The Trump Administration has issued several Executive Orders targeting the transgender community. Whether that be pushing for restrictions to medically necessary and life-saving health care, questioning the ability of transgender individuals to honorably serve in our armed forces, or erasing terms from the federal government’s vocabulary, the Trump Administration continues to ignore established, scientifically-based norms.

There are four Executive Orders affecting transgender persons. Two are summarized here, though the legal issues presented, and the Colorado specific responses, apply broadly. They are:

1. EO 14168: Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.
2. EO 14183: Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness
3. EO 14187: Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation
4. EO 14201: Keeping Men out of Women’s Sports

EO 14168: Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.

Summary:

EO 14168 establishes a federal policy that defines sex as determined at birth by a person’s biological characteristics (also called “natal sex” or “sex at birth”) and cannot be changed. It states there are “two sexes, male and female,” and mandates that the federal government refer to individuals by their [natal] sex instead of their gender identity. It also further prohibits the use of federal funds “to promote gender ideology.”

What EO 14168 does: 

• Establishes that federal agencies are only to recognize two sexes, male and female, determined at conception.
• Eliminates the legal recognition of gender identity from any federal policy or documents (including passports and government employee records).
• Ends the protections for transgender individuals put in place during the Biden Administration, and rescinds previous presidential orders protecting the rights and affirming existence of transgender people.
• Blocks federal funding for gender-affirming programs.
• Removes gender-inclusive policies from federal agencies.
• Restricts transgender access in traditionally single-sex spaces to their natal sex (e.g., prisons, shelters)
• Places limitations on gender-affirming medical care for transgender individuals in federal custody.

Who EO 14168 Affects:

• Individuals who identify as transgender or nonbinary.
• Educational institutions (the order conflicts with Title IX’s gender identity protections).
• Those receiving federal grants and funding.
• Federally funded healthcare providers.

 **********

EO 14187: Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation

Summary:

Executive Order 14187 directs federal agencies to eliminate support, funding, and promotion of gender-affirming care (GAC) for minors. It takes aim at reputable scientific groups by disregarding guidance from medical authorities at the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), the Eleventh Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), and the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM-5).

What the EO Does:

• Prohibits federal support for GAC in individuals under 19.
• Orders the Secretary of Health and Human Services to revoke WPATH-based policies and issue new guidance on gender dysphoria.
• Directs federal agencies to cut off grants to institutions providing GAC.
• Excludes coverage of GAC for federally funded health plans (e.g., TRICARE, federal employees, U.S. Postal Service employees).
• Instructs the Department of Justice to look into creating a private right of action against medical professionals who provide GAC, taking custody away from parents who support GAC for their children, and consider actions against “sanctuary” states (a term that the administration may apply to Colorado).

Who It Affects:

• Transgender and nonbinary youth under age 19 seeking gender-affirming healthcare.
• Medical providers and institutions offering pediatric gender-affirming care.
• Federal employees and military families relying on TRICARE or FEHB insurance.
• Parents and guardians supporting children’s access to transition-related care.
• Federal agencies responsible for healthcare, education, insurance, and civil rights.

**********

Analysis of Transgender-Related Executive Orders

Legal issues presented:

• Federal: In Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), the US Supreme Court determined that discrimination against transgender individuals constitutes unlawful discrimination based on sex, one of the protected classes named in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, these EOs are likely in conflict with the following federal laws, which could be actionable avenues for lawsuits against the administration:
  • Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex in health care programs that receive federal funding.
  • Titles VII and IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits discrimination based on sex in employment and education settings.

