New Texas Bill Outright Criminalizes Being Trans As Felony Fraud

The bill, brought by legislator Tom Oliverson, likely will not pass. However, it represents a new front in attacks on trans people, and connects with other attempts to label being trans as "fraud."

Representative Tom Oliverson - Public Record, Texas House

A new bill introduced by far-right Republican legislator Tom Oliverson, HB3817, seeks to criminalize being transgender by classifying it as felony fraud. While the bill has no cosponsors—making its passage significantly less likely—it marks a significant escalation in anti-trans legislation. It is the first measure to explicitly criminalize identifying as a gender different from one’s sex assigned at birth and communicating that identity to others. The proposal also aligns with broader efforts at the state and federal levels, including Trump administration policies, that seek to label transgender existence as "fraudulent."

The bill states that transgender individuals who "make a false or misleading verbal or written statement" to their employer or the government are guilty of felony fraud if that statement "identifies the person’s biological sex as the opposite of the biological sex assigned to the person at birth." This language effectively criminalizes transgender people for merely existing and identifying as their gender identity.

Beyond employment, the bill could also apply to interactions with law enforcement, attempts to update gender markers on official documents, and other routine disclosures of gender identity. If enacted, it would amount to the direct criminalization of being transgender, with felony fraud charges carrying the potential for jail time.

See the full bill here:

Though this is the first direct attempt to criminalize being transgender, the use of "fraud" language in anti-trans policies has appeared in other settings. In 2024, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles announced that transgender individuals could be "guilty of fraud" for "misrepresenting" their sex assigned at birth on driver's licenses. Shortly after, the state banned all gender marker changes on those licenses. While previous policies have used the concept of fraud to justify restrictions, this bill takes it further—escalating from bureaucratic barriers to outright criminalization.

Nationally, similar language has been used to justify sweeping restrictions on transgender people under the Trump administration. Trump’s military ban explicitly frames transgender identity as deception, stating that "A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member." This framing treats gender identity itself as a "false statement," barring transgender people from service on the grounds of dishonesty.

Likewise, recent actions by Secretary of State Marco Rubio have effectively banned transgender individuals from obtaining U.S. visas if their applications do not match their assigned sex at birth. If such "misrepresentations" are deemed fraudulent, applicants could face permanent bans from entering the country. These policies signal an alarming trend: the increasing use of "fraud" as a legal pretext to criminalize transgender existence and prevent travel.

The bill is unlikely to pass—Texas has introduced dozens of anti-trans bills this cycle, it has only a single sponsor, and it is the most extreme proposal on the docket this year. However, an alarming pattern has emerged in state legislatures and now federal policy: the most extreme bills from one year often become viable the years that follow. Few could imagine visa and passport bans two years ago when the first drivers license bills were being passed, for example.

Given the growing hostility toward transgender people in Texas, many in the community are increasingly concerned about the escalating severity of proposed legislation. Another bill, also unlikely to pass but similarly extreme, removes the word "minors" from a gender-affirming care ban, expanding it to apply to all ages. These proposals illustrate a broader shift in the Overton window, pushing once-unthinkable policies closer to political reality.