The proliferation of anti-LGBTQ bills proposed by state legislatures across the country, which ticked up dramatically in 2021 and has since increased year-over-year, looks different in 2025.

Efforts that once focused on school sports and pediatric gender care have now broadened, as many advocates warned they would, to target adult life and the legal scaffolding of hard-won freedoms like same-sex marriage.

LGBTQ issues remain fraught political battlegrounds, but the fight has shifted to driver’s licenses, hospital policies, state-worker speech rules, and even marriage licenses — exposing these communities to greater risk of civil-rights violations.

This shift comes at a moment when legal avenues for challenging discrimination by state governments or the Trump-Vance administration have narrowed significantly, even as rhetorical and political attacks intensify.

The new types of bills

By the numbers, this year is shaping up to be the worst in recent memory. The ACLU tracked 520 anti-LGBTQ bills in 2023, 533 in 2024, and by February the organization had already logged 339, an accelerated pace for 2025.

Predictably, these legislative efforts are clustered in conservative places like Texas, where state lawmakers teed up 32 anti-trans bills on the first day of pre-filing for 2025, as GLAAD noted.

At the same time, however, the group reports that the year kicked off with similar activity in far bluer statehouses located in places like Massachusetts, Colorado, and New York.

The new crop of bills share some distinguishing features. For instance, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, and Illinois are considering (or have enacted, in Alabama’s case) proposals to adopt restrictive definitions of sex and gender.

Not only does the establishment of a legal definition for gender based on a fixed binary that must be determined by one’s sex at birth exclude the recognition of people who are trans or have other gender diverse identities, but it also carries significant downstream impacts.

President Donald Trump has already demonstrated how this can work. Issued on the first day of his second term, his Executive Order 14168 recast “sex” across all federal policy as a fixed category that is limited to “male” or “female,” defined at “conception,” and unchangeable.

Pursuant to the order, the administration mandated that agencies replace all mention of “gender” with “sex,” strip gender self-identification options from passports, and halt funding for anything deemed “gender ideology,” including gender‑affirming care.

With respect to restrictions on gender markers on passports and official documents, the consequences for Americans who are not cisgender are far-reaching, touching areas of their lives from housing to employment and travel.

Georgia, meanwhile, previewed how conservative lawmakers can restrict guideline-directed best practices medical interventions for not just transgender youth, but adults as well, with a bill introduced this year that would bar coverage by state employees’ health benefits plans.

Georgia has also enacted a law prohibiting all gender-affirming care (hormones, surgeries, and even personal funding of such care) for incarcerated individuals in state prisons, which came after Trump’s executive order requiring the Bureau of Prisons to halt funding for these treatments and move trans women inmates into men’s facilities.

Broadened healthcare restrictions did not necessarily start this year, however. Florida passed a law in 2023, for example, that requires trans adults to receive in-person, state-approved informed consent for gender-affirming care, while banning nurse practitioners and telehealth delivery of such treatments, thereby limiting access for patients.

Following years of conservative activism focused on censoring pro-LGBTQ speech from schools — banning books and other materials with gay or trans characters or themes; restricting classroom instruction on matters of sexual orientation and gender identity — some states have taken a new tack in 2025: protecting anti-LGBTQ speech.

Once again, the scope of these efforts now extends beyond educational institutions and their focus is broadened from youth to youth and adults.

Montana’s Free to Speak Act, enacted in May, protects students and public employees from being disciplined for refusing to use a person’s preferred name or pronouns, establishing a private right of action allowing affected individuals to sue for injunctive relief, monetary damages, and attorney fees.

Lawmakers in Florida are going even further with a proposal that would bar public employers from requiring the use of trans individuals’ preferred pronouns, remove “nonbinary” as an option on state job applications, and make LGBTQ+ cultural competence training optional rather than mandatory.

Marriage equality under fire

On Monday, news outlets around the world reported on the return of Kim Davis. The thrice divorced former Kentucky county clerk has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear her case, which seeks to overturn the High Court’s precedent setting ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that established marriage equality as the law of the land in 2015.

Some legal experts believe the gambit is a long shot. Others are less confident, pointing to the establishment of a 6-3 conservative supermajority in October 2020 and Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring statement in the 2022 decision overturning abortion rights, where he expressed interest in revisiting the marriage decision.

In what may be a harbinger of another battle over same-sex marriage, or a sign that the matter was never settled in the first place, five states this year have considered non-binding resolutions asking the justices to overturn Obergefell: South Dakota, North Dakota, Idaho, Michigan, and Montana.

Other measures have been more concrete. In Tennessee and several other states, lawmakers introduced “covenant marriage” bills defining marriage as a union between “one male and one female” with heightened divorce restrictions — a move that would effectively exclude same-sex couples from that marital track. While none have yet been passed or enacted, they illustrate how legislatures can reshape marriage law without directly challenging Obergefell.

Such bills raise a potential clash with the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation passed during the Biden-Harris administration that requires states to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere but does not require them to issue licenses.

Washington Blade courtesy of the National LGBTQ Media Association.