Colorado-Specific Response

• Several state legislators and interest groups have been working to protect the rights of transgender individuals in Colorado throughout the 2025 legislative session. These efforts include the following bills:
  • HB25-1145: Trafficking Minor for Abortion or Transgender Care – was postponed indefinitely by the House Committee on Judiciary. The bill would have made it a class 2 felony if someone brings a minor from another state into Colorado for the purpose of assisting the minor in obtaining gender-affirming health-care services. Other class 2 felonies include second-degree murder, first-degree kidnapping, sexual assault, and child abuse, among others. The bill failed on a vote of 4-7.
  • HB25-1309: Protect Access to Gender-Affirming Care – passed the House Committee on Health and Human Services and is set to be heard by the House Committee of the Whole as of 4/3/2025. The bill will make sure that private insurers in the State of Colorado continue to cover GAC in the event protections from the ACA are taken away.
  • HB25-1312: Legal Protections for Transgender Individuals – passed the House Committee on Judiciary and is set to be heard by the House Committe of the Whole as of 4/3/2025. This bill would put protections for transgender individuals in place in several settings, including in child custody determinations, schools, and public accommodations.

Summary:

Executive Order (EO) 14218 was signed by President Trump on February 19, 2025. The EO directs federal agencies to identify and realign programs to prevent undocumented individuals from receiving public benefits. This EO is redundant as there is already established federal law limiting benefits to undocumented individuals. However, the EO unjustly targets undocumented individuals by inaccurately assuming that undocumented individuals do not contribute in the form of taxes.

What EO 14218 does:

• Requires federal agencies to identify and adjust programs that may allow undocumented immigrants access to public benefits.
• Ensures federal payments to states do not promote illegal immigration or support sanctuary policies.
• Enhances eligibility verification systems to prevent ineligible individuals from receiving benefits.
• Directs the DOJ and DHS to investigate and address improper use of federal benefits.
• In the next 30 days, the Order also requires the OMB Director and the DOGE Administrator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, to (1) identify all other sources of federal funding for undocumented immigrants; and (2) recommend additional actions to align federal spending with the purpose of the EO.

Who it affects:

• Undocumented immigrants: Faces increased scrutiny and potential deterrence from seeking services.
• Legal immigrants: May be affected due to stricter verification processes, despite eligibility for certain benefits.
• S. citizens relying on public benefits: Increased paperwork and delays in accessing services like Medicaid and SNAP.
• State and local governments, hospitals, and nonprofits: Could see reduced funding for services that assist low-income individuals, including emergency medical care.

Legal issues presented:

• Existing laws (PRWORA of 1996) already bar most undocumented immigrants from federal benefits, raising questions about the necessity of the EO.
• Emergency medical treatment laws (EMTALA) require hospitals to treat patients regardless of status, which could conflict with stricter funding rules.
• Potential discrimination and legal challenges: Overburdening verification processes could unlawfully impact U.S. citizens and legal residents.

Colorado-specific response and impacts:

• Colorado, with its significant immigrant population, may see increased fear among undocumented communities leading to reduced use of critical services.
• State-funded programs providing supplemental assistance to immigrants may face political and financial pressure.
• Hospitals and social service organizations could struggle with funding constraints for emergency and safety-net services.
• Advocacy groups are expected to challenge any measures that disproportionately harm immigrant communities.

Sources:

• https://www.nilc.org/articles/five-things-to-know-about-the-executive-order-targeting-immigrants-and-federal-assistance-programs/

Summary:

Executive Order (EO) 14224 is an attempt for the President to designate English as the official language of the United States. The reasoning being by this current Administration for an official language include that it fosters a national identity, makes communication easier, and promotes civic engagement. The Order also removed previous federal mandates requiring multilingual services and guidance and revoked EO 13166 (ensuring access to federal services for limited English speakers).

What EO 14224 does:

• Declares English as the official language of the federal government.
• Revokes Executive Order 13166 (2000) that obligated the federal government to provide services in multiple languages (although they are not required to remove existing services, they are not allowed to maintain or expand them).
• Directs the Attorney General to rescind any policy guidance related to multilingual government services.

Who it affects:

• Non-English speakers or those with only limited English proficiency.
• Government agencies.
• Businesses and Contractors who provide translation and interpretation services to the federal government.
• State and local governments that may choose to change their language policies.

