A transgender employee of the US National Security Agency has launched a legal challenge against the Trump administration, seeking to block a presidential executive order that recognises only two "immutable" genders.
Legal Challenge Against Inauguration Day Order
Sarah O'Neill, an NSA data scientist, is contesting an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on his Inauguration Day in January 2025. The order mandates that the federal government, in all its operations and official documents, must recognise only two sexes: male and female. According to a lawsuit filed on Monday 22 December 2025 in a US District Court in Maryland, this policy effectively denies Ms O'Neill's existence as a transgender woman.
The legal filing argues that the order, which echoed Trump's 2024 campaign rhetoric, has spurred specific workplace policies that directly impact O'Neill. She asserts that, as a result, the NSA has rescinded its internal policy recognising her transgender identity and her right to a workplace free from unlawful harassment.
Hostile Work Environment Allegations
O'Neill contends the resulting directives have created a hostile work environment. She states the agency is now "prohibiting her from identifying her pronouns as female in written communications" and "barring her from using the women’s restroom at work." The lawsuit claims these actions violate Section VII of the Civil Rights Act, citing the landmark 2020 US Supreme Court ruling which found that discrimination based on gender identity is a form of sex discrimination.
"The Executive Order rejects the existence of gender identity altogether," the lawsuit argues, adding that it dismisses the concept as "gender ideology." The White House has not immediately responded to requests for comment on the ongoing litigation.
Broader Implications and Legal Precedent
O'Neill's case is part of a wave of legal challenges against the aggressive use of executive action during Trump's second term. Beyond seeking the restoration of her workplace rights and protections, she is also claiming financial damages.
The lawsuit heavily relies on the precedent set by the 2020 Supreme Court decision. The court's majority opinion stated clearly: "Discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second." This legal foundation forms the core of O'Neill's argument that the administration's policies are unlawful.
The outcome of this case could have significant ramifications for federal employment policy and the interpretation of civil rights protections for transgender individuals across the United States.
