All the rights you've lost, clearly explained

Civil Rights Policy Tracker

Track federal civil rights policy changes, who they affect, and why they matter.

We break down federal policy in plain English, link to the evidence, and keep track of what courts and agencies do next.

Filter by status
A quick note: We include an action when it limits a protected group, removes a safeguard, or has credible evidence of an unequal impact. Being listed here does not by itself prove discriminatory intent. Site Updated Oct. 1, 2026; policy statuses were last substantively reviewed August 2, 2026.

29 of 29 actions shown

Civil rights•Executive order

White House ends federal racial-equity initiatives

First issued: Jan 20, 2025•Latest update: Aug 2, 2026
Active

Trump revoked executive orders that required federal agencies to track racial gaps and coordinate programs for underserved communities.

See source
See details

What happened

  • The order ended White House initiatives focused on Black, Latino, Asian American, Pacific Islander and Native communities.
  • It also ended federal coordination on Tribal Colleges, environmental justice, police accountability and voter access.
  • It did not repeal laws such as Title VI or Title VII. It removed executive requirements to collect data, create equity plans and report results.

Why it matters

Civil-rights laws still apply, but agencies no longer have a government-wide system for measuring disparities, setting equity goals or reporting progress.

What the administration says

The administration says these programs favored people based on identity and that government decisions should be race-neutral and based on merit.

Update history

  1. The rescissions remain the governing executive policy; Congress has not replaced the abolished coordination framework with an equivalent government-wide system. Tracker status review
  2. The initial-rescissions order revoked the prior administration’s government-wide racial-equity framework and related minority-focused initiatives. White House order

Sources

Civil rights•Executive order

Agencies close DEI and environmental-justice programs

First issued: Jan 20, 2025•Latest update: Jun 4, 2026
In court

Federal agencies were ordered to close DEI and environmental-justice offices, end related grants and plans, and review programs that used equity language.

See source
See details

What happened

  • Agencies were told to end DEI and DEIA offices, equity plans, environmental-justice programs and related grant requirements.
  • Implementation included placing employees on leave, reassigning staff, removing public materials and canceling some grants.
  • Courts have challenged some grant cancellations and uses of the order, so the result differs by agency and program.

Why it matters

The federal government now has fewer staff, grants and formal programs focused on representation, disability access and unequal exposure to pollution.

What the administration says

The administration says these programs use unlawful preferences, add costs and replace individual merit with group-based decisions.

Update history

  1. KFF reported that litigation and congressional appropriations had mitigated some health-program reductions, while many anti-DEI changes remained in place. KFF status assessment
  2. Executive Order 14151 directed agencies to terminate federal DEI, DEIA and environmental-justice programs. White House order

Sources

Employment•Executive order

Federal contractor affirmative-action rules ended

First issued: Jan 21, 2025•Latest update: Mar 31, 2026
Active

Trump revoked a 1965 order that required many federal contractors to maintain affirmative-action programs.

See source
See details

What happened

  • Executive Order 11246 had required covered federal contractors to take affirmative action and track compliance on race and sex discrimination.
  • Revoking it ended those contractor-specific requirements. General federal antidiscrimination laws still apply.
  • A March 2026 order added certifications and penalties aimed at DEI practices the administration considers discriminatory.

Why it matters

Contractors still cannot discriminate, but they no longer have the same contractor-specific duty to take proactive steps or maintain affirmative-action compliance systems.

What the administration says

The administration says affirmative-action rules can become unlawful preferences based on race or sex.

Update history

  1. The contractor requirements were published in the Federal Register. Federal Register
  2. A new executive order required federal contractors to certify that they would not engage in prohibited race-based DEI practices. White House order
  3. Executive Order 14173 revoked Executive Order 11246 and ordered the contractor affirmative-action framework wound down. White House order

Sources

Civil rights•Executive order and agency rules

Federal agencies narrow how discrimination can be proven

First issued: Apr 23, 2025•Latest update: Jul 24, 2026
Active

Agencies reduced rules that allowed a policy to be challenged because it caused an unjustified unequal result, even without direct proof of discriminatory intent.

See source
See details

What happened

  • Disparate-impact rules address policies that appear neutral but create serious and unjustified unequal outcomes.
  • These cases do not require a direct statement showing that someone intended to discriminate.
  • The new approach focuses Title VI enforcement more heavily on intentional discrimination.
  • By July 2026, several departments had removed disparate-impact language from their rules.

Why it matters

People may now need stronger evidence that discrimination was intentional. That can make some cases involving schools, jobs, healthcare and transportation harder to bring.

What the administration says

The administration says disparate-impact rules pressure institutions to make race-conscious decisions and conflict with equal treatment.

Update history

  1. Education and Health and Human Services final rules took effect, stating that Title VI enforcement would focus on intentional discrimination. Federal Register: Education
  2. The Justice Department finalized removal of disparate-impact parts from its Title VI regulations. Federal Register
  3. Executive Order 14281 directed agencies to reduce disparate-impact liability and review existing regulations. White House order

Sources

Language access•Executive order

English becomes the official language of the federal government

First issued: Mar 1, 2025•Latest update: Aug 2, 2026
Active

Trump made English the official federal language and revoked a government-wide order on access for people with limited English proficiency.

