SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
transgender
WSJ, Media Outlets Slammed for Spreading Feds' False Claim That Kirk Shooter Expressed 'Transgender Ideology'
"What a truly disgusting week for American journalism," said one transgender writer.
Sep 12, 2025
The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets are facing widespread criticism after publishing a false report that the assassin who shot right-wing activist Charlie Kirk in Utah this week had left behind symbols of "transgender ideology" at the scene of the crime.
On Thursday, with the assassin still at large, the Journal published a news update stating that "investigators found ammunition engraved with expressions of transgender and antifascist ideology inside the rifle that authorities believe was used in the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk." The report did not identify what these markings were nor the source of the report, instead attributing it to "an internal law enforcement bulletin and a person familiar with the investigation."
The New York Times reported hours later that the bulletin came from the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), but noted that "a senior law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation cautioned that the report had not been verified by ATF analysts, did not match other summaries of the evidence, and might turn out to have been misread or misinterpreted."
It was later revealed that the Wall Street Journal's source of the initial unconfirmed bulletin was Steven Crowder, another far-right influencer known for his antagonism of transgender people.
On Friday, officials revealed the identity of the suspect, a 22-year-old cisgender white man named Tyler Robinson, and Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R) described the marked engravings in detail.
As Erin Reed, a transgender journalist who reports on LGBTQ+ rights, explained, "none were 'transgender' or 'LGBTQ' symbols":
The bullet that killed Charlie Kirk was engraved with the phrase “notices bulges owo what’s this”—a furry and anime meme that has circulated online for a decade, generally meant as a joke about something unexpected. Three other unfired casings were recovered: “hey fascist! Catch! ↑ → ↓↓↓,” a reference to the Helldivers 2 video game code used to drop the 500kg bomb; “O bella ciao, bella ciao, ciao, ciao,” the Italian anti-fascist folk song; and “If you read this you are gay lmao,” a trolling insult common in meme subcultures.
In other words: internet detritus. Not a single engraving had anything to do with “transgender symbols,” let alone the trans community.
Data shows transgender people are no more likely to commit acts of gun violence than any other group. According to data from the Gun Violence Archive from the past decade analyzed by The Trace in July, out of more than 5,300 mass shootings, just four of them were committed by a person who identified as transgender or nonbinary.
Despite this, many right-wing activists online have attempted to foment the narrative of a "transgender violence epidemic," often preemptively blaming trans people for shootings that turn out to be perpetrated by others.
This narrative has reached the Trump administration, with the Department of Justice reportedly considering a policy to strip transgender people of the right to own firearms following a school shooting in Minneapolis in August, that was carried out by a transgender person.
Following Kirk's assassination, Donald Trump Jr. said in a Fox News interview, "I frankly can't name a mass shooting in the last year or two in America that wasn't committed by a transgender lunatic that's been pumped up on probably hormones since they were 3-year-olds."
Even after law enforcement and the Journal had begun to walk back the initial report that "transgender ideology" had influenced Kirk's murder, Reed wrote, "the damage was already done, with the falsehood ricocheting across the internet." By this point, numerous media outlets, including the Daily Beast, the New York Post, The Telegraph, and others, had already repeated the claim.
As Reed noted, "conservative influencers flooded social media blaming the killing on transgender people," in some cases using dehumanizing rhetoric.
One conservative activist, Joey Mannarino, who has nearly 640,000 followers on X, and often interacts with elected Republicans, wrote: "If the person who killed Charlie Kirk was a transgender, there can be no mercy for that species any longer. We’ve already tolerated far too much from those creatures."
The falsehood even reached Capitol Hill. Even as law enforcement said Thursday it still had no identity for the shooter, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) told reporters, "It sounds like the shooter was a tranny, or pro-tranny."
Trump Jr., meanwhile, continued to assert that there was "trans paraphernalia written on the cartridges of this rifle that killed one of my dearest friends in life." He described being transgender as "an absolute sickness."
The Journal is now facing harsh criticism for spreading an unverified report that has further fueled the right's demonization of transgender Americans.
"The FBI and Wall Street Journal doing a 'whoops, our bad' after spending a day saying they had evidence it was a trans antifa shooter is so deeply messed up," wrote Ryan Grim of Drop Site News on X.
Charlotte Clymer, a transgender writer, called it a "truly disgusting week for American journalism."
"Nearly 48 hours of relentless anti-trans propaganda and news reports over the murder of Charlie Kirk, and all of that for not a single shred of evidence that trans people or trans rights had anything to do with it," Clymer said. "When do we get a retraction from the Wall Street Journal for erroneously claiming the assassination was related to trans people? When do we get apologies from every journalist who spread that disinformation?"
