As NCMEC Removes Any Mention of Trans Youth, the Anti-Porn Movement Shows Its True Colors With Trump’s Executive Order Against ‘Gender Ideology’
from the not-protecting-kids-whatsoever dept
I’ve long maintained the certitude that anti-pornography campaigners aligned with the far-right and conservative Christian movements are directly or indirectly transphobic and anti-LGBTQ.
A body of evidence in my own reporting and experiences covering the rights of sex workers and the online pornography business has built out this schema of anti-LGBTQ and anti-pornography campaigners being tied at the hip in one form or another. One recent news item validates this.
As Mike Masnick summarized in a crucial Techdirt column a few days ago, the U.S. Department of Justice ordered the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) to comply with GOP President Donald Trump’s Executive Order (EO) 14168 — his transphobic “gender ideology” directive blocking federal government agencies from even recognizing trans people.
NCMEC is one of the world’s leading authorities on fighting and mitigating sexual exploitation of minors on the internet through its CyberTipline program. Though imperfect, the program still serves a critical purpose for law enforcement, survivors, and their families. That purpose is to detect, track, and try to fight the proliferation of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and other image-based sexual abuse material on the internet — especially offending material found on social platforms such as Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook and Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter).
Considering NCMEC’s mission here, a reasonable person could have suspected that the center would be immune from the politics of a staunchly ultraconservative White House. However, it appears that even in today’s world, that is too much to ask for. As several news outlets report, EO 14168 directs all federal agencies to remove any mention of trans people and any other gender-neutral messaging. The order also makes the disbursement of federal grants contingent upon whether the benefiting groups comply with EO 14168 and other anti-DEI Trump directives.
This is how the executive order impacts NCMEC. Founded by an act of U.S. Congress with the support of President Ronald Reagan, the foundation was incorporated as a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization able to accept donations from the public. And NCMEC is supposedly independent.
However, a large chunk of NCMEC’s annual budget is revenue generated from Department of Justice (DOJ) grants and interagency funding agreements from other federal funding sources.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), a program office in the DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs, awarded NCMEC about $41.38 million in fiscal year 2023, with $6 million from an interagency agreement between OJJDP and the U.S. Secret Service.
According to NCMEC’s Form 990 disclosure to the IRS, the center had $65,191,787 in revenues in that same fiscal year. Of that total, DOJ grants to NCMEC were over 70 percent of all generated revenues. Add the dimension that NCMEC has the function of serving as a global clearinghouse for CSAM and online child exploitation cases, Trump’s executive order is a punch in the gut that deserves a bit of scrutiny. NCMEC being ordered by OJJDP to remove mentions of trans and gender-diverse youth in reports, promotional material, and prevention documents is counterintuitive when it comes to protecting minors – especially when the Trump administration claims that it wants to protect kids from the perversions of the world. But under what standards?
Trump’s people base their standard on protecting children from so-called “gender ideology.” The mention of “gender ideology” in plans for an ultraconservative presidency can be traced back to Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led “presidential transition project” that Trump claims he knew nothing about but then turned around and appointed key architects to high-level positions.
In a previous column for Techdirt, I discuss Project 2025’s central policy document, the nearly 1000-page Mandate for Leadership: A Conservative Promise. Writing for the foreword, Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts calls for the end of “transgenderism” and “gender ideology.”
He additionally calls for the prohibition of what he considers to be “pornography” and prison time for so-called “pornographers.” Roberts also links “gender ideology” and “pornography” as some sort of dark, interconnected left-wing indoctrination strategy that targets the country’s children.
Roberts wrote:
“Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare.”
“Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.”
It’s worth noting that “gender ideology” is mentioned throughout the document. Other terms that are used to try and implicate our understanding of people’s most basic personal sexual identity found in the Mandate for Leadership include “transgender ideology” and “transgenderism.” Not only are Roberts’ words emblematic of some white Christian nationalist’s wet dream, but they reveal a more profound belief of people who now surround Trump. That belief is of “gender ideology,” and the otherwise First Amendment-protected right to produce porn are connected. There is absolutely no evidence that watching porn “turns” someone transgender or LGBTQ.
It’s foolish, conspiratorial rubbish. But it’s officially the policy of the federal government. I draw attention to the anti-pornography component because many of the same groups who supported Project 2025 also support efforts to restrict or outlaw legal and consensual pornography through “back door” age verification laws or to push content restrictions like bans on LGBTQ books in the public school and library systems. These are also the same groups that spread transphobic conspiracy theories and moral panics about trans people in athletics, the culture, and society.
