A transgender employee of the National Security Agency has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the legality of a sweeping executive order issued by Donald Trump, claiming the agency’s directives and subsequent policies illegally erase her gender identity and violate long-established American civil rights protections.
The case raises a broader legal question with national implications: How far can the executive branch go before running afoul of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Who is suing – and why?
The plaintiff, Sarah O’Neill, is a data scientist at the NSA who is transgender. In a lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Maryland, O’Neill challenges a presidential executive order signed by Trump on Inauguration Day that directs the federal government to recognize only two “immutable” genders — male and female — in all official operations and communications.
The complaint alleges that the order goes far beyond administrative classification and instead impinges on personal identity.
Read also | SCOTUS allows Trump to block transgender, non-binary passport options
The executive action, the lawsuit states, “declares that it is the policy of the United States Government to deny the very existence of Ms. O’Neill.”
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
What principles is O’Neill demanding?
According to the lawsuit, Trump’s executive order triggered a series of changes at the NSA that O’Neill said directly affected its working conditions and legal protections.
Read also | Donald Trump plans to cancel a program to support student loans for some nonprofits
It claims that the agency has:
She rescinded her policy recognizing her transgender identity and her “right to a workplace free of unlawful harassment”
He forbade her to identify her pronouns as female in written communication
He banned her from using the women’s restroom at her workplace
O’Neill claims the measures created a hostile work environment and constitute unlawful discrimination under federal law.
What does Section VII of the Civil Rights Act actually say?
The lawsuit stems from Title VII of the US Civil Rights Act of 1964 — often referred to as “Section VII” — the landmark law that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.
Over decades of judicial interpretation, the protections of Title VII have been expanded to include:
- Sexual orientation
- Gender identity
- Pregnancy and related conditions
The law applies to employers, unions and employment agencies with 15 or more employees and regulates all aspects of work, including hiring, wages, promotions, job assignments and workplace conditions.
It also prohibits harassment that creates a hostile work environment and is enforced by the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
How does Supreme Court precedent factor into the case?
O’Neill’s legal argument relies heavily on a landmark 2020 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation constitutes discrimination “because of sex” under Title VII.
The majority opinion of the court read:
Read also | Vivian Wilson, Musk’s transgender daughter, walks the NYFW runway for the first time
“We agree that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex,” the court said. “But as we have seen, discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status necessarily implies discrimination on the basis of sex; the former cannot occur without the latter.”
O’Neill’s complaint alleges that Trump’s executive order directly conflicts with this binding interpretation of federal law.
What does the lawsuit say about the executive order itself?
The complaint is sharply critical of the language and intent of the order, which characterizes gender identity as “gender ideology.”
“The executive order completely denies the existence of gender identity, let alone the possibility that one’s gender identity can differ from the sex it characterizes as ‘gender ideology.'”
By mandating that federal agencies adopt that definition, O’Neill argues, the administration overstepped statutory protections established by Congress and clarified by the courts.
What is O’Neill asking the court to do?
In addition to asking the court to block enforcement of the executive order and related NSA policies, O’Neill is asking:
- Restoring her rights and protections in the workplace
- Formal recognition of her gender identity at work
- Financial compensation for the damage suffered
Read also | Sabrina Carpenter advocates for transgender rights during the Tears performance at the 2025 MTV VMAs
The lawsuit also aims to set a precedent limiting how executive orders can be used to reshape civil rights protections for federal employees.
Why is this case important beyond the NSA?
Trump’s order was among a flurry of executive actions signed within hours of his return to office, echoing campaign promises to reverse federal recognition of transgender identities. The administration continued to rely heavily on the executive in its second term.
Legal experts say the case could become a critical test of whether executive orders can override Supreme Court precedent and statutory protections for civil rights — especially for LGBTQ+ federal employees.
At its heart, the lawsuit poses a question with constitutional weight: Can the president redefine legal sex in a way that effectively removes protections that Congress has already put into law?