See source
See details

What happened

  • The order names English as the official language of the United States government.
  • It revoked Executive Order 13166, which had told agencies and federally funded organizations to improve access for people with limited English proficiency.
  • Agencies may still translate information or provide interpreters, but the government-wide mandate is gone.
  • Services that may be affected include healthcare, disaster aid, benefits, immigration and federally funded local programs.

Why it matters

Agencies can still offer translations and interpreters, but there is no longer one government-wide requirement to improve language access consistently.

What the administration says

The administration says a shared official language strengthens national unity and makes government more efficient.

Update history

  1. No equivalent government-wide language-access order has replaced the revoked framework. Individual agencies retain discretion and statutory obligations. Tracker status review
  2. The official-language order was signed and Executive Order 13166 was revoked. White House order

Sources

Economic opportunity•Executive order

Minority business and community-lending programs scaled back

First issued: Mar 14, 2025•Latest update: Jun 1, 2025
In court

The administration ordered the Minority Business Development Agency, the CDFI Fund and related programs to operate only at the minimum level required by law.

See source
See details

What happened

  • The order covered the Minority Business Development Agency and the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, among other entities.
  • Covered programs were told to reduce operations to the minimum required by federal law.
  • Because Congress created and funds some of these programs, the executive branch cannot eliminate every function on its own.
  • The main risk is less lending capacity, business support, grant funding and outreach.

Why it matters

The cuts can reduce loans, grants, technical help and outreach for minority-owned businesses and communities underserved by traditional banks.

What the administration says

The administration says the changes shrink bureaucracy and remove programs it considers duplicative.

Update history

  1. Members of the Senate Small Business Committee publicly challenged the reduction of resources for minority business owners. Senate committee response
  2. The administration ordered specified agencies and programs reduced to the minimum level required by law. White House order

Sources

Environment•Executive orders and grant actions

Federal environmental-justice programs ended

First issued: Jan 20, 2025•Latest update: Apr 1, 2025
In court

The administration ended the Justice40 initiative, revoked environmental-justice directives and froze or canceled targeted grants and offices.

See source
See details

What happened

  • Justice40 aimed to direct part of certain federal investments to disadvantaged communities.
  • Agencies closed or reduced environmental-justice offices and froze or canceled grants for pollution monitoring, cleanup and climate resilience.
  • The effects are likely to be greatest in communities where race and income are linked to heavier pollution exposure.
  • Some individual grants remain in court, so not every cancellation is final.

Why it matters

Communities near highways, ports, refineries, power plants and hazardous sites may receive less targeted monitoring, cleanup support and resilience funding.

What the administration says

The administration says the programs raise energy costs, add regulation and distribute money using identity-based criteria.

Update history

  1. Reporting documented widespread cancellation or freezing of environmental-justice grants and community programs. Associated Press investigation
  2. The energy order revoked the prior environmental-justice and Justice40 framework. White House order

Sources

Education•Executive order and agency guidance

Schools face federal pressure over DEI, race and gender policies

First issued: Jan 29, 2025•Latest update: Feb 18, 2026
In court

The administration told agencies to investigate or threaten funding for school policies it describes as discriminatory equity or gender ideology.

See source
See details

What happened

  • The January order targeted what it called discriminatory equity ideology and gender ideology in K-12 schools.
  • A February 2025 Education Department letter warned that some race-conscious programs could put federal funding at risk.
  • Courts found the guidance likely exceeded the Department's authority and raised free-speech and administrative-law concerns.
  • The letter is no longer enforceable, but the executive order and separate investigations continue.

Why it matters

Schools face pressure over lessons, student programs and policies involving race, gender identity and US history. Major parts of the 2025 guidance were blocked and later withdrawn.

What the administration says

The administration says schools should not treat students differently by race or present disputed political ideas as settled fact.

Update history

  1. The Department conceded that the challenged February 2025 directive was no longer in effect and could not be enforced. ACLU case update
  2. The Education Department dropped its appeal of the decision blocking that guidance. Legal status report
  3. A federal court struck down the Education Department’s February anti-DEI funding guidance. Higher Ed Dive court report
  4. The K–12 executive order directed agencies to identify and oppose specified race- and gender-related instruction and practices. White House order

Sources

Education•Agency funding decision

Education Department cancels equity research and teacher-training grants

First issued: Feb 17, 2025•Latest update: Feb 17, 2025
In court

The Department canceled research, technical-assistance and teacher-training grants tied to culturally responsive teaching, systemic racism, disability, gender and equity-focused recruitment.

See source
See details

What happened

  • The Department canceled more than $350 million in Regional Educational Laboratory and Equity Assistance Center contracts.
  • It also canceled more than $600 million in teacher-training grants.
  • Topics named by the Department included culturally responsive teaching, systemic racism, disability discrimination, gender discrimination, homophobia and equity-focused recruitment.
  • Some recipients challenged individual cancellations, so outcomes vary by grant.

Why it matters

Schools and colleges lost federal support for studying disparities and preparing educators to serve diverse student populations.

What the administration says

The Department says the grants promoted divisive ideology or did not focus enough on core academic results.

Update history

  1. The Department announced cancellation of more than $600 million in teacher-training grants. Education Department
  2. The Department announced cancellation of more than $350 million in research and equity-assistance spending. Education Department

Sources

Education•Agency restructuring

Education Department cuts civil-rights and special-education staff

First issued: Mar 11, 2025•Latest update: Aug 2, 2026
Active

The Department sharply reduced its workforce, including employees who investigate civil-rights complaints and administer special-education programs.

