1. United States
2. Iowa
3. Letter

I am writing to you today to discuss an issue at the heart of both personal freedom and public policy: the right of individuals to make decisions about their appearance in order to align with their identity. While this is often framed as a progressive or even controversial idea, I'd like to draw your attention to one very public and conservative figure who routinely engages in such practices— President Donald J. Trump. Mr. Trump is widely known for his characteristic orange-hued spray tan, his elaborate comb-over hairstyle to conceal hair loss, and his use of shoe lifts to appear taller than his natural height. These choices are not simply aesthetic; they serve to affirm a particular image of masculinity and personal power that he feels is essential to his identity. In essence, these are forms of gender expression and body modification—deeply personal choices that help him feel more aligned with the way he wishes to be perceived. This is not unlike the motivations behind what is commonly referred to as gender-affirming care. Whether it’s hormone therapy, name changes, hair styling, makeup, or surgical procedures, these are all part of a continuum of personal autonomy and self-expression. If Mr. Trump’s use of appearance-enhancing techniques is accepted—or even celebrated—by many of his supporters, then it raises a critical question: Why is similar gender-affirming care denied, restricted, or stigmatized when it comes to transgender individuals? The double standard is glaring. When powerful men use cosmetic interventions to reinforce traditional masculinity, they are seen as savvy or image-conscious. But when others, particularly transgender people and especially transgender youth, pursue medically supported and psychologically beneficial care to affirm their identity, they are often targeted by punitive legislation and harmful rhetoric. I urge you to support policies that protect and expand access to gender-affirming care for all people. Personal autonomy and the right to define oneself should not be limited by political expediency or cultural bias. If we can understand and tolerate these choices in the powerful, we must extend that same understanding to the vulnerable.