It is also these groups that claim that platforms like Pornhub.com are supposedly hotbeds of criminal activity and exploitation. And, often, they point to NCMEC CyberTipline data as “truth” to these claims and suggest other equally as problematic right-wing organizations are much more credible and reliable than the premier child protection agency—case in point: the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE). Though NCOSE is not a signatory to Project 2025, a body of growing evidence indicates direct links to organizations part of the Heritage-led effort and how some of the same organizations are regarded as anti-LGBTQ hate organizations by the civil rights groups Southern Poverty Law Center, Human Rights Campaign, and GLAAD.
For example, on NCOSE’s board, Patrick A. Trueman serves as president emeritus. Trueman served as the president of NCOSE for years, especially before the group’s rebrand from Morality in Media in 2015. Morality in Media was a far-right Catholic anti-pornography pressure group. Trueman has also previously served in positions and as counsel for quite similar organizations, including the Family Research Council and the American Family Association. While NCOSE is essentially a byproduct of far-right anti-pornography campaigning, the origins of the group are still deeply connected to several hate groups that are a part of Project 2025 and have advocated against so-called “gender ideology” tropes under the guise of protecting minors from perverts.
In actuality, these groups have done very little to protect youth – especially NCOSE. If you draw your attention to NCMEC CyberTipline reporting data for the year 2023, the National Center for Sexual Exploitation only reported three potential cases of online child sexual exploitation – three out of a total of 35,944,826 reports. Despite framing Pornhub and similar platforms as the root issue of the problem, anti-porn groups often neglect to mention how these porn sites voluntarily report to CyberTipline. To wit, Pornhub’s parent company Aylo reported 2,597 reports across all of its platforms. Fenix International Limited, the parent company of OnlyFans, filed 347 reports.
Pornhub and OnlyFans additionally participate in NCMEC’s Take It Down program alongside the adult platforms Clips4Sale, RedGIFs, and popular social media platforms like TikTok, Snapchat, Threads, Facebook, Instagram, and Yubo. Take It Down was developed as a free, anonymous service for youth to use NCMEC’s resources to take down unwanted nude images found online.
It is also important to note that groups like the Heritage Foundation, Family Research Council, and the American Family Association have never reported potential CSAM to NCMEC’s tipline.
These groups and scores of others, not all linked to Project 2025 but still with similar agendas, use their platforms to advocate against equal rights for transgender people, especially youth. I point to examples of this in another column I did for Techdirt. I wrote about amicus briefs filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in his defense of the controversial porn age verification law House Bill (HB) 1181. Adult industry stakeholders sued Paxton to block HB 1181, arguing that it violates adult platforms’ and users’ First Amendment rights. Oral arguments in the case were heard on Jan. 15, 2025. As customary with high-profile legal cases, amicus briefs are filed to support the petitioners and the respondents in the dispute.
Many of the groups supporting Paxton support the idea of restricting or banning pornography despite its First Amendment protections. These groups have also endorsed transphobic and anti-LGBTQ policy positions that President Trump is now implementing. One group that filed in support of Paxton is the “child’s rights” group called Them Before Us. Founded by the far-right journalist Katy Faust, this group is also on the cutting edge of transphobia and pseudoscientific fearmongering about IVF and surrogacy. Faust’s group says they “[protect] every child’s right to their mother and father,” and they do so by repeating bigoted tropes about transgender people.
Considering these additional details, it seems these organizations are getting what they want: carte blanche to discriminate against human beings. And it comes at the expense of helping fight child exploitation on the internet by staking critical funding on far-right ideological bullshit.
Michael McGrady covers the tech and legal sides of the online porn business.
Filed Under: anti-porn, free speech, gender ideology, ncmec, project 2025, transphobic
Companies: heritage foundation, ncmec, ncose


Comments on “As NCMEC Removes Any Mention of Trans Youth, the Anti-Porn Movement Shows Its True Colors With Trump’s Executive Order Against ‘Gender Ideology’”
And every right-wing accusation being a confession…
Re:
The hashtag #NotADragQueen exists for a reason.
Welcome to the extinction burst of conservative bigotry. Trans people are their last “acceptable” targets, since homophobia went out of style after Obergefell, racism and sexism are routinely denounced, ableism is starting to be seen as less acceptable than it was in the past, and even bigotry against minority religious groups isn’t getting the same approval it used to get. Transphobia is the only “acceptable” hate they have left. But the funny thing is, on a long enough timeline, even that hate will eventually be seen as unacceptable.