Implementation:

Implementation was intended to be immediate upon publication of the order.

Legal issues presented:

• Colorado is responsible for compliance with current civil rights law that bar discrimination on the basis of national origin. These include both state[1] and federal[2] laws prohibiting discrimination. If Colorado were to comply with this EO, it would be in violation of existing law.
• Potential conflict with previous rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court relating to language access and non-English-speaking residents.[3]
• Possible First Amendment violations relating to restriction of communication and public participation.

Colorado-specific response and impacts:

• Colorado has significant Spanish speaking population, upholds the rights extended to undocumented individuals, and has generally pro-immigration policies. If funding for state-level language access programs depends on federal funding, these programs may be at risk.
• Colorado is responsible for compliance with current civil rights law that bar discrimination on the basis of national origin. These include both state[4] and federal[5] laws prohibiting discrimination. If Colorado were to comply with this EO, it would be in violation of existing law.
• Currently, a language access bill is working its way through the Colorado legislature that would increase language access in Colorado State Departments. The proposed legislation would assess current language access practices across state departments and provide recommendations for a statewide language access policy. The bill would create programs and practices that would be in direct opposition to EO 14224 and could lead to conflict between the state and the executive branch of the federal government.

**********

[1] See, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-402 (2023) prohibiting discrimination on the basis national origin in employment (regardless of size); C.R.S. § 24-34-502 (2023) prohibiting discrimination on the basis of national origin in housing; C.R.S. § 24-34-601 (2023) prohibiting the denial of full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations based on national origin.

[2] See, e.g., the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause has been interpreted by SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) to include an equal protection component that prohibits the federal government from engaging in discrimination on the basis of national origin. U.S. Const. amend. V.; the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from denying any person equal protection of the laws due to national origin. U.S. Const. amend. XIV.; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (2021); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal funding assistance on the basis of national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (2021); Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of citizenship or immigration status in hiring, firing, and recruitment practices. 8 U.S.C. § 1324b (2021).

[3] See, e.g., Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) which struck down a Nebraska law prohibiting the teaching of foreign languages to young children, affirming the right of individuals to engage in educational instruction in languages other than English and Lau v. Nichols (1974) which held that providing English only curriculum to non-English-speaking students violated their rights to equal protection if they could not understand the instruction.

[4] (1) C.R.S. § 24-34-402 (2023) – Prohibits discrimination based on national origin in employment (regardless of size). (2) C.R.S. § 24-34-502 (2023) – Prohibits discrimination based on national origin in housing. (3) C.R.S. § 24-34-601 (2023) – Prohibits the denial of full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations based on national origin.

[5] (1) Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – the Due Process Clause has been interpreted by the SCOTUS to include an equal protection component that prohibits the federal government from engaging in discrimination based on national origin. U.S. Const. amend. V.; (2) Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – the Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from denying any person equal protection of the laws due to national origin. U.S. Const. amend. XIV. (3) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – prohibits employment discrimination based on national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (2021); (4) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – prohibits discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal funding assistance based on national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (2021); (5) Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 – prohibits employment discrimination based on citizenship or immigration status in hiring, firing, and recruitment practices. 8 U.S.C. § 1324b (2021).

Summary:

Executive Order 14230 (EO 14230) directly targets the law firm Perkins Coie LLP, accusing the firm of “undermining democracy” for their role in commissioning the Steele Dossier^[1] and alleging that the firm continues to use race-based hiring quotas.^[2] This EO’s direct attack on a law firm appears to be an attempt to deter legal challenges to the Administration’s policies, which has been the primary tool for addressing the Executive Branch’s questionable policies.

What EO 14230 Mandates:

• The immediate suspension of government security clearances of PC employees;
• The review, restriction, or termination of government contracts with PC and affiliated entities;
• Discourages the hiring of former PC employees;
• For federal employees to limit interactions with PC employees and limit their access to federal buildings;
• For federal employees to limit interactions with federal employees; and
• An investigation into any large law firm for racial discrimination (i.e., for continuing DEI hiring practices and programs).