See source
See details

What happened

  • The Department planned to reduce staffing from about 4,133 employees to roughly 2,183 through layoffs, departures and leave.
  • The cuts reached the Office for Civil Rights and offices that manage special-education programs.
  • A lower court initially ordered employees restored, but the Supreme Court later allowed the reductions to continue while the case proceeded.
  • The laws remain in place, but the federal government has less capacity to enforce and administer them.

Why it matters

Fewer staff are available to investigate discrimination, enforce disability protections, monitor schools and manage federal grants.

What the administration says

The administration says the Department is inefficient and that more education authority should return to states and local communities.

Update history

  1. The smaller workforce remains in place, although individual restructuring and reassignment decisions continue to change. Tracker status review
  2. The Supreme Court allowed the administration to continue mass layoffs while the case continued. 19th News court report
  3. The Education Department announced a large reduction in force. Education Department

Sources

Immigration•Statute

Laken Riley Act requires more immigration detention

First issued: Jan 29, 2025•Latest update: Aug 2, 2026
Active

The law requires detention of certain noncitizens who are arrested for or charged with listed offenses, even before they are convicted.

See source
See details

What happened

  • The law covers certain noncitizens arrested for, charged with, convicted of or admitting conduct that matches listed offenses.
  • Listed conduct includes burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, assault on a law-enforcement officer and offenses causing death or serious injury.
  • Detention can begin before a criminal conviction.
  • The law also gives state attorneys general more power to sue the federal government over certain immigration decisions.

Why it matters

More people can be held without an individual bond decision and can face immigration consequences before a criminal case is resolved.

What the administration says

Supporters say mandatory detention protects the public and prevents people who may be deportable from being released.

Update history

  1. The mandatory-detention parts remain federal law and operate alongside the administration’s broader detention expansion. Tracker status review
  2. President Trump signed the Laken Riley Act, the first statute of his second term. Department of Homeland Security

Sources

Immigration•Executive orders and enforcement policy

Asylum access reduced as detention and deportation expand

First issued: Jan 20, 2025•Latest update: Jun 25, 2026
In court

The administration declared a border emergency, restricted asylum, expanded fast-track removal and increased arrests, detention and cooperation with local police.

See source
See details

What happened

  • The administration sharply limited asylum access and expanded expedited removal beyond recent border crossers.
  • Enforcement included more interior arrests, more detention space and more agreements between ICE and local police.
  • The 2025 reconciliation law provided major new funding for border enforcement, detention and deportation.
  • In June 2026, the Supreme Court allowed a major limit on asylum processing to continue.

Why it matters

More immigrants, including some with pending claims or temporary legal protections, face detention or removal.

What the administration says

The administration says the measures restore border control, discourage unlawful entry and remove people who can legally be deported.

Update history

  1. The Supreme Court sided with the administration in a case involving restrictions on asylum processing. DHS statement
  2. Public Law 119-21 supplied large new enforcement and detention resources. Congressional law context
  3. The border and interior-enforcement orders launched the second-term crackdown. White House enforcement order

Sources

Immigration•Executive order and annual determination

Refugee admissions cut, with preference for Afrikaners

First issued: Jan 20, 2025•Latest update: May 27, 2026
Active

Trump suspended ordinary refugee admissions, set a record-low ceiling of 7,500, then raised it to 17,500 specifically to admit more Afrikaners from South Africa.

See source
See details

What happened

  • The January 2025 order paused ordinary refugee admissions while the program was reviewed.
  • The fiscal year 2026 ceiling was first set at 7,500, down from 125,000 for fiscal year 2025.
  • The initial plan said admissions would mainly go to Afrikaners and others the administration described as victims of discrimination in South Africa.
  • In May 2026, Trump raised the ceiling by 10,000, to 17,500, specifically for more Afrikaner admissions.

Why it matters

Far fewer refugees from most regions can resettle in the United States, while Afrikaners receive a special admission priority.

What the administration says

The administration cites limited community capacity, US national interests and alleged persecution of Afrikaners in South Africa.

Update history

  1. An emergency determination increased the ceiling to 17,500 to facilitate additional Afrikaner admissions. Federal Register
  2. The fiscal year 2026 refugee ceiling was set at a record-low 7,500. Federal Register
  3. The administration suspended the normal refugee-admissions program for review. White House order

Sources

Immigration•Presidential proclamation

Travel ban expanded to more countries

First issued: Jun 4, 2025•Latest update: Dec 16, 2025
Active

The administration imposed full or partial US entry restrictions on people from dozens of countries, with the largest concentration in Africa and the Middle East.

See source
See details

What happened

  • <strong>Full restrictions:</strong> Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Burma (Myanmar), Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Mali, Niger, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The policy also fully restricts travelers using documents issued or endorsed by the Palestinian Authority.
  • <strong>Partial restrictions:</strong> Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Burundi, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Dominica, Gabon, The Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
  • For most partially restricted countries, the policy suspends immigrant visas and B-1/B-2 visitor, F student, M vocational and J exchange visas. It may also shorten other visas.
  • Turkmenistan is treated differently. Its immigrant entry remains suspended, but the later order removed its B, F, M and J restrictions.
  • The rules generally apply to affected nationals who are outside the United States and do not have a valid visa when the restrictions take effect.
  • Exceptions include lawful permanent residents, some dual nationals, diplomats, certain major sporting-event participants, some US-government special immigrants and case-by-case national-interest waivers.

