Providers of gender-affirming care are also barred from being listed in plan directories, effectively discouraging access (Office of Personnel Management, 2025; Moss, 2025).
To understand the gravity of this reversal, it is necessary to recall how hard-fought the gains for transgender health care under FEHB were. In 2014, OPM lifted the longstanding blanket exclusion of gender-affirming procedures, and by 2016 carriers were instructed not to categorically deny such care. This change aligned federal benefits with emerging medical consensus that gender-affirming treatments are not elective but medically necessary. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the Endocrine Society have long affirmed that access to hormone therapy and surgeries significantly reduces psychological distress, improves quality of life, and prevents serious health complications (Hembree et al., 2017; Coleman et al., 2022). For nearly a decade, transgender federal employees and retirees could rely on this coverage as a matter of equity and recognition of their humanity.
As a transgender woman who has been receiving gender-affirming health care for more than eleven years, this policy shift strikes me not just as a bureaucratic adjustment but as a direct threat to my life and well-being. Having undergone an orchiectomy, I rely on estradiol not simply as an affirming treatment, but as essential hormone replacement. Without it, my bones, cardiovascular health, cognition, and emotional stability would be at severe risk. Estradiol for me is no different than thyroid medication for someone with hypothyroidism—it is medically necessary, lifelong care. To see it lumped under a politically charged category of “optional” transition services is both scientifically inaccurate and deeply insulting.
What unsettles me most is the uncertainty this policy creates. OPM’s promise of an “exceptions process” offers little clarity. Will it protect those of us with medical histories spanning over a decade of consistent care? Or will it force us into endless appeals and denials, treating every prescription refill as a battle? This ambiguity is destabilizing, and I cannot help but feel that it is intentional—designed to make care harder to access and to discourage providers from stepping forward.
As a federal retiree, I gave years of service under the assumption that the benefits I earned would protect me equitably. Now, I feel as though my identity has made me a target within the very system I trusted. The estimated 14,000 transgender federal employees and retirees who will be affected are not faceless statistics; we are people who dedicated our careers to serving this country, only to be told that our health care needs are unworthy of recognition (Lambda Legal, 2025; them.us, 2025). The exclusion also signals a dangerous precedent: that essential medical care can be stripped away not because of evidence or cost, but because of politics.
This change must be understood in its broader social context. Over the past decade, transgender Americans have seen both progress and backlash. The Affordable Care Act’s Section 1557 extended nondiscrimination protections in health care, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) affirmed that gender identity is protected under Title VII. Yet, simultaneously, states across the country have passed laws restricting access to gender-affirming care, particularly for youth, framing these measures as cultural wedge issues. The OPM directive extends that wave of exclusion into the federal system, embedding discrimination into the nation’s largest employer-based insurance program.
For me personally, this is not an abstract policy debate. It is about whether I will be able to continue accessing the medication that keeps me healthy and alive. It is about whether the years of progress we celebrated were only temporary reprieves. And it is about what message this sends to younger transgender people entering federal service today: that their health and dignity can be used as bargaining chips in political battles.
I cannot help but feel anxious about what the future holds, but I also feel resolved. This rollback will not go unchallenged. Advocacy groups such as Lambda Legal, the National Center for Transgender Equality, and others have already condemned it as unlawful and are preparing legal strategies (Lambda Legal, 2025). As a transgender woman and a retiree, I plan to add my voice to that chorus, because silence is what allows discrimination to endure. We have fought too hard, and for too long, to let the ground be taken out from under us without resistance.
References
Coleman, E., Radix, A. E., Bouman, W. P., Brown, G. R., de Vries, A. L. C., Deutsch, M. B., … Winter, S. (2022). Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8. International Journal of Transgender Health, 23(sup1), S1–S259. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644
Hembree, W. C., Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., Gooren, L., Hannema, S. E., Meyer, W. J., Murad, M. H., … T’Sjoen, G. G. (2017). Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 102(11), 3869–3903. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2017-01658
Lambda Legal. (2025, August 19). Lambda Legal condemns Trump administration’s illegal exclusion of gender-affirming care from employee health benefits. Retrieved August 22, 2025, from https://lambdalegal.org/newsroom
Moss, K. (2025, August 20). Coverage for gender-affirming care will be eliminated from FEHB plans in 2026. Government Executive. Retrieved August 22, 2025, from https://www.govexec.com
Office of Personnel Management. (2025). Carrier Letter 2025-01b: Chemical and surgical sex-trait modification exclusion. Retrieved August 22, 2025, from https://opm.gov
them.us. (2025, August 20). Trump Admin to end coverage of gender-affirming care for federal workers. them. Retrieved August 22, 2025, from https://www.them
Trump’s Threat to Militarize Chicago: An Authoritarian Overreach
By Katherine Walter
On August 28, 2025
In Donald Trump
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS – AUGUST 25: Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker speaks to the press while on board a water taxi passing Trump Tower on the Chicago River on August 25, 2025 in Chicago, Illinois. Pritzker spoke about about President Donald Trump’s plan to send National Guard troops into Chicago. Recent reports have stated that Trump plans to deploy troops to the city as early as next month. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
In August 2025, President Donald Trump once again threatened to use military force in a major American city—this time Chicago. In remarks to reporters, he escalated his rhetoric by calling Chicago “a disaster” and “a killing field,” arguing that the city required federal intervention to restore order (Politico, 2025). While presented as a public safety measure, this plan has little to do with crime reduction and much more to do with political theater. By targeting Democratic-led cities like Chicago, Trump is reinforcing his strongman image while undermining constitutional principles of local governance. His approach reflects a dangerous authoritarian drift, particularly given his earlier actions in Washington, D.C.