Who EO 14230 Affects:

• Current, former, and future employees of Perkins Coie LLP.
• Businesses and individuals that are, or would like to become, federal contractors.
• Large law firms.
• Any business, state government, advocate, or individual that has or is planning to voice or act in opposition to the Trump Administration and its policies.

Colorado-Specific Impacts:

Any Colorado-based entity that has contracted with PC is potentially at risk for increased scrutiny and possible negative consequences. Additionally, Colorado-based firms and possibly other planning to use legal advocacy methods that promote conflicting positions on issues such as voting rights, civil rights, or election reform may fear similar repercussions and cease their work on these issues.

Response:

• PC filed a lawsuit on March 6, 2025, naming several government agencies (e.g., DOJ, EEOC, NIA, OPM, GSA, OMB, and FCC) contesting the termination of government contracts, denial of the firm’s access to federal buildings and employees, and the suspension of their employees’ security clearances.
• PC sought a declaratory judgment as to the constitutionality of the Order, an immediate injunction to stop the implementation of the Order while a court reviews the case, followed by preliminary and permanent injunctions, as well as a temporary restraining order (TRO) and proposed order enjoining only certain sections of the Order.
• PC argued that EO 14230 uses executive power to bully those who the President perceives as a political adversary. Among their claims, PC argues that EO 14230 violates several of their Constitutional rights, including those to due process, equal protection, free speech and association, and to counsel.
• PC also argues that, left in place, the order will have an “immediate chilling effect” and likely discourage those to voice dissenting opinions and the engagement in legal advocacy.
• On March 12th, 2025, PC’s request for a TRO blocking Sections 1, 3, and 5 was granted. PC did not request the TRO to apply to Sections 2 or 4.

——

^[1] Perkins Coie was hired by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign to conduct opposition research on Trump amidst the 2016 election, resulting in allegations about Trump’s ties to Russia.

^[2] In violation of previous Executive Orders (see, e.g., Executive Orders 14151, 14168, and 14173), which terminated and banned the use of DEI-related personnel and programs.

References:

• Complaint, Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 1:25-cv-00716 (D.D.C. Mar. 11, 2025).
• Exec. Order No. 14230, 90 Fed. Reg. 11781 (Mar. 6, 2025).
• Just Security, Tracker: Litigation and Legal Challenges to the Trump Administration, JUSTSECURITY.ORG (Mar. 2025)

Summary

This EO states an intention to increase the overall efficiency of processes for selecting and recruiting government employees. Agencies are directed to enact a process that prioritizes candidates committed to government efficiency and the “ideals of our American republic,” without consideration of race, sex or religion.

Implications

• The new Federal Hiring Plan, or FHP, must be distributed to agencies within 120 days.  

• • The stated goal of this FHP will be to bring to the federal workforce only “highly skilled Americans” dedicated to the furtherance of American ideals, values, and interests  

• • FHP shall take into account integrating modern technology to support the recruitment and selection process and the introduction of specific “best practices” for the human resources functions in federal agencies.  

• There are concerning elements in this EO. To start, algorithms, which are likely the “modern technology” referenced, that are non-transparent or not validated may have discriminatory impact.

• There is also a question about how the FHP would define “highly skilled,’” in a context where the administration has already laid off highly skilled federal employees at U.S.A.I.D., the National Science Foundation, the Department of Education, and other agencies, in accordance with other EOs. Yet this EO purports to only hire “highly skilled” and aligned with the “furtherance of American ideals.” How American ideals are characterized is highly subjective, and subject to manipulation.    

• This EO also emphasizes that federal employees should not be hired based on what it terms impermissible factors, such as one’s commitment to illegal racial discrimination under the guise of “equity,” or one’s commitment to the invented concept of “gender identity” over sex. However, federal laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disability Act of 1990, continue to prohibit discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, and other factors.

