Overview

The United States maintains an array of diverse legal frameworks, including local, state, and federal laws, each of which impact the rights and lives of LGBTQI+ individuals. While certain discriminatory practices, such as the criminalisation of consensual same-sex intimacy and the prohibition on same-sex marriages, have been found by the United States judiciary to be unconstitutional, the United States has “failed to enact comprehensive federal legislation that expressly protects” LGBTQI+ people in critical policy areas, and fewer than half of the states have stepped in to fill such gap, according to a 2025 report by Human Rights Watch. In 2024, an independent expert reported to the United Nations that, while the United States had implemented some positive measures in recent years and general improvements in “social acceptance and visibility of LGBTQI+ persons” in recent decades,

“unfortunately, those positive measures have been deliberately undermined by a widespread, profoundly negative riptide of regressive legislative measures intended to roll back the human rights of LGBT[QI+] persons at the state level. Those include deeply discriminatory measures seeking to rebuild stigmatization of LGBT[QI+] persons, limiting comprehensive sexual and gender education for all, and limiting access to gender-affirming treatment, sports and single-sex facilities for trans and gender-diverse persons.” 

Consequently, LGBTQI+ rights are increasingly subject to (and the targets of) political agenda. Notably, restrictions on LGBTQI+ rights, and particularly those of the transgender, nonbinary, and intersex communities, have been a focus of the federal administration led by President Donald Trump and several politically aligned state administrations. This has resulted in a patchwork of laws, policies, and ongoing litigation across the United States. 

Barriers to freedom of expression

The First Amendment of the Federal Constitution protects speech concerning sexual orientation and gender identity, and there is no nationwide censorship of LGBTQI+ content. Nevertheless, certain jurisdictions have attempted to restrict the visible expressions of gender non-conformity, discussion of LGBTQI+ topics in educational settings, and LGBTQI+ inclusivity in public library collections. Litigation challenging these measures remains active and outcomes vary between federal circuits. While outright bans on LGBTQI+ expression are uncommon, community advocates continue to document the removal of inclusive materials from school curricula and public venues, particularly in primary and secondary education.

Several states have introduced or enacted legislation aimed at restricting drag performances in public spaces or in the presence of children, often citing concerns about the exposure of minors to content appealing to “prurient interest”. As of August 2025, legislation explicitly restricting drag performances has been passed only in Montana and was temporarily blocked on First Amendment grounds by a federal district court, which found the terms of the law to be “vague and overbroad, chilling protected speech, and creating a risk of disproportionate enforcement against trans, Two-Spirit, and gender nonconforming people” (Imperial Sovereign v Knudsen, D. Mont., 2023). However, Arkansas, Florida, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas have passed laws restricting “adult-oriented” or “sexual” performances that can be used to target drag performances, of which, those in Arkansas, North Dakota, and Tennessee remain enforceable (see HM Fla.-ORL, LLC v Governor of Fla., (11th Cir. 2025); Woodlands Pride, Inc. v Paxton, (S.D. Tex., 2023); and Friends of George’s, Inc. v Mulroy, (6th Cir. 2024).  

Since 2022, censorship laws targeting LGBTQI+ content have proliferated, encompassing both so-called “Don’t Say Gay” bills and book bans in schools and public libraries. States such as Florida, Texas, and Missouri have passed laws or implemented policies that restrict classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity (commonly referred to as “Don’t Say Gay” laws), as well as laws and policies that ban or limit access to books that feature LGBTQI+ characters or themes from school libraries and curricula (see, e.g., National Education Association, 2022; Human Rights Campaign, 2023; Burga, 2023). As a result, books and educational materials featuring LGBTQI+ content have been removed from reading lists, library shelves, and classroom instruction in various jurisdictions (see, e.g., Oladipo, 2024). While many such measures are still facing legal challenges, courts have upheld certain restrictions (see, e.g., Little v Llano County, 5th Cir. 2025). Notably, the Supreme Court of the United States recently held in Mahmoud v Taylor (2025) that a local school board’s policy of introducing LGBTQI+-inclusive storybooks into the elementary school curriculum without providing parents notice or an opt-out option unconstitutionally burdened parents’ First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, requiring the board to notify parents in advance and allow them to excuse their children from such instruction while the lawsuit proceeds.

