I wonder if you've seen trans civil rights lawyer Chase Strangio's remarks on this.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DBgefLWuoEF/

He's saying that U.S. federal law does (or should) protect trans people, and that's why he'll be arguing Skrmetti before the Supreme Court in early December: to ensure that existing federal protections stay intact. He says he believes Harris's comment was a signal that she intends to follow federal law in its current state. (She couldn't mean she'd uphold 50 different state laws, since that's not what presidents do.) To ensure that existing federal law doesn't get altered or tossed out, what's needed are more federal judges who see trans people as people, and who see trans rights as human rights. The Biden administration has helpfully nominated many federal judges who share these values, Strangio says, and Harris's comment "I would follow the law" suggests she'd continue to nominate judges too.

Strangio also says (as you did, on my reading) that because of the toxic political climate on trans rights at this moment, it's helpful if the federal executive branch can do behind-the-scenes work for trans rights and not put it on full blast on the airwaves. That only makes noise and doesn't get the work done. Insofar as the threat is legal, the federal executive branch (the president) must fight it pragmatically and win the battles decisively by judicial nominations and court rulings. The threat isn't just a cultural drama that plays out through an unending dialogue on TV in which each politician tries to say the most headline-grabbing thing. Strangio thought her interview was "strategic protection of us" and he's happiest if politicians dial down the rhetoric and ultimately "keep the government away from us."