Colorado response & impacts

This EO as written does not appear to have an immediate impact on Coloradans, as the FHP still has to be developed. However, there is an implication that the skill sets of terminated federal employees in Colorado – many of whom have extensive experience and are highly skilled – were not recognized in the waves of terminations that have already occurred. This EO seems to contemplate that qualities other than experience and expertise will be prioritized if those positions are re-filled.

Sources

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Summary

This EO puts forward measures to ensure Presidential supervision and control of the entire executive branch by requiring independent agencies to “submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Executive Office of the President before publication in the Federal Register.” In other words, the EO seeks to put all independent agencies under the purview and direction of the President.

Implications 

• The implementation of this EO can result in a significant restructuring of the U.S. regulatory system, a system that has been in place in one way or another since the 1930s and more significantly from the New Deal. 

• This EO challenges long-standing interpretation of the separation of powers and creates questions surrounding what to expect from the future actions of independent regulatory agencies created by Congress as defined in 44 U.S.C. § 3502(5), including the SEC, CFTC, FERC, EPA, FTC, FCC, NLRB, CFPB, and the ITC.  

• By implementing this EO, the President can exercise power over agencies such as: 

• • The Consumer Safety Product Commission – issues recall and safety warnings 

• • Securities and Exchange Commission – overseas markets 

• • Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation – insures bank deposits  

• More specifically this EO:  

• • Creates significant oversight and review of regulatory actions; “submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) [a presidential office] . . . before publication in the Federal Register” 

• • Provides for the interpretation of law (a judicial branch power), stating that the President and Attorney General “shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch” which will be “controlling” on executive branch employees and who may not “contravene[]” those opinions, including any “regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation” unless “authorized” in writing by the President or Attorney General 

• • Requires agencies to establish a White House liaison and consult with the White House liaison and the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) personnel on an ongoing basis to ensure the agencies’ activities are consistent with and advance the President’s policies and priorities. 

Colorado Response and Impact 

• Timelines to finalize regulations is likely to be longer, due to the additional requirement that the White House review regulations prior to publication. When regulation would benefit Colorado consumers, whether it involves air quality or consumer protections, relief will be delayed.

• Empowering the President and Attorney General to interpret the law for the executive branch, rather than relying on the expertise of experienced agency staff, may result in regulation that is unpredictable or unworkable, and that serves narrow political aims rather than implementing the goals of the legislative branch. This uncertainty and variability will affect Colorado businesses and consumers.

• Suit was filed on Feb. 28, 2025, by the Democratic National Committee. The case is ongoing.

Summary 

This EO gives the Department of Government Efficiency the directives to reduce the federal workforce, decrease hiring rations, and give final approval to agency heads on whether they can hire for a position. Specifically, the EO directs agency leaders to prioritize the reduction of forces not mandated by statute or other law. The EO points out agency diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives as an example. It also mandates that the reduction plans include a parameter that the agency is to not hire more than one person for every four that leave. This 1:4 ratio does not apply to public safety, immigration, or law enforcement positions. The EO also orders that agency heads may not fill vacancies that the DOGE team lead assesses should not be filled; however, can override DOGE’s assessment if necessary. The EO does not apply to military personnel and agency heads can exempt positions they identify as “necessary to meet national security, homeland security, or public safety responsibilities.”    

Implications 

• This EO can impact more than 2 million civilian federal workers.  

• Will require DOGE team leads to provide a monthly hiring report for each agency. 

• Agency heads have 30 days within the date of the order (02/11/2025) to submit their reduction in force plans.  

Colorado Response and Impact 

The National Treasury Employees Union has brought suit against President Trump for this EO, alleging that it violates the separation of powers, and asking for agency heads to be prevented from implementing reductions in force. Read the complaint here.