Chicago has become a focal point of Trump’s political attacks. Reports indicate that his administration has explored not only the deployment of the National Guard, but also using ICE agents with potential operations staged out of Naval Station Great Lakes (Nakashima & Arkin, 2025). Local officials, however, have responded with strong resistance. Governor J.B. Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson have emphasized that the President lacks unilateral authority to deploy troops in Illinois, and they are preparing legal strategies to prevent such action. Advocacy groups in Chicago have also begun organizing both legal and grassroots resistance, arguing that the introduction of federal troops would erode community trust and criminalize immigrant populations already under strain (Klayman & Shepardson, 2025).
At the heart of this conflict lies a legal and constitutional dilemma. The military is not designed to perform law enforcement duties. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, federal military forces are largely prohibited from engaging in domestic policing. Even the National Guard, which can support state governments in emergencies, is meant to operate under state—not federal—control unless extraordinary conditions justify nationalization. For Trump to act, he would likely invoke the Insurrection Act, a rarely used measure intended for situations of open rebellion or insurrection. Yet Chicago is not in rebellion; in fact, violent crime in the city has dropped significantly in recent years, with homicides falling by more than 50 percent since 2021 (Klayman & Shepardson, 2025). Governor Pritzker has rightly argued that the Guard is not needed in Chicago, describing Trump’s claim of a crime crisis as exaggerated and politically opportunistic (Associated Press, 2025b).
This political opportunism is perhaps the most telling aspect of the proposed deployment. Trump has not threatened to send troops to conservative cities facing crime problems; instead, his threats have focused squarely on Democratic-led cities such as Chicago, Baltimore, and Los Angeles. Analysts see this pattern as a deliberate political strategy aimed at energizing his base by portraying “blue cities” as out of control and hostile to law and order. In reality, these deployments are less about public safety and more about consolidating power and projecting an authoritarian style of governance (Associated Press, 2025a).
The events in Washington, D.C. earlier in August provide a striking precedent. Trump declared a “crime emergency” in the District despite evidence that crime was at a thirty-year low. He then assumed control over the Metropolitan Police Department, deployed the D.C. National Guard, and placed federal law enforcement agencies in charge of local operations (Douglas, 2025). The move was widely criticized as unconstitutional, with the D.C. Attorney General filing legal challenges and polls showing overwhelming local opposition. Scholars such as Lawrence Douglas (2025) have noted that these actions were not responses to genuine crises but rather examples of governance by political spectacle, in which the appearance of strength matters more than the rule of law.
Chicago now finds itself in danger of becoming the next stage for this spectacle. The city has made progress in reducing violence through community-based initiatives, investments in social programs, and reimagined policing strategies. Introducing federal troops threatens to undo these gains, potentially sparking unrest rather than restoring order. More troublingly, it normalizes the use of military force in domestic political conflicts, setting a precedent that undermines democratic governance at both the local and national level.
Ultimately, Trump’s threat to militarize Chicago represents an abuse of power. It is not a measured response to a public safety crisis, but a political maneuver designed to intimidate Democratic strongholds and consolidate executive authority. The military is not trained for law enforcement, nor is it legally authorized to serve as a domestic police force under ordinary conditions. By framing his actions as necessary to restore order, Trump is masking authoritarian tactics in the language of public safety. If unchallenged, this strategy risks eroding the democratic foundations of American governance and moving the nation closer to a model of executive domination rather than shared power.
In moments such as this, vigilance is essential. The people of Chicago—and Americans more broadly—must recognize that the debate is not truly about crime but about power. Allowing a president to deploy troops for political theater undermines both constitutional law and democratic norms. Trump’s threat to send the military into Chicago should be understood for what it is: an authoritarian abuse of power that endangers not just one city, but the principles of democracy itself.
References
Associated Press. (2025a, August 27). Democratic governors look to derail Trump’s plan to send National Guard to Chicago and other cities. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/988a659d9d13deb1e7a8f52cf47efef8
Associated Press. (2025b, August 25). Guard not needed in Chicago, Pritzker tells AP during tour of city to counter Trump’s crime claims. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/2023e25445c45a3f0f4d3513e8eb2ac4
Douglas, L. (2025, August 27). Trump’s militarization of the DC police was just an opening salvo. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/aug/27/january-6-trump-chicago-military
Klayman, B., & Shepardson, D. (2025, August 28). In Chicago, locals prepare for Trump’s possible deployment of National Guard. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/chicago-locals-prepare-trumps-possible-deployment-national-guard-2025-08-28
Nakashima, E., & Arkin, D. (2025, August 27). ICE asks for access to Chicago-area Navy base to assist operations. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/08/27/trump-chicago-ice-military
Politico. (2025, August 25). Trump reiterates threat to send National Guard to Chicago. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/25/trump-national-guard-chicago-00523253