Blood donations from gay men

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) historically imposed restrictions on blood donations by men who have sex with men (MSM). A lifetime deferral policy, first implemented in 1983 during the HIV/AIDS crisis, barred any man who had engaged in sexual contact with another man from donating blood. The FDA revised this policy in stages: reducing the deferral period to twelve months in 2015, then to three months in 2020. In May 2023, the FDA issued updated guidance eliminating the time-based deferral specific to MSM donors and adopting an individual risk-based screening approach for all prospective donors regardless of sexual orientation. Under the current policy, all individuals are asked the same questions regarding recent sexual behavior, including whether they have had a new sexual partner or multiple sexual partners in the past three months, with those answering affirmatively deferred for a three-month period. The American Medical Association, the American Red Cross, and AABB (formerly the American Association of Blood Banks) supported this transition to an evidence-based, non-discriminatory screening model.

Military service

Sexual orientation is not a basis for exemption or exclusion from military service in the United States. The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy, enacted in 1993 under 10 U.S.C., paragraph 654, prohibited openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals from serving in the armed forces while simultaneously barring military officials from inquiring about a service member’s sexual orientation. DADT was repealed by the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 (Pub.L. 111-321), which took effect on 20 September 2011, permitting gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals to serve openly without risk of discharge. With respect to transgender service members, the policy landscape has shifted with successive administrations. In 2016, the Obama administration lifted the ban on transgender military service. In January 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14185, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” which again bars transgender individuals from serving in the United States military, directing the Department of Defense to implement a policy consistent with the administration’s position that recognizes only biological sex assigned at birth.

Same-sex couple adoption rights

Same-sex couples have a legal right to adopt in all fifty states. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v Hodges (2015), which established that same-sex couples possess the same fundamental rights as opposite-sex couples, courts have consistently held that married same-sex couples cannot be denied the right to jointly adopt. In 2017, the Supreme Court reinforced this principle in Pavan v Smith (2017), holding that states must treat same-sex couples equally in issuing birth certificates, a ruling with direct implications for adoptive parents. Nevertheless, several states have enacted or retained religious exemption laws that permit faith-based adoption and foster care agencies to decline placements with same-sex couples. In Fulton v City of Philadelphia (2021), the Supreme Court unanimously held that Philadelphia violated the free exercise rights of Catholic Social Services by requiring the agency to certify same-sex couples as foster parents, though the narrow ruling did not establish a broad right to discriminate. As of 2025, approximately eleven states maintain statutes permitting child welfare agencies to refuse services based on religious or moral objections, creating practical barriers for same-sex couples seeking to adopt in those jurisdictions.

Same-sex marriage

Civil marriage between two adults, irrespective of sex, is legally recognised in all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and United States territories. Citing both the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court held in Obergefell v Hodges (2015) that “same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States.” In 2022, the Respect for Marriage Act was passed into law, providing federal protection for same-sex marriage and prohibiting any State from denying “full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between two individuals, on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.” A valid same-sex marriage confers the same federal and state rights, responsibilities, and benefits of an opposite-sex marriage, including matters relating to taxation, social security, immigration sponsorship, and inheritance. Religious organisations remain free to determine which marriages they will solemnise under the First Amendment.

Same-sex sexual activity

Consensual same-sex sexual activity between adults is lawful throughout the United States. Consensual same-sex intimacy has been decriminalised in all 50 states since 2003, when the United States Supreme Court held in Lawrence v Texas (2003) that sodomy statutes then in effect in 14 states violated a constitutional right to privacy, despite the fact that such right is not expressly enumerated. This decision overturned Bowers v Hardwick (1986), which had previously found that the constitution does not protect a right to privacy and held that consensual sexual conduct was protected by substantive due process under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. 

Transgender persons

According to the annual report by Human Rights Watch on the human rights situation in 2024 in the United States:

“The rights of transgender individuals, especially teens, continued to be a political lightning rod in the U[nited] S[tates] in 2024 at the expense of their health and wellbeing. As of September 2024, 26 states banned at least some best-practice medical care for transgender children under age 18, and six criminalized such care as a felony offense. Twenty-six states prohibited transgender children from participating in sports consistent with their gender identity, 11 states banned discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity in schools, and 8 states required school personnel to disclose students’ gender identity to their parents. Thirteen states prohibited transgender people from using bathrooms consistent with their gender identity in schools, with some of these bans encompassing other public facilities as well.”