Colorado has roughly 57,000 federal employees, the 16th most federal workers of any state. Federal agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Health and Human Services (HHS), and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have regional offices in Denver and Boulder, meaning that many workers in Colorado will probably be affected by this EO. Functioning of these agencies and Colorado’s ability to conduct joint state-federal activities will also be adversely affected.  

In preparation for these layoffs, both the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment and the Statewide Workforce System are working to support Coloradans affected. If you are impacted, you can visit https://cdle.colorado.gov/unemployment to file an unemployment claim.  

February 26, 2025, the Office of Management and Budget released a memorandum providing guidance on these reduction in force plans, with a deadline of March 13, 2025. This memo outlines the timeframes and tasks to execute this EO.

Sources

• EO on Implemening the DOGE Workforce Optimization Initiative, Economic Policy Institute, published February 12, 2025.
• President Trump Issues Executive Order to Advance “Large-Scale” Reductions in Federal Workforce, Latham & Watkins, LLP, published February 14, 2025.
• How many federal employees are there in Colorado?, Fox 31 Denver, published February 26, 2025.

Summary

This EO has to do with federal agencies, of which Colorado has many, and federal grantees, including “environmental justice” grantees. The Director of Office of Management and Budget and other agencies are directed to terminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs in the federal government as well as “equity-related” grants and contracts. Funding for environmental projects is also specifically targeted. See full order here.

Implications

• Directs agencies to place all employees of DEIA offices on administrative leave while the agencies take steps to end all DEIA offices and programs.
• Agencies have been directed to send agency-wide notice to all employees informing them of closure of these offices and asking them if they know of “any efforts to disguise these programs by using coded or imprecise language.”
• Agencies must report to OMB director a list of all employees in DEI and “environmental justice” positions, as well as related committees, programs, activities, services and budgets.
• Per the EO, terminations are limited by current law. Non-discrimination laws remain in effect and employers need to follow them.

Colorado Response & Impacts

The effects of this EO towards Colorado are extremely broad. The executive order affects all federal funding that goes to state agencies including to municipal, county, or local governments, to colleges and universities, and to nonprofit entities. It will also affect operations of federal entities in Colorado, such as the U.S. Air Force Academy, other military installations, and federal regional offices headquartered in Denver.

In addition to the $13 billion in federal dollars received by the state directly that could be affected by the executive order, Colorado received $12.9B in defense spending, $1.1B in environmental spending, and an unknown amount of funding went directly to other entities. Many Colorado institutions and organizations receive federally funded awards for their work and would be directly impacted. Per the Joint Budget Committee Appropriations Report Fiscal Year 2024-25, Colorado will receive about $13 billion dollars, which is almost 1/3 of the States revenue.

Colorado is a plaintiff in a case filed on January 28, 2025, that seeks to prevent an immediate freeze on funding under the authority of this executive order and others. State of New York v. Trump (D.R.I.). The court issued a Temporary Restraining Order on January 31, 2025 that prevents federal agencies from taking action to withhold funding on the basis of the executive order. See complaint here. See order here.

A second case that could affect Colorado was filed in Maryland on February 3, 2025. Plaintiffs include the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education and the American Association of University Professors. Do note that this case, while not directly challenging the EO, is related as it challenges a memorandum issued to effectuate this order. See complaint here. Update: On March 10, 2025, the federal district of Maryland clarified the scope of the national injunction and confirmed that certain provisions are likely unconstitutional.

Most recent actions

• There are 9 cases filed in federal court that challenge this EO. The one linked above led to a preliminary injunction on February 19, 2025.
• The government appealed on February 27, 2025.
• On March 10, 2025, the court clarified the preliminary injunction saying the government can’t pause, freeze, block, cancel, or terminate any awards, contracts, or obligations under the termination provision.

Summary

This EO interprets the 14th Amendment in a manner where birthright citizenship is no longer extended to all persons born in the United States. It is radical departure from the historical interpretation of the 14th amendment, which has been to guarantee citizenship at birth in almost all instances under the concept of “jus soli” which means that citizenship is acquired based on where a person is born. See full order here.