Why it matters

The policy limits family reunification, tourism, study and work based largely on nationality.

What the administration says

The administration cites national security, screening problems, weak information sharing and visa-overstay rates.

Update history

  1. A second proclamation added seven fully restricted countries, 15 partially restricted countries and Palestinian Authority travel documents; Laos and Sierra Leone moved from partial to full restrictions. White House proclamation
  2. Turkmenistan’s restrictions were narrowed: nonimmigrant B, F, M and J restrictions were lifted, while immigrant entry remained suspended. White House proclamation
  3. The first proclamation imposed full restrictions on 12 countries and partial restrictions on seven. White House proclamation

Sources

Immigration•Agency action

Legal status ended for CHNV parole recipients

First issued: Mar 25, 2025•Latest update: May 30, 2025
In court

The administration ended temporary parole and work permits for people admitted through the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela sponsorship program.

See source
See details

What happened

  • The CHNV program let screened people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela enter temporarily with a US sponsor.
  • The termination affected about 530,000 people and attempted to end parole and work authorization before their original expiration dates.
  • The Supreme Court allowed the administration to carry out the termination while the lawsuit continued.
  • People who have another legal status or a pending immigration application may face different outcomes.

Why it matters

About 530,000 people who entered through an authorized government process faced loss of work permission and possible deportation.

What the administration says

The administration says parole was used too broadly and should be granted person by person, not through a large group program.

Update history

  1. The Supreme Court allowed the revocation to operate while the case continues. Reuters court report
  2. The administration announced termination of CHNV parole for approximately 530,000 people. Reuters report

Sources

Immigration•Agency action

Temporary Protected Status ended for several countries

First issued: Feb 3, 2025•Latest update: Jun 25, 2026
In court

The administration ended or moved to end Temporary Protected Status for people from Haiti, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia and other countries.

See source
See details

What happened

  • Temporary Protected Status lets eligible people stay and work when war, disaster or other severe conditions make return unsafe.
  • The administration ended or sought to end protections for several countries, including Haiti, Syria, Venezuela and Somalia.
  • In June 2026, the Supreme Court allowed the Haiti and Syria terminations to take effect while litigation continued.
  • More than 350,000 Haitians and about 6,100 Syrians were placed at risk of losing protection.

Why it matters

Long-term residents can lose work permits and protection from deportation even when conditions in their home countries remain dangerous.

What the administration says

The administration says temporary protection should end when legal conditions no longer support it and should not become permanent status.

Update history

  1. The Supreme Court allowed terminations for Haiti and Syria to take effect while the case continues. Supreme Court opinion
  2. DHS stated that people without another lawful status could become subject to removal. DHS statement
  3. The administration began issuing nationality-specific TPS termination decisions. White House immigration policy

Sources

Citizenship•Executive order

Birthright citizenship restrictions renewed

First issued: Jan 20, 2025•Latest update: Sep 4, 2026
Blocked

The Supreme Court rejected the administration’s broad 2025 effort to deny citizenship to many U.S.-born children. A narrower August 2026 order created new exceptions, but a federal judge blocked that order in September while litigation continues.

See source
See details

What happened

  • The 2025 order sought to deny citizenship to some children born in the United States based on their parents’ immigration status.
  • On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that the Citizenship Clause broadly protects children born in the United States, subject to narrow exceptions.
  • On August 6, 2026, the administration issued a narrower order identifying additional categories it said fall outside birthright citizenship.
  • In September 2026, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the newer order, citing Supreme Court precedent on birthright citizenship.

Why it matters

The September injunction prevents the newer citizenship restrictions from taking effect for now, preserving citizenship recognition for affected U.S.-born children while the case proceeds.

What the administration says

The administration argues the Fourteenth Amendment does not cover children whose parents lack permanent allegiance to the United States.

Update history

  1. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the newer birthright-citizenship order while the class-action challenge proceeds. AP court report
  2. The administration issued a narrower executive order identifying additional categories it says fall outside birthright citizenship. White House order
  3. The deadline passed without the administration filing a request for the Court to reconsider. Associated Press
  4. The Supreme Court rejected the order as inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment. Reuters court report
  5. The executive order attempted to restrict recognition of birthright citizenship. White House order

Sources

Immigration•Presidential proclamation and removal policy

Alien Enemies Act used for fast deportations

First issued: Mar 15, 2025•Latest update: May 16, 2025
In court

Trump used the 1798 Alien Enemies Act against alleged Tren de Aragua members and sent some people to detention in third countries.

See source
See details

What happened

  • The proclamation used the 1798 Alien Enemies Act against alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
  • Some Venezuelan men were sent to a high-security prison in El Salvador before receiving a meaningful chance to contest the allegations.
  • The Supreme Court said detainees must receive adequate notice and a real opportunity to challenge removal.
  • Separate cases address deportations to countries where a person may face torture or persecution.

Why it matters

Some people had little time to challenge gang allegations, deportation or the risk of torture and persecution in the destination country.

What the administration says

The administration calls Tren de Aragua an invading hostile force and says rapid removal protects public safety.