The new federal administration and 2025 legislations have markedly increased these numbers. Early in his second term (which began in January of 2025), President Donald Trump issued an executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” establishing as policy a binary approach to sex based on an individual’s assignment at birth. Under the Executive Order, federal agencies were directed to “protect men and women as biologically distinct sexes, and to remove all statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other internal and external messages promoting gender ideology”. The National Education Association reports that to this end, “federal agencies such as OCR and the EEOC have begun dismissing complaints predicated on gender identity, indicating those federal agencies will no longer enforce those rights.” A second executive order, “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” directs agencies to eliminate federal funding that directly or indirectly supports the promotion of “gender ideology” in schools, requiring such support be prevented or rescinded from schools that violate Title VI or Title IX or “otherwise unlawfully facilitate the social transition of a minor student.”

Overview

The United States has played a complex and often contradictory role in the advancement of the LGBTQI+ rights on the international stage. Historically, the United States government has leveraged its diplomatic and development assets to address the violence and discrimination against LGBTQI+ and intersex persons worldwide. Notably, the Obama administration issued a Presidential Memorandum in December 2011 to advance the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons, directing all federal agencies with international programmes to address these issues and report progress annually. This period also saw the formation of the Global Equality Fund, administered by the State Department, which pooled resources from multiple governments to support global LGBTQI+ equality efforts. High-profile advocacy included Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s landmark speech at the United Nations, which articulated the centrality of LGBTQI+ equality to universal human rights.      

The United States has also been a principal sponsor and advocate of the biennial United Nations resolution on democracy and elections, ensuring that language protecting against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity was included. In both 2021 and 2023, the United States played a leading role in defending and updating this resolution, explicitly recognising women “in all their diversity” and challenging procedural attempts by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to dilute inclusive language. Despite increased opposition, the United States maintained its commitment to universal human rights, ensuring the passage of the resolution with inclusive language intact, even as the process shifted from consensus to a recorded vote in 2023.     

However, the United States approach to LGBTQI+ has not been consistent. Under the Trump administration, there was a marked shift, with the curtailment of rights for LGBTQI+ persons, particularly trans, nonbinary, and intersex individuals. The administration froze nearly all foreign aid supporting LGBTQI+ organisations and human rights defenders, rolled back protections for transgender individuals in the military and healthcare, and permitted discrimination by grant recipients of the Department of Health and Human Services (see, e.g., Outright, Country Overview: United States; see also Angelo, 2021). While the administration rhetorically campaigned for the decriminalisation of homosexuality worldwide and appointed openly gay officials to high-ranking positions, these efforts were largely symbolic and did not result in substantive policy changes. As of August 2025, the United States has provided notice that it will not participate in the Universal Periodic Review and Trump in an Executive Order disengaged from the U.S. Human Rights Council. 

Opposition to international legal reform 

The United States has faced significant opposition to its efforts to promote LGBTQI+ rights internationally, particularly from coalitions like OIC. These groups have consistently challenged the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in international human rights instruments, framing such reforms as impositions of foreign values or “gender ideology.” The United States has responded by defending the legitimacy of inclusive language in international resolutions and by highlighting the lack of consensus with opposing blocs. 

At the same time, the United States has been implicated in the export of anti-LGBTQI+ sentiment abroad. Networks of activists, politicians, religious leaders, and donors with ties to United States-based organisations have played a role in shaping attitudes and laws in other countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern Europe. For example, United States-based organisations have supported campaigns against comprehensive sexuality education and have been involved in the passage of anti-LGBTQI+ legislation in countries such as Hungary and Uganda.     

International commentary

International commentary on the United States’ role in LGBTQI+ rights is mixed. On one hand, the United States has been recognised for its leadership in advancing inclusive language and protections in international forums, such as the United Nations. The formation of the Global Equality Fund and the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in key resolutions have been lauded as significant contributions to the global human rights framework. 

On the other hand, the United States has been criticised for its inconsistent approach, particularly during periods of retrenchment and the rollback of protections for LGBTQI+ individuals. The Trump administration’s policies, including the freezing of foreign aid for LGBTQI+ organisations and the implementation of asylum bans that disproportionately affect LGBTQI+ refugees, have been described by advocacy groups as endangering lives and undermining the United States’ credibility as a defender of human rights. Human rights organisations have highlighted the dangers faced by LGBTI+ refugees as a result of these policies, including exposure to violence, inadequate medical care, and the risk of refoulement. 

In response to the United States’ federal policies regarding gender identity, several nations have issued advisories regarding travel to the United States for transgender, nonbinary and intersex travellers.

Furthermore, the export of anti-LGBTQI+ sentiment by United States-based organisations has drawn international concern, with critics noting the role of American actors in supporting regressive legislation and campaigns abroad. This has led to calls for greater accountability and a more consistent commitment to the protection of LGBTQI+ rights, both domestically and internationally.