Implications

Effective 30 days after issuance of the order.

• Creates a new standard for citizenship
• Person does not acquire citizenship if: Mother was unlawfully present, and their father was not a citizen or lawful permanent resident at time of birth OR Mother’s presence was lawful but temporary (tourist, student, temporary worker) and the father was not a citizen or lawful permanent resident at time of birth
• EO prohibits the departments and agencies of the US government from issuing documents recognizing citizenship to persons born under those circumstances
• Prohibits departments and agencies from accepting document issued by state, local or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship
• This EO if in effect, would create a whole category of individuals stateless and without rights.

Colorado Response & Impacts

Colorado is one of many states who have joined together in a lawsuit against this EO Complaint, calling it unconstitutional.  

There are seven lawsuits filed across the county against this EO and on two of the matters nationwide injunctions have been granted stopping the implementation of the order. Update 3/13/2025: A third appellate court has upheld a block on Trump’s EO limiting birthright citizenship.

Most recent actions

1. A preliminary injunction was issued on February 13, 2025.
2. The Government appealed the injunction.
3. On March 11, 2025, the court declined to stay (lift) the injunction while the court takes up the appeal. The full docket is here.

Summary

This EO is very broad and impacts many immigration initiatives, programs, and enforcement actions. It calls for the immediate removal of those in the United States (U.S.) without legal status. It orders agencies to enforce removal orders, criminalize unauthorized entry into the U.S., extend Department of Homeland Security (DHS)’s presence in all 50 states, and construct detention facilities for those awaiting removal proceedings. This EO changes what had been the focus of immigration enforcement on prioritizing those who present a threat to national security or public safety to assuming all undocumented individuals present that threat. See the full order here.

Implications

Effective immediately; agencies must report on progress and conditions in 90 days.

• Requires any person who lacks an immigration status to “register” with the U.S. government, or be subject to criminal penalties, and those who fail to register will become priorities for immigration enforcement, regardless of criminal record. This sets the stage to turn all undocumented individuals into criminals for the “crime” of failing to register. This is similar to the post 9/11 National Security Entry Exit Registration System (NSEERS) that was ended in 2016 due to being ineffective, and resulted in abuses due to racial, ethnic and religious profiling.
• Limits the use of parole authority and temporary protected status.
• Prohibits work permits from being issued to persons without an immigration status.
• Directs the Office of Management and Budget to ensure all agencies identify and stop any person who lacks an immigration status from getting any public benefits. With few exceptions, people who have no immigration status are already unable to get public benefits.
• Directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) and DHS to review all federal funds provided to non-governmental organizations that may provide services to people without an immigration status, and to terminate the contracts and try to recoup the funds.
• Directs DOJ and DHS to withhold federal funds from state and local jurisdictions that have policies directing law enforcement to not cooperate with DHS (also called santuary jurisdictions.)
• Expands the program known as 287(g), which permits local law enforcement to do immigration enforcement functions.
• Directs DHS to expand the available detention facilities, to “construct, operate, control, or use” and mandates that migrants be detained while removal is pending. To do this would require a considerable expansion of detention facilities.

Colorado response & impacts

One challenge has been brought by non-profit immigrant advocacy groups, including Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network, a local Colorado organization, challenging the cessation of federal funding for non-profits who provide services to undocumented individuals. See the full complaint here.

U.S. Representative Jason Crow, representing the 6th District of Colorado, has stated DHS confirms that the Buckley Space Force Base will not be used as a detention facility. Sentinel Colorado reported on this matter here.

There is no official designation of Colorado as a sanctuary state, however, Colorado laws, including House Bill 19-1124, protect immigrants from federal overreach and violations of the Fourth Amendment, which includes constitutional protections against unlawful imprisonment and detention. The state may be threatened with loss of funding due to refusal to comply with DHS.