As criticism has continued to mount, the Journal added an editor's note to the initial article, acknowledging that Cox "gave no indication that the ammunition included any transgender references."
Jeet Heer, a columnist for The Nation wrote in response that the Journal's reporting on this issue was "a scandal."
"The news section of the Wall Street Journal has tarnished its great reputation," Heer wrote. "The only way to recover is to appoint a public editor to review this and explain how it happened to readers."
NOTE: This article has been updated to include the Wall Street Journal's editor's note and subsequent criticism from Jeet Heer.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Air Force Under Trump Will Force Senior Trans Service Members to Retire Without Benefits
"Trans people have served this country with honor," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal. "They deserve dignity—not betrayal."
Aug 07, 2025
The families of transgender service members in the U.S. Air Force could lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in denied retirement benefits due to a memo sent by the military branch this week.
As Reuters reported Thursday, an official at the Air Force informed transgender members with 15-18 years of military service that they would no be eligible for early retirement and would instead be forced to leave the Air Force without retirement benefits. Some transgender troops had previously been told they could retire early.
"After careful consideration of the individual applications, I am disapproving all Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) exception to policy requests in Tabs 1 and 2 for members with 15-18 years of service," wrote Brian Scarlett, the acting assistant secretary of the Air Force for manpower and reserve affairs.
The memo means that many service members whose applications for early retirement had already been approved will have those approvals rescinded.
The decision follows the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in June that cleared the way for the U.S. Department of Defense to ban openly transgender Americans from serving in the military. President Donald Trump signed an executive order earlier this year to impose such a ban.
"This is just betrayal of a direct commitment made to these service members."
Last week, in a court filing related to transgender service members' lawsuit against the administration, the Department of Justice denied that the plaintiffs are transgender, instead calling them "trans-identifying individuals."
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said there would be "no more pronouns" and "no more dudes in dresses" permitted in the military at a press conference in May, and transgender service members have recently reported facing bigotry as they've departed the service.
Military.com reported last month that one 20-year transgender veteran of the Army was told by an instructor of a mandatory pre-retirement course that she and her classmates should cross out the words "pronoun, gender, diversity, and inclusion" from their workbooks.
The incident, she said, was "yet another reminder that it doesn't matter how much they say, 'Thank you for all the effort you put in and that your contributions are valuable'... because at the end of the day, they're having us manually go in and remove our own contributions from all the documentation."
The attempted "removal" of any record of transgender people's service now extends to their retirement benefits, according to the memo sent August 4, with service members who have served for close to two decades being given the option to quit or be forced out, with lump-sum payments instead of benefits.
Shannon Minter of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights told Reuters the memo was "devastating."
"This is just betrayal of a direct commitment made to these service members," said Minter.
Reuters reported that the memo included a question-and-answer section, with one question reading, "How do I tell family we're not getting retirement benefits?"
The Air Force suggested long-serving transgender members tell their loved ones to "focus on the benefits you do retain," such as Department of Veterans Affairs benefits and "experience," and to seek counseling services.
"The Air Force told transgender service members to prepare for early retirement—then changed course and is now forcing them out with no benefits at all," said U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). "Trans people have served this country with honor. They deserve dignity—not betrayal. We must speak out and fight back, always."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Is Medicare the Next Front in Trump’s War on Transgender People?
Transgender Americans—like all Americans—deserve Medicare coverage; nevertheless, their access to healthcare is at risk.
Jun 21, 2025
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a budget bill that promises a sweeping dismantling of critical public programs that millions of people rely on, including food stamps, Medicaid, and federal education loans. Buried inside the bill’s thousand-plus pages are provisions that specifically target healthcare for transgender people, including an outright ban on Medicaid coverage for transgender people of all ages.
These provisions are the latest escalation of the immense and overwhelming political attacks on transgender people in America over the last several years, which already include a ban on transgender military members, limitations on participation in sports for children, and openly spreading falsehoods about transgender youth and the healthcare they receive. Instead of focusing on the stigma, violence (which is disproportionately experienced by Black transgender women), and discrimination transgender people face every day that results in severe health disparities, higher rates of poverty, and premature deaths, legislators all over the country are enacting policies that perpetuate these very issues.