Update history

  1. The Supreme Court maintained a block on removals where detainees had not received adequate notice and opportunity to challenge them. Reuters court report
  2. The Supreme Court required challenges to continue through habeas corpus in the district of detention and did not decide the underlying legality of the invocation. Reuters court report
  3. The President invoked the Alien Enemies Act against alleged Tren de Aragua members. White House proclamation

Sources

Economic security•Executive order and agency review

Immigration-based limits on public benefits expanded

First issued: Feb 19, 2025•Latest update: Jul 1, 2026
Active

Agencies were told to tighten eligibility checks and stop federally funded programs from benefiting people without qualifying immigration status.

See source
See details

What happened

  • Agencies were told to find programs that may be serving people without qualifying immigration status and tighten verification.
  • The effects can reach beyond undocumented adults because many families include citizens, legal residents and undocumented relatives.
  • Some eligible families may avoid help because they fear enforcement, data sharing or future immigration consequences.
  • Programs affected can include food assistance, healthcare, housing, education support and state services that use federal funds.

Why it matters

Eligible legal residents and US-citizen children may also avoid food, housing or healthcare help because they fear immigration consequences or data sharing.

What the administration says

The administration says federal benefits should go only to citizens and legally eligible immigrants and should not encourage unlawful immigration.

Update history

  1. Policy analysis documented an expanding multi-agency effort affecting a broader population than undocumented immigrants alone. Brookings analysis
  2. The executive order directed agencies to restrict federally funded benefits associated with people lacking qualifying immigration status. White House order

Sources

LGBTQ+ rights•Executive order and agency policy

Federal policy recognizes only two sexes

First issued: Jan 20, 2025•Latest update: Nov 6, 2025
In court

The administration directed agencies to recognize only male and female sex as defined by the order and changed passport and record policies.

See source
See details

What happened

  • Executive Order 14168 tells federal agencies to recognize only male and female sex as the order defines them.
  • The State Department stopped issuing X markers and generally required new passports to show sex assigned at birth.
  • This can create mismatches between a passport, a person's appearance and other identity documents.
  • The Supreme Court allowed the passport policy to operate while the constitutional challenge continued.

Why it matters

Transgender, nonbinary and intersex people may receive documents that do not match how they live or appear, increasing the risk of being outed, delayed or harassed.

What the administration says

The administration says federal records should reflect biological sex and that sex-based rules protect privacy and legal clarity.

Update history

  1. The Supreme Court stayed the lower-court injunction, allowing the passport policy to operate during the case. Supreme Court order
  2. A federal appeals court declined to restore the passport policy while litigation continueed. Reuters court report
  3. The federal sex-definition order was signed. White House order

Sources

LGBTQ+ rights•Executive order and Defense policy

Transgender military service restricted

First issued: Jan 27, 2025•Latest update: Jun 1, 2026
In court

The administration limited enlistment and continued service for people whose gender identity differs from their sex at birth.

See source
See details

What happened

  • The order describes gender dysphoria and gender transition as inconsistent with military standards.
  • Defense Department guidance restricted new enlistment and began separation procedures for some current personnel.
  • The Supreme Court initially allowed the policy to take effect while litigation continued.
  • In June 2026, an appeals court allowed rejection of new transgender applicants but blocked removal of the current service members in that case.

Why it matters

The policy blocks some applicants and threatens the careers, pay and benefits of current transgender service members.

What the administration says

The administration says the restrictions support readiness, unit cohesion and deployability.

Update history

  1. An appeals court blocked removal of current transgender service members in the case but left the enlistment restriction in place. Reuters court report
  2. The Supreme Court allowed the ban to take effect while the case continued. Reuters court report
  3. The military-service executive order directed the Defense Department to exclude transgender service under revised standards. White House order

Sources

Healthcare•Executive order and funding restrictions

Federal support for youth gender-affirming care targeted

First issued: Jan 28, 2025•Latest update: Aug 11, 2026
In court

Federal restrictions on gender-affirming care for people under 19 now include a final CMS rule that would stop federal Medicaid and CHIP funding for specified treatments beginning October 13, 2026, while related litigation continues.

See source
See details

What happened

  • The order targets puberty blockers, hormone treatment and gender-related surgery used for transition by people under 19.
  • It told agencies to use grants, insurance programs, research policy and provider rules to reduce access.
  • Federal judges blocked the administration from withholding funds from providers in several states based on the order.
  • The administration continued using related grant conditions and regulations after the main funding directive was blocked.

Why it matters

If the final rule takes effect as scheduled, federal Medicaid and CHIP dollars could no longer pay for covered gender-transition treatments for minors, although states could use nonfederal funds and mental-health coverage would remain.

What the administration says

The administration describes these treatments as harmful or experimental and says the policy protects children.

Update history

  1. CMS finalized a rule ending federal Medicaid and CHIP funding for specified gender-transition treatments for minors, effective October 13, 2026. CMS final rule announcement
  2. The principal order remained temporarily blocked, while the administration continued developing other restrictions. Reuters status report
  3. A federal judge extended an injunction preventing federal funding penalties against providers in four states. Reuters court report
  4. The executive order directed agencies to restrict federal support for specified gender-affirming care for people under 19. White House order

Sources

Education•Executive order and Title IX enforcement

Transgender girls and women barred from female sports

First issued: Feb 5, 2025•Latest update: Sep 28, 2026
In court

Federal policy bars transgender girls and women from female sports, and on September 28 the Education Department formally rescinded the 2024 Title IX regulation and restored the 2020 Title IX rule in the Code of Federal Regulations.

