Trumpian nightmare ensues for vulnerable communities and third-world countries

Trump's controversial policies on gender, immigration, and their global implications for marginalized communities

Donald Trump’s second term could reshape the world in different ways. For some, it promises a return to conservative values and stricter policies. But for vulnerable communities and developing nations, it signals deep challenges. His proposed measures—like limiting gender recognition and tougher immigration rules—risk further marginalizing those already struggling for rights and opportunities. What some see as a revival could be a nightmare for others.

These policies also have far-reaching implications for third-world countries, many of which look to the U.S. as a beacon of hope and progress. If implemented, Trump’s measures could widen societal divides, fuel extremism, and leave countless lives in limbo. The question isn’t just about America’s governance—it’s about the kind of message a first-world superpower sends to the world. Will it continue to champion equality, or will it prioritize exclusion in the guise of national progress? For many, the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Only ‘Two’ Genders

First things first, the well-beloved US President has declared that the federal government will only recognise two genders, male and female.

The order reverses Biden administration policies on broader gender identity designations, including on passports.

“Starting today, the official policy of the U.S. government recognizes only two genders: male and female,” Trump announced during his inaugural address on Monday, fulfilling a key campaign promise.

Titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” the order states that sexes are fixed and based on unchangeable biological realities.

The federal government will also replace the term ‘gender’ with ‘sex,’ defining it as an individual’s unalterable biological classification, a Trump administration official explained. In the context of LGBTQ+ movements and the fact that prestigious scholarships offered by the United States often prioritize individuals with diverse gender identities, this policy is not only controversial but also significantly hypocritical.

Medically, there are two sexes: male and female. However, people experience a wide range of gender identities. Those who don’t identify strictly as male or female often struggle with societal intolerance and hatred, which is deeply ingrained in many countries. In the context of Pakistan—a predominantly conservative and, to some extent, extremist country—transgender individuals, commonly referred to as Khuwajasira, have faced a long history of brutal violence. Even today, violence against the Khawaja Sira community remains a harsh reality. It is deeply unfortunate that, as a society, we have failed them to such a great extent.

As journalists who have worked closely with the community, we looked to first-world countries like the United States as examples of coexistence. This vulnerable community, which carries years of generational trauma due to a history of unacceptance, has fought for years to carve out space. While they have made significant progress, they still face a long road ahead. Unfortunately, the future remains uncertain, and it doesn't look promising.

Even before Trump officially took office, there was speculation about the potential overturning of the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges case, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015. Many feared this could happen within the next four years, either through the courts or by Trump's actions.

A country often regarded as liberal, progressive, and open in terms of acceptance had members of a vulnerable community grappling with fears of an identity crisis. This raises significant concerns about the impact on nations that refuse to acknowledge the existence of genders beyond male and female. As mentioned earlier, third-world countries often look to first-world nations for guidance. When leaders in these influential nations, including the president, make disparaging remarks like the one we heard yesterday, it’s difficult to imagine how much worse the situation could become from here.

The transgender community's share of economic, social, and educational rights is at stake. If they are not recognized as a separate entity, like men and women, how can we expect separate quotas or spaces for them? This tone-deaf and privileged stance by the President not only puts this vulnerable community at risk but also places them in a difficult position, questioning how the world will view them in the future.

In my opinion, this is a step backward from all the progress we've made in LGBTQ+ acceptance. It's truly unfair to those who have endured a lifetime of struggles with their gender identity. With one decision, all of that progress is undone, forcing them to fight once again.

Gaza crisis, and where does the US stand?

With Gaza reaching a ceasefire after fifteen months, discussions around the war, Israel's alleged war crimes, and its aftermath have intensified. However, the U.S. President openly stated, “It is not our war,” effectively removing an ally—who was, if not equally, at least partially responsible for the genocide—from the equation.

When an off-screen reporter asked how he envisions the governance of Gaza, he responded, "Well, it depends. I can't imagine you could have... you certainly can't have the people that were there. Most of them are dead, by the way. Most of them are dead. But they didn't exactly run it well—they ran it viciously and badly. So you can't have that."

Now, food for thought: a region nearly destroyed, requiring decades to rebuild, with no universities or hospitals left, remains highly vulnerable. Adding to this, the cabinet includes individuals who are pro-Israel, making the stance somewhat understandable. However, it also starkly highlights how much a so-called first-world country, which claims to champion human rights, truly cares about children dying.

Deportations, and conversations regarding birthright citizenship

In the past, Trump’s immigration policies unleashed a storm of fear and uncertainty, tearing into the lives of countless immigrant families. By expanding ICE powers, the administration targeted not just criminals but also families who had lived peacefully for years.

The removal of prosecutorial discretion meant even minor infractions could lead to deportation, leaving children without parents and communities without essential contributors. For families with undocumented members, this was more than policy—it was a nightmare. The emotional scars of these separations are lasting, and the economic fallout is undeniable as businesses reliant on immigrant workers suffered severe losses.

The attack on birthright citizenship was an affront to America’s core values. Proposing to strip citizenship from children born on U.S. soil undermined the promise of equality and opportunity. While this policy wasn’t implemented, it created fear and anxiety for parents on visas or in undocumented status. Imagine a child born stateless in the very country that proclaims freedom and justice. Such a move wasn’t just cruel; it was hypocritical.

These policies didn’t just enforce immigration laws—they dehumanized those who sought better lives. They tested America’s moral fabric, showing a country willing to forsake its values in the name of exclusion. Families deserve dignity, not fear.

If Trump’s immigration and citizenship policies were implemented today, they would exacerbate divisions in an already polarized America. The expanded deportation measures would likely create widespread fear within immigrant communities, including those contributing to essential industries like healthcare, agriculture, and technology.

Modern world thrives on diversity, with immigrants forming the backbone of many local economies. Stripping birthright citizenship would risk creating a stateless generation, leading to legal chaos and further marginalizing vulnerable communities. For children born to immigrants, this would mean uncertainty, stigmatization, and diminished access to opportunities.