Re: and yet
They are still seemingly hellbent on overturning Obergefell and others as well if for no other reason than hate and spite.
Re: Re:
they can try but they won’t get far
Re:
That may be the case currently but my understanding of the EO is that it targets all LGBTQ+ language with a focus on trans people, so if they normalize trans-bashing I’ve no doubt that they will start trying to re-normalize anti-homosexual bigotry as well, and as for Obergefell… Roe was on the books a hell of a lot longer than that one an everyone saw how that turned out.
The best part is, their oh so holy book has tales of incest. Will it be illegal to distribute that?
Re:
Even funnier: The Biblical origin story of man implies that we’re all here through incest. After all, according to Genesis, we all come from Adam and Eve, who had three sons and no daughters. Unless God made a bunch of people that the Bible isn’t telling us about… 😳
Re: Re:
I guess it would have been, “I’m your dad. My mom is your mom.”
Re: Re: Re:
And somehow, he’s still his own grandpa.
Re: Re:
Not just once but twice, there’s the post-Noah ‘repopulation’ to consider as well.
Re: Re: Re:
No there isn’t:
Source: Genesis 6:18
Re: Re: Re:2
Oh good, so they just violated the 7th Commandment, then.
Re: Re: Re:2 What do you call your uncle's sons or daughers again?
Which means that particular pairing(his sons and their wives) isn’t incestuous, now who exactly are their kids ‘repopulating’ the planet with that isn’t at the most distant a cousin that first generation?
Re: Re: Re:2
Still a very small and probably non-viable population.
Re: Re: Re:
The first instance happened twice, also. In reverse chronological order. With mutually exclusive variations.
Re: Re:
Their whole anti-porn stance is strange given that IIRC, the whole point of Adam and Eve originally was for only them to have sex and spread humankind across the Earth. It was only after consuming the fruit of knowledge that they started to feel shame and see it as wrong.
Looking at it from a certain angle, by espousing anti-porn, they are indulging and entrenching the first sin and going against God’s original grand design for humanity.
Re: Re: Re:
Some Christian churches teach that the plan was for humanity to live forever in the garden of Eden.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but are you saying “go forth and multiply” isn’t possible without porn?
Also, the Project 2025’s “Mandate for Leadership” recommends to (page 556):
Of course, this sentence (put there without any context nor sense), not far from another random “enforce the death penalty where appropriate and applicable” is sitting between dense paragraphs on criminals, Mexico border, China trade secret thefts and fentanyl, and other paragraphs on pro-life, abortion, LGBT and DEI, so it’s close to impossible to understand what they really want with all this buzzword salad, but if Trump has read even a single sentence of this thousand pages rag, it won’t make any good to the society.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Shut up, propagandist for sex-trafficking and the exploitation of vulnerable women and girls.
Re:
there’s hyman
Re:
Hey! Anyone wanna meet up in Constantinople later?
Re:
“Nuh-uh you are, ’cause I said you’re, and, and shut up, and stuff!”
…Wow way to make your point champ I think you’re ready for a cabinet position
It’s a small step from yelling “biology matters!” at trans people to yelling the same at parents who don’t have their children the standard biological way. Anyone who cites biology to say that trans women aren’t women and trans men aren’t men, can just as easily cite biology to say that adoptive parents aren’t parents.
Hopefully this will be a wake-up call for the kind of liberals who recognise bigotry except when it’s transphobia pretending to be science or common sense.
Re:
Additionally: Anyone who thinks they can tell whether another person is trans just by looking at that person can just as easily say “that woman doesn’t look womanly enough” and sic a bunch of transphobes on that woman even if the woman is cisgender. All of this transphobia shit ultimately comes down to misogyny and the desire to police women’s bodies.
Re: Re:
Don’t imagine that it hasn’t already happened.
Of course, in Soviet Russia…
And the transgendered can’t catch a break.
Re: Re: Re:
That ‘masculine’ woman who got beat up in 2016 is simply androgynous. But even if the guy who beat her was right in his accusation, I still hope he got the maximum for his actions.
Re: Re: Re:
FYI. we’re not “transgendered”. Being transgender is simply a fact of who we are, it’s not something that was done to us.