See source
See details

What happened

  • The order says allowing transgender girls and women in female athletic categories violates Title IX.
  • The Education Department has investigated schools and threatened federal funding over sports and related gender-identity policies.
  • The policy directly affects transgender students and is defended as protecting sex-based competition.
  • Separate Supreme Court rulings allowed state sports bans in June 2026, but they did not decide every issue under the federal order.

Why it matters

Schools receiving federal funds now operate under the restored 2020 Title IX framework while separate litigation continues over transgender participation in sports and other sex-based policies.

What the administration says

The administration says the policy protects fairness, safety and athletic opportunities for women and girls.

Update history

  1. The Education Department formally rescinded the 2024 Title IX regulation and reinstated the 2020 rule in the Code of Federal Regulations. Education Department announcement
  2. The Education Department continued threatening school funding over transgender-related policies. Reuters enforcement report
  3. The Supreme Court allowed state bans on transgender student participation in women’s sports in separate cases. Reuters Supreme Court report
  4. The sports executive order directed federal Title IX enforcement against transgender participation in female athletic categories. White House order

Sources

Voting•Executive orders

Trump tried to require citizenship documents for voting

First issued: Mar 25, 2025•Latest update: Jul 27, 2026
Blocked

Trump sought proof-of-citizenship documents for federal voter registration and new federal limits on mail ballots.

See source
See details

What happened

  • The March 2025 order sought documentary proof of citizenship for the federal voter-registration form.
  • It also tried to stop states from counting mail ballots that arrive after Election Day.
  • Courts permanently blocked major parts of the 2025 order.
  • A second order in March 2026 created new citizenship-verification and mail-ballot systems, but courts blocked key provisions in several states.

Why it matters

The rules would create extra barriers for voters without passports, people with name differences across documents and people who struggle to obtain citizenship records.

What the administration says

The administration says the rules prevent noncitizen voting and require mail ballots to arrive by Election Day.

Update history

  1. After appellate losses, the administration asked the Supreme Court to permit key mail-ballot restrictions before the 2026 midterms. Reuters court report
  2. A second order called for a federal citizenship-based voter list and unique identifiers for mailed ballots. White House order
  3. A federal judge permanently blocked the proof-of-citizenship requirement. Reuters court report
  4. The first election executive order required proof of citizenship and sought limits on late-arriving mail ballots. White House order

Sources

Policing•Justice Department action

Justice Department ends several police-reform cases

First issued: May 21, 2025•Latest update: Aug 2, 2026
Active

The Justice Department moved to dismiss proposed consent decrees and closed or withdrew findings from several investigations of police departments.

See source
See details

What happened

  • The Department moved to dismiss proposed consent decrees in Louisville and Minneapolis.
  • It also closed investigations or withdrew findings involving Phoenix, Memphis, Trenton, Mount Vernon, Oklahoma City and Louisiana State Police.
  • The cases included allegations of excessive force, discriminatory stops and arrests, disability failures and unlawful responses to behavioral-health crises.
  • State and local reforms may continue, but federal pattern-or-practice pressure was reduced.

Why it matters

Federal oversight of alleged excessive force, discriminatory policing and failures involving people with disabilities or mental-health crises was reduced.

What the administration says

The Justice Department says the prior investigations overreached, weakened local policing and relied too heavily on federal control.

Update history

  1. The Department has not restored the withdrawn findings or proposed decrees covered by this entry. Tracker status review
  2. The Justice Department announced dismissal of proposed consent decrees and closure or withdrawal of multiple police investigations. Justice Department

Sources

Healthcare•Statute

New law cuts Medicaid, ACA and SNAP support

First issued: Jul 4, 2025•Latest update: Aug 2, 2026
Active

Public Law 119-21 added Medicaid work reporting, changed Affordable Care Act rules, expanded SNAP work requirements and shifted more costs to states.

See source
See details

What happened

  • Many Medicaid expansion adults must document at least 80 hours each month of work, education, community service or another qualifying activity, unless exempt.
  • SNAP work rules generally expand to adults through age 64, while some exemptions become narrower.
  • States must take on more SNAP administrative and benefit costs and use new eligibility checks.
  • The Congressional Budget Office found that lower-income households would lose resources while higher-income households would gain over 2026 to 2034.
  • Estimates differ, but all major analyses project that millions will lose coverage or benefits.

Why it matters

Independent analyses project that millions of people will lose health coverage or food assistance, with larger effects on low-income Black, Latino and Native households because they use these programs at higher rates.

What the administration says

Supporters say the law reduces fraud, encourages work, controls federal spending and focuses benefits on eligible recipients.

Update history

  1. Major eligibility and work-reporting parts continue to phase in, with timing varying by program and state implementation. Tracker status review
  2. CBO published a distributional analysis finding reduced resources for lower-income households and increased resources higher in the distribution. Congressional Budget Office
  3. President Trump signed Public Law 119-21, creating major Medicaid, ACA and SNAP changes. Congressional law

Sources

Healthcare•Statute and agency funding action

Planned Parenthood funding temporarily blocked

First issued: Apr 1, 2025•Latest update: Jul 5, 2026
Blocked

A federal law temporarily stopped Medicaid payments to certain reproductive-health providers, while the administration also froze Title X family-planning funds.

