As an applied science, social work practice and research is interdisciplinary and draws from a range of disciplines including psychology, sociology, medicine, gerontology, public administration, policy studies, and economics.
Social Work is part of the University of South Dakota's School of Health Sciences. Social work students, staff and faculty can find several research resources in the University Libraries. The University library includes the Wegner Health Sciences Library in Sioux Falls.
The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) is gravely concerned with a newly released U.S. Department of Health and Human Services document that reviews scientific literature about treatments for gender dysphoria because it contains massive inconsistences.
The 409-page document, Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria, was commissioned under President Trump’s Executive Order 14187. It aligns with the administration’s anti-transgender policy agenda and ignores existing scientific consensus.
The document frames gender identity as pathological unless resolved through desistance, or having the person stop or severely limit certain behaviors. It also advocates withholding gender-affirming care, despite the distress this can cause people who have gender dysphoria.
This document is also a clear attempt to erase the voices of transgender youth because their perspective is not included in the report. It focuses more on detransitioners, or people who no longer identify as transgender and have decided to stop or reverse gender affirming care, while marginalizing people who benefit from gender affirming care.
NASW supports LGBTQIA+ people and best practices for their care
NASW has long advocated access to affirming, equitable, and comprehensive care for LGBTQIA+ youth and pushed back against federal and state policies that discriminate against people who are LGBTQIA+.
The association supports evidence-based clinical practices supported by major health organizations. And NASW has urged social workers to base their practice on current, peer-reviewed science and recognized best practices.
Clients, including youth, within developmentally appropriate boundaries, have the right to participate in decisions about their care.
Report fails to take into account how the Trump Administration is undermining LGBTQ+ care
The HHS document does raise valid questions about long-term evidence gaps. However, it fails to acknowledge that funding to close these gaps has been limited. In fact, HHS, via the National Institutes of Health, in March 2025 cancelled dozens of LGBTQIA+ related grants that totaled about $40 million.
While the report highlights concern about clinical rigor and informed consent practices, it fails to acknowledge the role the Trump Administration has taken in diminishing and halting the work of underfunded practitioners who have devoted decades of research in hopes of creating a more equitable society for LGBTQIA+ adults and children.
The document fairly points to the need for better data, especially on detransition and regret, but these goals can never be reached without proper research funding.
Trump on Jan. 20 signed an executive order, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, that defined sex strictly as binary and banning any federal programs that “promote gender ideology.”
Since January, the Trump administration has pursued budget and policy actions targeting LGBTQIA programs and protections. For example, a leaked FY2026 budget draft would eliminate all specialized LGBTQ+ youth services on the 988 suicide/crisis line, sharply reducing the number of counselors trained to work with high-risk LGBTQ youth.
The manipulation of research and clinical guidance to serve anti-trans policy goals is disheartening and extremely dangerous. The document elevates low-evidence critiques while dismissing or discrediting higher-quality studies and guidelines from the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.
The National Association of Social Workers stands firmly with transgender and gender-diverse youth. We reject the conclusions of the HHS May 2025 report, which undermines decades of peer-reviewed science, silences trans voices, and politicizes medicine. NASW remains committed to advancing gender-affirming, developmentally appropriate, and ethical care.
Breast cancer is the leading alcohol-related cancer among women in the U.S., with alcohol-related cancer representing more than 16% of breast cancer cases nationally. The risk of breast cancer increases with the amount of alcohol consumed. For women, even one drink per day may increase the risk of breast cancer by 10%, with the risk increasing to 32% for women who have more than two drinks per day. Alcohol use is also linked to six other cancers, including those of the mouth, throat, esophagus, and liver.
What’s more, women who drink face reproductive risks, including fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASDs), a range of lifelong behavioral, intellectual, and physical disabilities that may affect up to 1 in 20 school children nationwide. Alcohol use during pregnancy can also increase the risk of miscarriage, stillbirth, preterm delivery, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
In honor of National Women’s Health Week (May 11–17), social workers can discuss these risks with clients. In these conversations, it’s important to share that there is no known safe amount of alcohol use during pregnancy. There is also no safe time during pregnancy to drink. All types of alcohol can be harmful, including wine, beer, and liquor. If a client who is pregnant is using alcohol, the safest thing to do is to stop drinking. Every day matters.
Alcohol screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is an evidence-based tool for making conversations about alcohol part of routine care—and reducing clients’ harmful alcohol use. For tips on opening the conversation, social workers can use this SBIRT pocket card developed by the Health Behavior Research and Training Institute at The University of Texas at Austin Steve Hicks School of Social Work, NASW, the NASW Foundation, and Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU), with support from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This collaboration, known as the FASD National Partner Network, puts social workers at the center of prevention practice—along with colleagues in family medicine, obstetrics-gynecology, pediatrics, nursing, and medical assisting.
_______________________________________
Article by Diana Ling, MA, Senior Program Manager; and Anna Mangum, MSW, MPH, Senior Health Strategist; Health Behavior Research and Training Institute, Steve Hicks School of Social Work, The University of Texas at Austin.
