Transgender TSA Officer Sues Over New Gender Rules

TSA agent checks passengers documents at airport security.

President Trump’s administration is protecting American women’s privacy and safety by enforcing biological sex standards in TSA pat-down procedures, rejecting radical gender ideology that threatens common sense security protocols.

At a Glance

Trump’s January 2025 executive order mandates federal recognition of biological sex, reversing Biden-era transgender policies
DHS implemented February 2025 guidelines requiring TSA pat-downs be conducted by officers of the same biological sex as passengers
A transgender TSA officer at Dulles Airport filed a lawsuit challenging the policy as employment discrimination
The case represents the first major legal challenge to Trump’s gender policy implementation in federal employment
DHS argues the policy protects passenger privacy and comfort, particularly for women travelers

Trump Administration Restores Biological Reality in Federal Security Operations

President Trump’s January 2025 executive order “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” fundamentally shifted how federal agencies approach gender policy. The order mandates that the federal government recognize only biological sex as defined at birth, reversing years of progressive policies that prioritized gender identity over biological reality. This executive action directly addresses concerns from Americans frustrated with what they view as ideological overreach in government operations affecting everyday citizens.

TSA Agent Who Say’s He’s a Woman Claims ‘Civil Right’ to Pat Down Womenhttps://t.co/iKgv7yJesF

— PJ Media (@PJMedia_com) December 2, 2025

The Department of Homeland Security responded swiftly, implementing updated employee conduct guidelines in February 2025 that require TSA pat-down procedures be conducted based on the officer’s and passenger’s biological sex rather than gender identity. This policy change reversed the Biden administration’s 2021 management directive that allowed officers to operate according to their preferred gender identity. For security screeners conducting intimate physical contact with passengers, the Trump administration determined that biological sex alignment serves legitimate operational and privacy interests.

DHS Prioritizes Women’s Privacy and Passenger Comfort

Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin directly articulated the administration’s rationale, questioning whether critics wanted “female travelers to be subjected to pat-downs by male TSA officers.” This framing reflects a core concern of conservative Americans: protecting women’s privacy and dignity in situations involving physical contact. The policy ensures that women passengers receive pat-downs from female officers and male passengers from male officers, a standard that aligns with long-standing TSA practice and common expectations regarding personal security screening.

TSA spokesman Russell Read emphasized that the policy requirement reflects operational needs and established protocols. The administration’s position centers on a straightforward principle: in security contexts involving physical contact, passengers should be screened by officers of the same biological sex. This approach acknowledges that passenger comfort and privacy matter in federal security operations, particularly when procedures involve close physical proximity and touching.

Legal Challenge Tests Trump Administration Gender Policy

Danielle Mittereder, a transgender TSA officer at Dulles International Airport in Virginia, filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security challenging the February 2025 policy. Mittereder’s legal team characterizes the restrictions as discriminatory employment practice that prevents a qualified officer from performing core job functions based solely on transgender status. Attorney Jonathan Puth called the policy “terribly demeaning and 100% illegal,” arguing that Mittereder’s gender identity “was never an issue for her in the past” and that she remains “really dedicated to her job and wants to make a career at TSA.”

The lawsuit represents one of the first direct legal challenges to Trump administration gender policy implementation within federal employment. The case will likely proceed through federal court, potentially reaching higher courts given the constitutional and policy implications involved.Competing Legal Frameworks in Security Context

The dispute presents competing legal interpretations: employment discrimination law versus executive authority to establish federal employment policies. Mittereder’s legal team argues the policy constitutes discrimination based on transgender status. The Trump administration and DHS argue the policy is based on biological sex categories, which they maintain represents a legitimate operational consideration for security screening involving physical contact. The administration’s position reflects conservative principles emphasizing practical distinctions based on objective biological reality rather than subjective identity claims.

This case addresses broader questions about how federal agencies balance employee rights with passenger privacy considerations in security contexts. For conservative Americans concerned about government overreach and ideological imposition, the Trump administration’s approach represents a return to common-sense standards based on biological facts. The policy protects the legitimate privacy interests of American women and men using airport security screening, ensuring they receive pat-downs from officers of the same biological sex.

Trump Administration Delivers on Constitutional Principles

The TSA policy exemplifies how the Trump administration is systematically implementing its January executive order across federal operations. By recognizing biological sex in security screening procedures, the administration addresses frustrations many Americans held regarding progressive policies they viewed as divorced from practical reality. The policy serves legitimate government interests in passenger safety, comfort, and privacy without requiring ideological accommodation that compromises operational effectiveness or personal dignity.

As the lawsuit proceeds through federal courts, the case will test whether federal employment law permits policies based on biological sex distinctions in contexts involving physical contact and privacy considerations. The Trump administration’s defense of the policy reflects its broader commitment to rejecting what it characterizes as “gender ideology extremism” and restoring biological truth to federal operations—a position resonating with conservative voters who believe government should operate according to objective reality rather than subjective identity preferences.