See source
See details

What happened

  • The 2025 law imposed a one-year Medicaid-payment ban on specified reproductive-health providers, including Planned Parenthood affiliates.
  • The ban covered Medicaid payment for non-abortion services as well as providers connected to abortion care.
  • It expired on July 4, 2026, but nearly 30 clinics had reportedly closed and not all services returned.
  • Separately, Title X payments were withheld from 144 Planned Parenthood sites in 20 states in spring 2025.

Why it matters

Clinics lost revenue and some closed, reducing access to birth control, cancer screening and sexually transmitted infection testing.

What the administration says

Supporters wanted to stop federal money from going to organizations associated with abortion, even though the affected funds also paid for non-abortion care.

Update history

  1. The one-year funding ban expired and Medicaid billing resumed, although closed clinics and lost services were not automatically restored. Associated Press
  2. Public Law 119-21 began a one-year Medicaid-payment exclusion for specified providers. Congressional law
  3. The administration withheld Title X family-planning payments from multiple grantees, including Planned Parenthood affiliates. KFF analysis

Sources

Healthcare•Agency grant action

NIH and HHS cut minority-health and LGBTQ+ research

First issued: Mar 1, 2025•Latest update: Jan 5, 2026
In court

Federal health agencies ended or withheld grants involving racial health gaps, LGBTQ+ health, gender identity, environmental health and DEI-related research.

See source
See details

What happened

  • NIH ended or withheld grants involving racial disparities, LGBTQ+ health, gender identity, environmental health and DEI-related priorities.
  • The National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities experienced one of the largest proportional losses during the first round of cuts.
  • A federal judge ruled many terminations unlawful, but the Supreme Court later allowed diversity-related cuts to continue while litigation proceeded.
  • In December 2025, NIH agreed to re-review thousands of applications affected by the policy.

Why it matters

Studies stopped or slowed, researchers lost funding and evidence gaps grew in areas where affected communities already receive less research attention.

What the administration says

The administration says federal research should avoid DEI ideology and focus on scientific merit and national priorities.

Update history

  1. A separate appeals-court ruling continued to block steep across-the-board NIH indirect-cost cuts. Reuters court report
  2. NIH reached a settlement with 16 states requiring re-review of thousands of affected grant applications. Reuters health-litigation overview
  3. The Supreme Court allowed the administration to continue diversity-related NIH grant cuts while the case continues. Reuters court report
  4. A federal judge ruled that the diversity-related NIH grant terminations were unlawful and ordered relief for the plaintiffs. Reuters court report

Sources

Employment•Workforce policy

Federal job cuts hit groups heavily represented in government

First issued: Jan 20, 2025•Latest update: Aug 2, 2026
Active

Large federal workforce cuts affected a workforce where Black employees, veterans and people with disabilities are represented at higher rates than in many private-sector jobs.

See source
See details

What happened

  • Before the cuts, Black employees made up about 18.6% of the federal workforce, compared with about 12.8% of the civilian workforce overall.
  • Federal jobs have historically provided stable middle-class employment, structured pay and stronger representation for veterans and workers with disabilities.
  • Because these groups are more represented in federal employment, broad cuts can affect them more even when layoff rules do not mention race.
  • Complete demographic data on separations are limited, so this entry is graded as a reasoned inference rather than a fully measured outcome.

Why it matters

Broad layoffs can cause larger employment and wealth losses in these groups, although complete demographic data on who lost jobs are still limited.

What the administration says

The administration says the cuts reduce waste, improve accountability and make government smaller.

Update history

  1. Comprehensive race-by-race separation data remain incomplete, limiting a definitive estimate of the disparate effect. Tracker status review
  2. Pew reported that the federal workforce had contracted by roughly 10% during Trump’s first year back in office. Pew workforce analysis
  3. The administration began broad workforce-reduction, hiring-freeze and restructuring efforts across federal agencies. Pew workforce background

Sources

Immigration•State Department policy and court ruling

75-country immigrant visa issuance pause struck down

First issued: Jan 21, 2026•Latest update: Aug 21, 2026
Blocked

The State Department paused immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries in January 2026 based on public-benefits concerns. A federal court vacated the policy in August, and the department says the pause is no longer in effect.

See source
See details

What happened

  • The State Department paused immigrant visa issuance beginning January 21, 2026, for nationals of 75 countries.
  • The pause applied to immigrant visas rather than every nonimmigrant visa and was separate from broader travel restrictions.
  • A federal judge ruled the blanket nationality-based suspension exceeded the Secretary of State’s authority.
  • The State Department says that as of August 21, 2026, the pause is no longer in effect.

Why it matters

The pause delayed or prevented immigrant visas for family, employment and other applicants across dozens of countries. After the August ruling, those applications can again move through the normal visa process, subject to other restrictions.

What the administration says

The administration said the pause was needed while it reviewed screening and vetting policies for applicants considered at higher risk of becoming a public charge.