Re: biology can matter under the law
You do not have to go that much farther back to reach their next step of biology mattering. Loving v. Virgina was decided not quite 60 years ago, but the decision quoted the trial case:
And of course here in Florida, besides the embarrassment of the Virgil Hawkins cases, we also have McGlaughlin v. State, 153 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1963), which praised the ``well-written decision” in Pace v. Alabama. Overturned, McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184 (1964).
The law in Pace also said that biology mattered. A person with one negro in three generations, which is to say 1/8, could not legally marry a white person. The penalty, preserved when the law was upheld by the U.S. Supremes, was 2 years in the state pen.
McLaughlin and Loving may be getting a bit hoary, but with the present crop of supremes you never know. At least some have expressed desire to roll back some civil rights cases.
Re: Re:
You should remind the SCOTUS of one pertinent fact: God didn’t put differntly colored people in various places around the world, us humans did when a group of cro magnon with a skin lightening genetic anomaly walked out of central Africa and spread around the globe during the last ice age.
Re: Re:
Wait, wait… then doesn’t that mean that it was against God’s will for white people to leave Europe?
Re: Re: Re:
And for white people to shift black people around.
Re:
I’m waiting for the bigots to go Shakespearean.
“Ha Ha look at him, what a loser, from his mother’s womb untimely ripped! Couldn’t even be born right!”
“Ew, why would I want to date you?! You’re no proper man of woman born!”
'Never let a tragedy go to waste, and if there isn't one already...'
Yet again republicans demonstrate that to the extent they complain about an injustice or atrocity it’s only because they aren’t the ones doing it.
Exploit kids and/or allow them to be exploited? Absolutely, but only if it serves the republicans narrative or agenda.
Great, so what’s gonna get in the way of them just banning all adult material from the internet now?
And then moving on to anything LGBQT+ after that, although they seem eager to try and gun for that first instead..
This was all so avoidable, but of course people just HAD to vote for the braindead orange because “muh egg prices”
Re:
(and this is without even getting into the fact they stoop so low as to fuck with the NCMEC to begin with.)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Why shouldn’t porn be banned from the internet?
Do you support the creation and publication of smut, the production of which results in the brutal exploitation of vulnerable women and girls?
Re: Re:
Oh shut up you wannabe nazi, way to show your ignorance.
Re: Re: Re:
If anyone else is going to comment, I’d like for it to be from a person who can answer my original question, THANKS.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
hyman you can fuck off with your bullshit
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
you anti lgbtq person who supports csam and is a wannabe nazi
Re: Re: Re:3
Why the fuck are you commenting this to me? I’m the guy telling the nazi-head to piss off.
Please check who you’re replying to next time.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
“Why shouldn’t porn be banned from the internet?
Do you support the creation and publication of smut, the production of which results in the brutal exploitation of vulnerable women and girls?” only hyman speaks like this are you hyman?
Re: Re: Re:5
I’m the original commenter that he made that comment to.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
thanks i thought you were hyman
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
hey hyman idiot
Re: Re: Ban, huh?
CSAM is unconscionable. If that’s the subject, we can agree.
…But if you’re talking regular old smut? Sex work?
Try this. Ask yourself how effective the 18th amendment was.
(Hint: that’s the one that had to get undone by the 21st.)
Creating black markets doesn’t solve exploitation.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s why plenty of people advocate for either decriminalization or legalization (yes, there is a difference) of drugs, sex work, or both: Taking away the black market for those things would likely cut down on a lot of the exploitation involved with the illicit drug trade and underground sex work.
Re: Re: Re:2
Absolutely.
Lol my guy I wish I could buy you a coffee or something; you bust your ass around here countering the trolls and morons. It’s appreciated.
Anyway I wonder how the OP responds? (If they do.)
Like the others who immediately piled on, I do doubt it was the exploitation of women that was really their true concern.
Re: Re: Re:3
On the contrary: The exploitation is what they’re concerned about—in the sense that they don’t want the exploitation to stop.
Re: Re: Re:2
Can’t wait for the day the decriminalization and legalization movements start to really gain momentum, honestly.
So many issues in society that could be helped here.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Well, ironically I guess this won’t matter anyway if section 230 goes away in the future.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
shut up with your doomerism about 230
A typo
When you used the words Executive Order (EO) you appear to have misspelled Excrementive Output
I'm joining the war on porn
ON THE SIDE OF PORN!
If gender ideology must be removed, they’re doing it wrong. They missed the actual ideology, for one.
But then, this is the same as identity politics. The people who made it up and practice these things are not the ones they so accuse. The call is coming from inside the mirror.