DHS Slams Judge for Releasing Transgender Migrant Amid Gender Ideology Debate

In a heated clash over immigration and gender ideology, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has sharply criticized a federal judge in Washington for releasing a transgender migrant from detention. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin accused U.S. District Court Judge Amy Baggio, a Biden appointee, of bowing to activist pressure and ignoring the rule of law by prioritizing what she called gender ideology fanaticism over established policy.

The migrant, identified as Odalis Jhonatan Martinez-Velasquez, a transgender woman from Mexico seeking asylum, entered the U.S. in 2023. Initially detained in a male ICE facility in Tacoma, Washington, under policies aligned with a Trump-era executive order to protect women in custody, Martinez-Velasquez was held for over 40 days. Judge Baggio ordered the release this week, citing a lack of procedural fairness in the detention process, including ICE’s failure to provide timely information about the migrant’s location and status.

DHS argues that the judge overstepped her authority, with McLaughlin asserting that only an immigration judge, not a district court judge, should determine detention or release in such cases. She further emphasized that President Trump’s recent executive order explicitly bars DHS from detaining males in women’s facilities, a policy she claims reflects a mandate to reject extreme gender ideology in immigration practices.

Martinez-Velasquez’s legal team, supported by the nonprofit Innovation Law Lab, countered that their client faced severe risks, including alleged abduction and assault by cartel members in Mexico due to her transgender identity. They argued that her detention in a male facility and the lack of access to legal counsel violated fundamental due process standards.

This case underscores a broader tension between immigration enforcement, legal protections for asylum seekers, and the contentious debate over gender identity policies in federal custody. As this story unfolds, it raises critical questions about balancing security protocols with humanitarian obligations in an increasingly polarized landscape.