In the first 100 days of his second administration, President Donald Trump signed more than 140 executive orders. At least one in 10 sought to change regulations around gender — from a wholesale ban on the federal government acknowledging “gender” as a concept to more targeted attempts to remove transgender people’s access to identity documents, education, health care, and other basic necessities. These orders are part of increasingly explicit efforts to exclude transgender people from legal existence and public life.

We at the Trans Journalists Association wanted to know: How did journalists cover them?

To answer this question, we partnered with researchers at Berkeley Media Studies Group, a nonprofit that studies news coverage of public health and social issues. Together, we conducted a media analysis based on a representative sample of nearly 300 articles written during Trump’s first 100 days in office published by selected key national outlets with significant reach. 

The resulting analysis found that news outlets rarely included trans people in stories about us. Within the sample’s articles, 70% did not include a quote from a single trans person. Instead, journalists turned to cisgender sources — mostly government officials — to speak about trans people, their lives, and how they would be affected.

Whose voices mattered?

The executive orders threaten LGBTQ+ health, human rights for incarcerated people, citizenship, public education (and funding for it — not just for trans students), and more. Trans people, their families, and their communities face the most immediate and direct consequences from these threats. 

Yet, in the first 100 days following Trump’s inauguration, journalists frequently quoted government officials without adding perspective from the people directly affected by the policy decisions (or representatives of their communities).

We found that trans people were quoted in a minority of articles, and trans youth were quoted even more infrequently. Their family or legal representatives were rarely quoted, as well.

In summary:

• Trans people and their representatives were quoted infrequently: 70% of articles did not feature even a single trans person. 
• In a majority of articles (56%), journalists quoted at least one cisgender politician or other government official, but no trans people. 
• Transgender youth under 20 were quoted in just 6% of articles, despite being one of the groups frequently talked about. 
• Organizations representing trans communities were quoted in 24% of articles. 
• Direct representatives of trans people (family or legal representation, for instance) were quoted in 14% of articles.

On the other hand, 78% of articles quoted a politician or government official.

Overall, we saw the following trends in government speakers:

• Politicians or officials identified as Democrats were quoted in 32% of articles.
• Trump or a representative of his administration were quoted in 36% of articles.
• Politicians or officials identified as Republicans, excluding Trump administration sources, were quoted in 30% of articles.

Cumulatively, Trump, a member of his administration, or other Republicans were quoted in 50% of articles; Democrats were quoted in 32% of articles. 

We also evaluated who was interviewed and identified specifically in articles that quoted Trump or a representative of his administration. 

• Out of the 36% of articles that quoted a Trump administration representative, the second-most frequently quoted group was other government officials. 
• Democrats, Republicans (excluding the Trump administration), and government agency spokespeople were quoted in a comparable share of articles.
• Only 17% of articles that quoted the Trump administration also quoted transgender people.

This means that government sources were often cited without perspectives from trans people in stories about policy decisions that affect trans people and communities.

TJA's guidance

Thorough, ethical reporting that informs the public requires careful and deliberate sourcing. At its simplest, intentional sourcing can lead to smarter, more nuanced stories. Narrow sourcing also erodes the already-dwindling trust that audiences have in news, according to research from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Deliberate sourcing, on the other hand, can stop misinformation before it starts, combat journalists’ unconscious biases, and help outlets build trust and reach broader audiences.

Source tracking

To evaluate a publication’s source diversity, source tracking has developed as a handy tool that many newsrooms have explored; some have even built shareable templates and toolkits. We recommend newsrooms that already track sourcing consider adding categories related to gender identity. 

Evaluating when to deliberately incorporate trans perspectives

Simply quoting a trans person in a story that affects trans people or communities isn’t a shortcut to good reporting, nor does it guarantee that a story is fair, accurate, balanced, or ethical. But incorporating trans perspectives into the reporting process — whether on background, while deciding how to frame the story, or in on-the-record interviews — adds necessary context, especially if a reporter is less familiar with issues that impact trans communities. 

It’s also increasingly important to put trans people on the record.

The first major gender-related executive order states that two sexes are “not changeable” and are “grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.” The order explicitly redefines sex and gender to “promote this reality.” Many of the subsequent executive orders follow this logic, explicitly or implicitly. The underlying argument is that trans people are not real and do not exist. That’s core to the story of Trump’s executive orders.

Stories that cover news that questions our existence cannot be ones that lack a trans presence. 

Informing the public

Trans people represent an estimated 2.8 million Americans, and their lives intertwine with family, business, government, and social networks. 

Of the 143 executive orders signed in Trump's first 100 days in office, some were enforced swiftly, while some were mere rhetoric, or challenged before they could be carried out. Journalists covering these topics can better serve their communities by reporting transparently about the unknown effects — scale, scope, and consequences — of these orders. 

Journalists can minimize harm and show compassion for people affected by their coverage by incorporating more trans sources into their stories, especially those involving issues that affect trans communities. If we do not quote the people who will live with the consequences of Trump’s rhetoric and actions, journalism is failing to inform the public.  

Tools for reporting

Questions to ask about sourcing

Consider the dynamics of expertise and authority when quoting sources or referencing research. Some questions to consider: 

• Who is being cited as an expert on trans people’s experiences? 
  • Are they trans? Do they have experience working with trans communities?
  • Do quoted or referenced sources for sports stories involving trans athletes or participants have a credible background in sports medicine? Or are they athletes who primarily offer authority on lived experience, not clinical or medical expertise?
• Do quoted or referenced medical experts practice gender-related health care, or do they just have a general degree or certification? (Journalists learned some lessons about this reporting on COVID-19.) 
• Do quoted or referenced politicians or government officials have a meaningful relationship to the issue at hand, or some sort of relevant expertise — or are they just easy to call on a deadline?
  • Have they read the bill or other political order? 
  • Did they write it? 
  • Do they have any role in implementing it?

Asking these questions can shore up stories, prevent the spread of misinformation, and help ensure reporters are providing audiences with balanced, accurate, and nuanced coverage.

Additional resources

Methodology

Trans Journalists Association leadership and Berkeley Media Studies Group researchers paired to discuss key themes and questions, develop a code book, and analyze coverage.

In particular, we wanted to know:

• How did selected national news outlets cover presidential executive orders that directly impact trans communities during the first 100 days of the Trump administration?
• How frequently were politicians on each side of the aisle quoted? How frequently were trans people quoted directly? When cisgender politicians or government officials were quoted, how often were trans people also quoted? 
• How frequently did articles contain misinformation, either directly quoted from political sources or otherwise?
• How were the executive orders framed?