Update history

  1. Following a federal court order, the State Department ended the 75-country immigrant visa issuance pause. State Department update
  2. The State Department paused immigrant visa issuance to nationals of 75 countries. State Department policy

Sources

Healthcare•Grant conditions and litigation

New Title X family-planning grant conditions challenged

First issued: Aug 27, 2026•Latest update: Aug 27, 2026
In court

New federal conditions on Title X family-planning funding are being challenged by states and providers over requirements tied to sex, DEI and family-planning priorities.

See source
See details

What happened

  • A coalition of states filed suit on August 27, 2026, challenging new federal conditions attached to Title X family-planning funds.
  • The challenged conditions include requirements related to the administration’s policies on sex, DEI and family-planning counseling.
  • The lawsuit argues HHS imposed conditions without proper rulemaking and attached requirements that are unclear or unrelated to the underlying grant statute.
  • The case is pending, so the tracker classifies the policy as In court rather than Active or Blocked.

Why it matters

The dispute could affect federal funding for clinics that provide contraception, cancer screening, STI services and other preventive care, especially for low-income and uninsured patients.

What the administration says

The administration has said federal grant programs should comply with its policies on sex, nondiscrimination and family-planning priorities. Challengers argue the conditions exceed federal authority and conflict with Title X.

Update history

  1. Twenty-three states filed a federal lawsuit challenging the new Title X grant conditions. State coalition lawsuit

Sources

Voting•Federal database expansion and Supreme Court order

Expanded federal voter-citizenship database restored by Supreme Court

First issued: Jan 1, 2025•Latest update: Sep 25, 2026
In court

The administration expanded the SAVE immigration database so states can conduct bulk citizenship checks on voter rolls using Social Security numbers and other federal records. On September 25, 2026, the Supreme Court allowed the expanded system to operate while litigation continues.

See source
See details

What happened

  • DHS redesigned the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database to support bulk searches and searches using Social Security numbers.
  • A federal district judge blocked the expanded system in June 2026, citing privacy and reliability concerns, and the D.C. Circuit declined to lift that block on September 4.
  • On September 25, the Supreme Court stayed the lower-court order, allowing the expanded system to operate while the case continues.
  • The Supreme Court’s order does not require states to use SAVE, and the underlying legal challenge remains unresolved.

Why it matters

States can again use the federal system for large-scale voter eligibility checks. Supporters say it helps identify noncitizen registrations; challengers say errors can wrongly flag eligible voters, especially naturalized citizens.

What the administration says

The administration says expanded access to federal citizenship data helps states protect election integrity and identify noncitizens who are not eligible to vote.

Update history

  1. The Supreme Court stayed the lower-court block, allowing states to use the expanded SAVE system while litigation continues. Reuters Supreme Court report
  2. The D.C. Circuit declined to lift the lower-court block on the expanded SAVE voter-verification system. Reuters appeals-court report

Sources

Immigration•Presidential proclamation and litigation

$100,000 H-1B visa fee extended but blocked in court

First issued: Sep 19, 2025•Latest update: Sep 30, 2026
Blocked

The administration extended for another year a $100,000 payment requirement for many new H-1B petitions filed for workers outside the United States. Federal courts have blocked implementation while challenges proceed.

See source
See details

What happened

  • The September 2025 proclamation conditioned entry for many new H-1B workers outside the United States on a $100,000 payment, subject to limited exceptions.
  • On September 18, 2026, the White House extended the restrictions for another 12 months.
  • A federal judge in Boston had already blocked the presidential fee in June 2026; an appeals court declined to pause that ruling in July.
  • On September 30, 2026, a second federal judge blocked implementation in another lawsuit, finding the agencies had not followed required rulemaking procedures.

Why it matters

If ultimately allowed, the fee would sharply increase the cost of sponsoring many new H-1B workers. For now, court orders prevent the administration from collecting the presidentially imposed fee in the challenged cases.

What the administration says

The administration says the higher payment deters abuse of the H-1B program, protects U.S. workers and encourages employers to recruit only highly skilled or essential foreign workers.

Update history

  1. A second federal judge blocked the presidentially imposed H-1B fee while litigation continues. Reuters court report
  2. The White House extended the $100,000 H-1B payment restriction for another year. White House proclamation

Sources

Healthcare•Civil-rights guidance

HHS clarifies civil-rights protections against antisemitic discrimination

First issued: Sep 3, 2026•Latest update: Sep 3, 2026
Active

HHS issued guidance explaining how Title VI and Section 1557 can apply when antisemitic discrimination in federally funded healthcare, medical education, research or related programs is rooted in protected race, color or national-origin characteristics.

See source
See details

What happened

  • The September 3 Dear Colleague letter applies to healthcare providers and other entities receiving HHS federal financial assistance.
  • HHS explains that antisemitic discrimination may violate Title VI when it is based on actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics tied to race, color or national origin.
  • Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act can also apply in covered health programs and activities.
  • The guidance does not create a new protected class; it explains how existing federal civil-rights laws apply to covered antisemitic discrimination.

Why it matters

Healthcare organizations and other HHS funding recipients received clearer notice that some antisemitic conduct can trigger federal civil-rights obligations and enforcement.

What the administration says

HHS says the guidance is intended to vigorously combat antisemitic discrimination while applying existing federal civil-rights statutes to covered programs and activities.

Update history

  1. HHS OCR issued guidance clarifying how federal civil-rights laws apply to discrimination rooted in antisemitism in HHS-funded programs. HHS guidance

Sources

0 selected
Choose up to three policies.