Between this congressional budget legislation and the Trump administration’s assaults on transgender youth, military service members, and veterans, concern is growing that this administration’s war on transgender people will soon include efforts to strip transgender Medicare beneficiaries of essential medical coverage. Medicare was created with the intention of ensuring that American adults have access to vital healthcare services as they age and can no longer work, and it has grown to become one of the most well-supported and positively viewed government programs of our time. Weaponizing the Medicare program to impose a political agenda in place of expert medical standards of care would be a deeply concerning development with serious ramifications not just for transgender Medicare beneficiaries but for the practice of medicine in America as a whole.
The issue policymakers should be tackling is not banning medical care for transgender youth or adults but rather ensuring that all people, including Medicare beneficiaries, can access the medical care they need.
According to expert standards of care in transgender health, medical care for transgender people is carefully tailored to align with the recommendations of healthcare providers and each person’s individual needs. To examine the frequency and trends of one particular form of care—gender-affirming surgical procedures—for Medicare beneficiaries, my team and I recently published a study using Medicare claims data. While these surgical procedures are not part of the routine standard of care for transgender youth, they are a medically necessary and important part of care for many transgender adults.
We found that gender-affirming surgeries are exceptionally rare in the Medicare program and that transgender Medicare enrollees in the South are less likely to receive surgery compared to those in the Northeast with similar characteristics (e.g., race, ethnicity, age). These findings stem from discriminatory policies that result in inaccessibility. Medicare beneficiaries face barriers to receiving gender-affirming surgeries because of a lack of access to surgeons, inconsistent and unclear coverage policies, coverage denials, and high out-of-pocket costs. These barriers represent structural forms of stigma that may be particularly elevated for racial and ethnic minoritized populations due to racism. Thus, the issue policymakers should be tackling is not banning medical care for transgender youth or adults but rather ensuring that all people, including Medicare beneficiaries, can access the medical care they need.
Transgender people are under political, social, and legal attack with such intensity that it is easy to lose sight of who—and how many people—are actually directly impacted. To put our study’s findings into context: In 2019, 37.9 million people received their Medicare benefits through Traditional Medicare (our study focused on those with Traditional Medicare and excluded those with private plans, known as Medicare Advantage). Of these nearly 38 million people, we were able to identify about 35,000 transgender adults, which is 0.09% of the Traditional Medicare population. Of this small number of Medicare beneficiaries who are transgender, 1.4% received a gender-affirming surgery in 2019. In other words, less than one one-hundredth of a percent—or 0.001%—of this Medicare population was transgender and received gender-affirming surgery.
Not only is the number of transgender Medicare beneficiaries small and the number who received gender-affirming surgeries much smaller, we also observed a decrease in the number of transgender Medicare beneficiaries who received gender-affirming surgeries over time. This downward trend is unique to the Medicare program, further highlighting access issues for transgender people with Medicare coverage.
To put an even finer point on it: We included a cisgender, or non-transgender, cohort in our study because the same surgeries transgender people need are also often received by cisgender people (e.g., hysterectomies). Overall, each year, about 0.5% of our cisgender cohort underwent procedures that could be considered gender-affirming for transgender people. Our team wanted to see if transgender Medicare beneficiaries face any disadvantages in receiving needed surgical care compared to cisgender beneficiaries. We found that, unlike transgender people, there were no significant differences in the receipt of surgery based on where cisgender people lived. In other words, a cisgender person residing in New York was just as likely to receive a surgery they need as another cisgender person in Texas with similar characteristics. Our findings indicate that transgender adults with Medicare may be uniquely unable to access needed care both because of who they are and where they live.
It is timely and crucial to highlight the facts about gender-affirming care and the Medicare program: Our study suggests that transgender Medicare beneficiaries already face unique access issues when seeking medically necessary care. Just like all Medicare beneficiaries, transgender people are deserving of Medicare coverage. Just like everyone else, transgender people should have the ability to access the care that they need from providers they trust without politically motivated, anti-science barriers imposed by the federal government. Yet transgender people continue to be singled out in political attacks that deny them access to care and services that remain accessible to non-transgender people. This issue has already made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court—which could have dire consequences for the health of transgender people of all ages.
The amount of effort, time, and resources being used to target (and scapegoat) such a marginalized group—and to limit their ability to access medically necessary care, no less—is harmful, imbalanced, and malicious. It is also anti-science. Gender-affirming care is cost-effective, associated with improved mental health outcomes, and considered medically necessary by every major medical organization in the U.S., including the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Psychiatric Association. Polling shows most Americans do not want policymakers to focus on the transgender community. With severe federal budget cuts looming, policymakers should, instead, do something useful and positive: They should act to ensure that all people, including transgender people, can get the healthcare they need.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular