Destinations
Compare countries and U.S. states without pretending they are interchangeable. Each uses its own evidence-based score model.
116 verified destinations
Overall: 78/100
Strong protections and regional youth-care pathways, but consent, residency, and local access matter. Housing and employment remain difficult.
Overall: 75/100
Strong youth transition and school rights in law, with clinical, consent, and practical access limits. Costs and jobs remain challenging.
Overall: 73/100
Excellent protections, safety, and jobs, but housing costs are exceptionally high.
Overall: 71/100
Robust protections and jobs, but migration, housing, and living costs are difficult.
Overall: 71/100
Robust protections and strong communities, but housing costs and immigration hurdles are substantial.
Overall: 71/100
Strong protections and safe communities, but distance, housing, and skilled migration constrain options.
Overall: 69/100
Safe, digital, and relatively affordable, but specialist care and community depth are limited.
Overall: 69/100
Safe and reasonably affordable with improving rights, but specialist services center on Ljubljana.
Overall: 68/100
Safe with strong protections, but costs and social integration are difficult.
Overall: 68/100
Strong protections and English access, but housing is scarce and expensive.
Overall: 68/100
Top-tier legal protection and English access, but housing and specialist care are limited.
Overall: 67/100
Strong protections and community support, but housing strain and proposed rollbacks need monitoring.
Overall: 67/100
Exceptional protections and safety, but costs, housing, and immigration are demanding.
Overall: 66/100
Strong protections and English access, but housing and specialist-care waits are challenging.
Overall: 65/100
Protective laws and community support, but high costs and settlement barriers. The asylum proposal has not created a special route.
Overall: 65/100
English-speaking and protective, but housing costs and care access are serious obstacles.
Overall: 65/100
Robust protections and healthcare, but costs, bureaucracy, and local acceptance vary.
Overall: 64/100
Strong legal protections and job opportunities, but bureaucracy and housing complicate settling in.
Overall: 64/100
Safe with strong institutions, but high costs and social integration can be tough.
Overall: 63/100
Strong protections and specialist care, but waits and language barriers complicate access.
Overall: 63/100
Affordable with strong court protections, but safety and proposed care restrictions need monitoring.
Overall: 60/100
Strong adult rights and community, but policy regression and economic volatility matter.
Overall: 60/100
Safe with strong jobs, but costs and immigration barriers are exceptionally high.
Overall: 59/100
Legal recognition and established services help, but medical assessments and German create barriers.
Overall: 59/100
Safe with improving protections, but language and incomplete gender recognition remain hurdles.
Overall: 59/100
Safe with broad English access and career opportunities, but costly with limited trans protections.
Overall: 58/100
Stable with decent care, but protections and services center on San José.
Overall: 57/100
Affordable and welcoming, but safety varies sharply—favor established urban communities.
Overall: 57/100
English-speaking with deep communities, but trans policy and healthcare access are worsening.
Overall: 57/100
Formal recognition and good urban networks, but discrimination and regional gaps persist.
Overall: 56/100
Affordable and practical in Prague, but protections and social acceptance are uneven.
Overall: 55/100
Low general travel risk, but specialist trans care and affordable housing remain limited.
Overall: 55/100
Strong constitutional protection and urban communities, but violent crime is a major risk.
Overall: 55/100
Affordable and legally improving, but jobs, healthcare access, and rural acceptance lag.
Overall: 55/100
Affordable and welcoming in major cities, but visas and formal protections are uneven.
Overall: 54/100
Affordable with accessible residence options, but trans protections and care remain uneven.
Overall: 53/100
Established urban communities and healthcare, but costs, conflict, and legal gaps create major obstacles.
Overall: 53/100
Strong urban communities and healthcare, but legal recognition, jobs, and bureaucracy lag.
Overall: 53/100
Very safe with reliable infrastructure, but language and legal recognition create barriers.
Overall: 52/100
Strong legal recognition and vibrant communities, but violence is a grave concern.
Overall: 52/100
Affordable and socially warm, but weak national protections and safety gaps persist.
Overall: 51/100
Affordable and legally improving, but social acceptance and specialist care are uneven.
Overall: 50/100
Affordable and calm in cities, but community depth and protections are uneven.
Overall: 49/100
Safe, connected, and English-accessible, but housing costs and political constraints are severe.
Overall: 49/100
Safe and connected, but limited protections and conservative social norms matter.
Overall: 49/100
Affordable with notable recognition, but healthcare, jobs, and implementation are limited.
Overall: 48/100
Relatively stable with legal progress, but specialist care and community support are limited.
Overall: 48/100
Affordable with strong English in cities, but legal protections and acceptance lag.
Overall: 47/100
English-speaking and relatively affordable, but healthcare and community depth are limited.
Overall: 47/100
Affordable with improving urban communities, but national protections remain weak.
Overall: 46/100
Very affordable with legal recognition, but safety, jobs, and implementation are uneven.
Overall: 45/100
Affordable and workable in major cities, but legal protections remain limited.