_______________________________________
This initiative, Engaging Social Workers in Preventing Alcohol- and Other Substance-Exposed Pregnancies, is supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as part of a financial assistance award totaling $913,610 with 100 percent funded by CDC/HHS. The contents are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official views of, nor an endorsement by, CDC/HHS, or the U.S. Government.
By Mel Wilson, NASW Senior Policy Adviser
There are signs the strategy of using federal courts to challenge many of President Trump’s appalling Executive Orders (EOs) is having some early success. This approach, which is being used by the social justice community, has deep roots the Civil Rights Movement. However, given the ferocity and volume of the Trump administration’s EOs, there has been a degree of uncertainty about the effectiveness of this strategy in the MAGA era.
Since his inauguration on January 20, Trump has signed a record 142 executive orders, far more than any other U.S. president in the same time period. The EOs range from declaring a national emergency on the southern border over illegal immigration; ordering federal agencies to scrap Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives; to penalizing schools that allow transgender individuals to participate in girl sports.
With that in mind, it is encouraging that over the last few weeks the federal judiciary – mostly at the district court level – has made significant decisions to halt several of President Trump’s troublesome EOs. In taking these actions, the federal judiciary – in contrast to the U.S. Congress – appears to be embracing its role of safeguarding constitutional principles.
While there have been dozens of lawsuits filed against Trump’s executive orders, the most recent court decisions focus on immigration, DEI, and transgender rights. For example, federal judges blocked or suspended efforts by the Trump administration to ban transgender people from the military, abolish the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and place restrictions on birthright citizenship.
Here is a more detailed overview of these rulings and their implications:
Judgement concerning Sanctuary City Executive Order
A U.S. District Courts judge on April 24 ruled that an EO issued by Trump to block federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to fully cooperate with immigration enforcement is likely unconstitutional. For that reason, the judge stated that the administration could not enforce this executive order in the 16 cities and counties that brought the case. This decision is important because sanctuary cities came into being as an affirmative statement that these jurisdictions support protecting the basic civil and human rights of non-citizen residents. The court’s actions has put a pause on Trump’s threat.
Rulings on Federal Election Laws Executive Order
Also on April 24 a federal judge blocked the Trump Administration’s so-called voting protection EO which, among other things, would add a proof-of-citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form.
This particular EO was seen as being both an anti-immigrant policy and a mechanism for voter suppression. The EO is also aligned with almost identical far-right legislation – the Save Act – that passed the House of Representatives.
So, it should not be surprising that a coalition of groups, including the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the League of United Latin American Citizens, filed a legal challenge by arguing the “Voting Protection” EO was unconstitutional.
In reviewing their challenge, a federal judge supported the coalition’s argument. When issuing her decision, the judge stated that the U.S. Constitution makes the election regulation a responsibility of the individual states and Congress rather than the president. The implications of this ruling are significant. Had the court allowed the EO to stand, that decision would have legitimized the far right’s decades-old effort to suppress voting in communities of color.
Court Challenges of the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Executive Orders
There were several important rulings related to the Trump DEI executive action, during the week of April 21. The first came from a New Hampshire based U.S. District Court judge, who stated that the Trump EO that would allow federal funding to be cut from public schools that operate DEI programs could violate the First Amendment rights of teachers and may also be unconstitutionally vague.
A second ruling by a U.S. Court District in Maryland ordered the Department of Education directive to be postponed after concluding it could force teachers to select between “being injured through suppressing their speech or through facing enforcement for exercising their constitutional rights.”
The third similar decision was a preliminary injunction against the directive’s enforcement that was also issued by a judge in Washington D.C. This action was in response to a case brought by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
It should be noted that 19 states are suing the Trump administration over the Department of Education EO and its threat to pull funding from non-compliant states and school districts. These states are not just concerned about the Trump EO’s negative impact on funding available to their school districts. They are also resisting new federal certification requirements that are stipulated under the Trump executive order. Signing the certification would have forced them to end post-secondary education financial aid such as Pell Grants.
Lawsuits to End Alien Enemies Act – El Salvador Deportations
The Project 2025 driven blueprint for the Trump Mass Deportation EO articulated plans to use the Alien Enemies Act as a key tool for achieving its objectives. Therefore, when the administration made the initial action to employ that act as the legal basis for deporting so-called gang members from Venezuela to El Salvador, the immigration and civil rights communities were not caught off guard.
As a reaction to a sequence of mass deportation actions by the Trump administration, well-prepared legal challenges by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and others were rapidly moved forward. What followed was a series of significant court rulings. A summary of those rulings can be seen in the timeline below:
This timeline demonstrates the complexities and potential legal entanglements – not to mention the human rights implications – of the Trump Mass Deportation agenda. It also demonstrates the need for a well-thought-out strategyby immigration rights legal experts who are prepared for the many court challenges to come.
Federal Courts Alone are not the Answer for Preserving Democracy
This sequence of events emphasizes an essential fact that, while there has been encouraging court ruling that temporarily stalls the Trump and far-right agenda, the legal battles are by no means over. Civil rights groups and social justice advocates must be prepared to continue their push back against harmful Trump administration’s executive orders,