MS-13 Killer Demands Sex Change

A convicted MS-13 murderer is trying to force American taxpayers to bankroll “gender-affirming” benefits behind bars—despite a Trump executive order meant to stop it.

Quick Take

MS-13 gang member Oscar Contreras Aguilar, imprisoned for a 2016 murder of a 14-year-old in Virginia, is seeking to join the ACLU-led class action Kingdom v. Trump.
Trump’s Executive Order 14168 aimed to restrict taxpayer-funded gender-transition treatments and related “social” accommodations in federal prisons.
A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in 2025 that kept hormone therapy available for some inmates, while surgery remained excluded.
The DOJ is now pushing back, arguing parts of the injunction were premised on unsubstantiated retaliation claims.

The lawsuit that turned a prison policy fight into a national flashpoint

Oscar Contreras Aguilar, a convicted MS-13 member serving time for a brutal 2016 killing in Fairfax County, Virginia, is seeking to join the ACLU-led class action lawsuit Kingdom v. Trump. In filings, Aguilar—who identifies as “Fendi G. Skyy”—claims the Bureau of Prisons denied “social transition” items and treated him as male during searches and interactions. The case sits at the intersection of inmate medical claims, taxpayer funding, and the administration’s “biological sex” policy for federal custody.

Aguilar’s push to enter the class action gained attention because of the underlying crime and the legal relief sought. Reports describe the murder as involving a knife and machete and the victim’s body being buried after the teenager was lured to a park. That background matters politically because the dispute is not about a hypothetical policy memo; it is about whether the federal government must provide or facilitate requested accommodations for inmates convicted of extreme violence, and how far courts will go in second-guessing prison administration.

What Trump’s Executive Order 14168 changed—and what courts blocked

President Trump signed Executive Order 14168 on Jan. 20, 2025, directing federal agencies to apply “biological sex” standards and restricting federal support for gender-transition interventions in federal prisons. The Bureau of Prisons then moved to implement the order through operational changes that, according to lawsuit materials, included halting hormones for some inmates and limiting gender-affirming clothing, cosmetics, and other items. Supporters viewed the directive as a line against ideological capture; opponents framed it as denial of medically necessary care.

In June 2025, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction in Kingdom v. Trump that blocked parts of the administration’s approach—particularly regarding hormone therapy—and also preserved access to certain “social” items for class members, while not ordering sex-reassignment surgery. That injunction created a contested middle ground: the executive branch could still argue policy and funding limits, but the courts asserted that stopping some treatments could violate constitutional standards as applied to inmates diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The result has been ongoing compliance fights and competing interpretations of what the injunction requires.

DOJ’s rebuttal: “Unsubstantiated” retaliation claims and a push for reconsideration

Aguilar moved on March 11, 2026, to join the Kingdom class, arguing that the Bureau of Prisons denied items like bras, panties, and makeup and that officials were not honoring the injunction’s protections. The Justice Department responded days later with a motion for reconsideration, disputing the factual basis for claims that the administration retaliated against inmates or cut off care as punishment for litigation. DOJ filings cited evidence in at least one related inmate situation to argue that hormones continued, undercutting the retaliation narrative.

The fight now is as much procedural as it is cultural. If the court narrows the injunction or accepts DOJ’s arguments, Trump’s order could regain force in practice even without a final merits ruling. If the court expands enforcement—through contempt findings or sanctions, as some filings suggest plaintiffs have sought—the executive branch could face judicially supervised prison directives. For voters already skeptical of unelected power, the key constitutional question is how far courts should manage day-to-day prison policy when Congress and the president set funding and administration priorities.

Why this story resonates beyond prison walls

Conservatives watching the case see multiple pressure points at once: the cost burden on taxpayers, the moral hazard of rewarding violent criminals with special accommodations, and the broader legal trend of turning administrative disputes into nationwide mandates via class actions. The ACLU frames the case around Eighth Amendment standards and equal protection, arguing that gender dysphoria treatment can be medically necessary. The administration frames the dispute around biological reality and curbing ideologically driven spending. The available reporting does not resolve the medical debate, but it does show a legal system struggling to define limits.

Imprisoned MS-13 gang member sues Trump administration to get sex-change treatment https://t.co/K2xeRyC0Ji

— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) March 24, 2026

Politically, the timing lands in a turbulent period when many Trump voters feel whiplash: they backed “law and order” and border enforcement, but also expected fewer foreign entanglements and lower costs at home. This prison case taps the same frustration about priorities—what government should fund, what it should refuse, and who gets heard first. The court’s next decisions in Kingdom v. Trump and related filings will determine whether EO 14168 becomes a durable policy reset or another executive action partially neutralized through litigation.