Overall: 44/100
English eases daily life, but high costs and weak protections limit relocation.
Overall: 43/100
Affordable with major-city communities, but safety, bureaucracy, and legal uncertainty are substantial.
Overall: 43/100
Very affordable and residency-friendly, but protections and community support are weak.
Overall: 42/100
Affordable and accessible to enter, but recent anti-LGBTQ law makes safety precarious.
Overall: 39/100
Affordable with large-city communities, but repression, inflation, and weak protections are serious.
Overall: 39/100
Affordable with good infrastructure, but criminalization and limited trans protections are serious.
Overall: 40/100
Easy administration and strong careers, but criminalization makes trans life unsafe.
Overall: 36/100
Affordable with some urban support, but criminalization and safety risks remain severe.
Overall: 36/100
English-speaking with some community support, but violence and weak protections remain serious.
Overall: 36/100
Affordable with educated urban centers, but criminalization and police risk are serious.
Overall: 33/100
Affordable and English-speaking, but severe legal hostility makes relocation unsafe.
Overall: 33/100
Affordable outside top cities with strong infrastructure, but surveillance and protections are limited.
Overall: 26/100
Low costs cannot offset criminalization, state hostility, and extreme safety risks.
U.S. state · ME
Overall: 87/100
Strong protections and a healthcare shield, but federal hostility still creates unavoidable risk.
U.S. state · IL
Overall: 86/100
Strong protections and a healthcare shield, but federal hostility still creates unavoidable risk.
U.S. state · CO
Overall: 86/100
Strong protections and a healthcare shield, but high costs limit accessibility.
U.S. state · NY
Overall: 86/100
Strong protections and a healthcare shield, but high costs limit accessibility.
U.S. state · NJ
Overall: 83/100
Strong protections and a healthcare shield, but high costs limit accessibility.
U.S. state · DC
Overall: 82/100
Strong protections and a healthcare shield, but high costs limit accessibility.
U.S. state · CA
Overall: 82/100
Strong protections and a healthcare shield, but high costs limit accessibility.
U.S. state · CT
Overall: 82/100
Strong protections and a healthcare shield, but high costs limit accessibility.
U.S. state · MD
Overall: 82/100
Strong protections and a healthcare shield, but high costs limit accessibility.
U.S. state · VT
Overall: 80/100
Strong protections and a healthcare shield, but federal hostility still creates unavoidable risk.
U.S. state · MN
Overall: 79/100
Strong protections and a healthcare shield, but federal hostility still creates unavoidable risk.
U.S. state · MA
Overall: 79/100
Strong protections and a healthcare shield, but high costs limit accessibility.
U.S. state · NM
Overall: 79/100
Strong protections and a healthcare shield, but federal hostility still creates unavoidable risk.
U.S. state · RI
Overall: 79/100
Strong protections and a healthcare shield, but federal hostility still creates unavoidable risk.
U.S. state · WA
Overall: 79/100
Strong protections and a healthcare shield, but high costs limit accessibility.
U.S. state · OR
Overall: 78/100
Strong protections and a healthcare shield, but high costs limit accessibility.
U.S. state · NV
Overall: 77/100
Relatively strong legal protections, but federal hostility still creates unavoidable risk.
U.S. state · DE
Overall: 76/100
Strong protections and a healthcare shield, but family and youth protections remain uneven.
U.S. state · HI
Overall: 72/100
Strong protections and a healthcare shield, but high costs limit accessibility.
U.S. state · MI
Overall: 71/100
Relatively strong legal protections, but family and youth protections remain uneven.
U.S. state · VA
Overall: 65/100
Potentially workable despite policy gaps, but family and youth protections remain uneven.
U.S. state · NH
Overall: 58/100
State protections coexist with care restrictions; families now challenge a threatened federal Medicaid funding cutoff.
U.S. state · PA
Overall: 56/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · AK
Overall: 42/100
Local protections offer some support, but statewide safeguards and care remain fragile.
U.S. state · WI
Overall: 42/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · KS
Overall: 34/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · UT
Overall: 31/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · ND
Overall: 30/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · AZ
Overall: 22/100
Court-ordered identity corrections remain possible, but statewide protections and care are fragile.
U.S. state · NE
Overall: 21/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · KY
Overall: 21/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · FL
Overall: 19/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · IA
Overall: 19/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · OH
Overall: 18/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · MT
Overall: 18/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · IN
Overall: 16/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · TX
Overall: 15/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · MO
Overall: 15/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · NC
Overall: 15/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · WV
Overall: 15/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · OK
Overall: 14/100
Hostile laws and care restrictions persist; a state court opinion reinforces birth-certificate barriers.
U.S. state · ID
Overall: 14/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · AR
Overall: 13/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · LA
Overall: 13/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · SD
Overall: 13/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · GA
Overall: 13/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · AL
Overall: 12/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · MS
Overall: 12/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · WY
Overall: 12/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · SC
Overall: 11/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.
U.S. state · TN
Overall: 11/100
Lower costs cannot offset hostile laws, care restrictions, and severe safety concerns.