Fact-checking JD Vance’s Attacks on Tim Walz Over a Transgender Sanctuary Law in Minnesota

It was the latest effort by the Trump campaign to use Mr. Walz’s record on transgender rights to attack him as a far-left liberal.

Share full article

Senator JD Vance’s remarks about transgender children earned some of the strongest applause of his appearance in Mesa, Ariz., on Wednesday.

Senator JD Vance of Ohio on Wednesday attacked Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, his Democratic rival, for a Minnesota law enshrining rights for transgender children to gender-affirming care, promoting a baseless claim that the law allows a state to engage in “legalized kidnapping” of transgender children.

It was the latest effort by the Trump campaign to use Mr. Walz’s record on transgender rights to attack him as a far-left liberal. Mr. Walz has been a prominent champion of transgender residents as governor, issuing an executive order and signing legislation that made it easier for transgender patients to receive gender-affirming care and shielded patients, parents and providers from punishment from other states — a so-called sanctuary law.

Here’s what we know.

What was said

“He signed legislation, he supported legislation, that would take children away from their parents if their parents don’t want to do sex changes.”

“He wants the government to steal your children from you if you don’t agree with Tim Walz’s values. That is not small government. That is disgusting, and he should be ashamed of himself.”
— Mr. Vance said at an event hosted by the conservative group Turning Point Action in Mesa, Ariz.

This is false. Since Mr. Walz was picked as Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate, conservative groups, including the Alliance Defending Freedom — the conservative Christian legal advocacy group — have claimed that the Minnesota state authorities can terminate the parental rights of parents who prevent their children from receiving gender-affirming care. A spokeswoman for Mr. Vance cited the alliance’s arguments to support his claim.

But those groups have been unable to name a case in which that has happened, pointing instead to hypothetical scenarios about a provision in the law that grants Minnesota courts “temporary emergency jurisdiction” during custody disputes crossing state lines if a child “has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.