Human Rights Campaign Foundation, employees file lawsuit alleging Trump administration blocked insurance coverage for gender-affirming care

A new lawsuit filed Monday by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation and the DC law firm Correia & Puth alleges that the Trump administration blocked federal insurance coverage for gender-affirming healthcare, forcing affected employees and their families to pay out of pocket, according to a report by The Guardian.

The complaint, filed on behalf of federal employees who say they were covered previously, challenges what the plaintiffs describe as a shift in coverage under federal plans. The filing asserts that gender-affirming care is no longer covered in those federal insurance options, and that workers are now responsible for the costs of that care directly, the report said.

The suit is described as a class-action, meaning the plaintiffs are seeking broader relief for a group of similarly affected beneficiaries, rather than addressing only individual claims. The Guardian reported that federal employees and family members are included in the proposed group described in the filing.

According to the report, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation brought the case in partnership with Correia & Puth, with the lawsuit targeting the Trump administration over the insurance coverage change. The Guardian’s account frames the challenge as both a coverage dispute and a procedural dispute over how the federal government handled insurance benefits for gender-affirming healthcare.

The filing comes amid ongoing federal policy debates over how gender-affirming services should be handled in federally administered or federally influenced benefit structures. The plaintiffs’ central allegation in the report is that the administration’s actions resulted in the removal or restriction of coverage for gender-affirming healthcare under federal insurance offerings.

The next steps in the case would depend on the court’s scheduling and any initial motions, such as motions to dismiss or motions for preliminary relief. Until the court addresses those issues, the practical effect described in the reporting is that affected employees may continue to face out-of-pocket expenses for care they allege was previously covered.

The lawsuit also underscores the legal process that governs changes to federal benefit coverage. If the plaintiffs’ claims are accepted, courts could order the government to restore coverage or require additional procedures; if dismissed, the case would likely narrow the scope of relief or end the challenge at the threshold.