Judge Partially Blocks Trump’s Anti-DEI and Transgender Executive Orders

A federal judge in California has halted major provisions of President Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and transgender-related programming, siding with LGBT advocacy groups and other nonprofits that argued the policies unlawfully restrict constitutional rights.

In a June 9 ruling, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar issued a preliminary injunction barring the Trump administration from enforcing three key elements of the orders: the so-called equity termination provision, the gender termination provision, and the gender promotion provision. These provisions directed federal agencies to cut off funding to programs that support DEI initiatives or promote gender ideology.

Tigar found that the challenged provisions likely violate the First and Fifth Amendments by engaging in viewpoint discrimination and targeting transgender individuals for disfavored treatment. He also held that defunding programs authorized by Congress may infringe on the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.

“These three funding provisions reflect an effort to censor constitutionally protected speech and services promoting DEI and recognizing the existence of transgender individuals,” Tigar wrote. “These provisions seek to strip funding from programs that serve historically disenfranchised populations in direct contravention of several statutes under which Plaintiffs receive funding.”

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by a coalition of nonprofits, including the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, the Los Angeles LGBT Center, and others that rely heavily on federal grants to provide services like housing and HIV prevention, and that engage in LGBT advocacy. Several of the groups said they had already received funding termination notices citing the executive orders.

However, Tigar’s injunction leaves in place other aspects of Trump’s directives, including a provision requiring federal grantees to certify that they do not operate DEI programs that violate anti-discrimination law. The judge declined to block that certification provision, finding that the plaintiffs failed to show it exceeds the scope of existing legal requirements.

Still, the ruling represents an initial setback to the administration’s efforts to unwind federal support for DEI programming. which it said favors certain groups while discriminating against others.

Tigar said that even when distributing federal subsidies, the government cannot suppress ideas it considers objectionable or force organizations to abandon their core missions to remain eligible for public funding.

“While the Executive requires some degree of freedom to implement its political agenda, it is still bound by the Constitution,” the judge wrote. “And even in the context of federal subsidies, it cannot weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds to single out protected communities for disfavored treatment or suppress ideas that it does not like or has deemed dangerous.”

Tigar’s order will remain in effect while the legal case continues, and it remains unclear if Trump administration lawyers will appeal. The White House did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

The groups are challenging three executive orders Trump signed in his first days back in office after campaigning on rolling back pro-DEI and transgender policies that he denounced as divisive and not grounded in biological fact.

The first, called “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” bars agencies from supporting programs that recognize gender identities that do not match the two biological sexes, male and female.

The second, titled “Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing,” instructs federal departments to eliminate internal and external DEI initiatives not expressly mandated by Congress.

The third, called “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” targets race- and gender-based hiring or grant criteria across federally funded programs.

In a legal brief opposing the groups’ request for a preliminary injunction, Trump administration attorneys argued that the challenged provisions are in line with existing anti-discrimination laws, that the directives apply internally to federal agencies rather than private entities, and that the plaintiffs remain free to express any viewpoint, including in favor of DEI or transgenderism.