Trump-Led Federal Action Aims to Restrict Gender-Related Care for Minors

President Trump, Medicaid and Medicare services administrator Mehmet Oz, and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the White House in September.

Learn how new federal rules proposed under President Trump seek to limit access to gender-related medical care for minors by cutting off Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP funding; the legal challenges faced; and reactions from advocacy groups and medical experts.

U.S. Policy Shift: Federal Restrictions on Gender-Related Medical Care for Minors Begin With New Trump-Led Measures

In late 2025, the United States federal government introduced a sweeping policy initiative aimed at significantly reducing access to gender-related medical care for children and adolescents. Spearheaded by President Donald Trump and key leaders in his administration, this latest effort draws on a combination of executive directives and regulatory proposals designed to cut off federal support for gender-affirming care for individuals under a certain age. The policy marks one of the most substantial federal actions to date in the ongoing national debate over transgender health care and minors’ access to related treatments.

The central thrust of the policy is clear: federal funds, including those from Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), may no longer be available to hospitals and clinics that provide gender-affirming care to minors. Under proposed regulatory rules announced by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), hospitals would risk losing eligibility to participate in federal health programs if they continue to offer puberty blockers, hormone therapy, or gender-affirming surgical procedures for young people under age 18 or 19. (HHS)

Administration officials argue that the changes are intended to protect children from what they describe as “irreversible” medical interventions that they contend are inappropriate for minors. A press release from HHS describes the proposed rules as part of efforts to bar hospitals from performing “sex-rejecting procedures” on children and to ensure that facilities participating in federal programs are not engaging in care that the administration sees as harmful. (HHS)

This policy shift stems from a series of actions taken by the Trump White House over the past year. Early in 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14187, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” which directed federal agencies to take steps toward ending gender-affirming care for individuals under the age of 19. The executive order called for withholding federal financial support from medical institutions providing such care and instructed agencies to develop regulations reflecting that policy goal. (Wikipedia)

Proponents of the new measures frame them as a defense of children’s health and parental rights. They argue that many gender-affirming treatments, such as puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, carry long-term physical and psychological risks and that young people frequently lack the maturity to make life-altering decisions about their bodies. These voices have secured significant support among conservative lawmakers and advocacy groups, who see federal action as necessary to reverse what they characterize as an overreach by prior administrations favoring broad access to gender-affirming care. (Malay Mail)

However, critics of the policy contend that the proposed rules are discriminatory, counter to established medical guidance, and harmful to transgender and gender-diverse youth. Major medical associations, including the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), support access to gender-affirming care as a legitimate component of comprehensive health care for transgender individuals when provided with proper evaluation and consent. They argue that denying such care can have serious consequences for the mental health and well-being of young people who experience gender dysphoria. (AP News)

Legal challenges have already emerged in response to federal actions. In early 2025, families of transgender teens, alongside LGBTQ advocacy organizations, filed lawsuits against the federal government, arguing that attempts to withhold funding from providers of gender-affirming care violated constitutional protections and federal non-discrimination laws. Federal courts have at times issued temporary injunctions blocking enforcement of funding restrictions, creating legal uncertainty around how far the administration can go in restricting health care access at the national level. (1330 & 101.5 WHBL)

Beyond federal legal battles, the policy has also triggered operational changes at hospitals and medical centers across the country. Some health systems, responding to the potential loss of federal funding, have paused or ended certain gender-related medical services for minors, even in states that otherwise allow such care under state law. Others have removed references to transgender health services from their websites or scaled back specialized programs amid fear of regulatory scrutiny. (Wikipedia)

In addition to cutting off federal financial support, the administration’s broader policy approach involves redefining aspects of how gender identity is treated under federal regulations. One controversial proposal would remove gender dysphoria from the list of conditions recognized as a disability under federal civil rights rules, potentially affecting anti-discrimination protections for transgender individuals. (Reuters)

Supporters of the federal restrictions see the actions as fulfilling campaign promises and as a reflection of a larger political momentum that prioritizes limiting access to gender-affirming care for minors. Republican members of Congress have introduced bills that would criminalize certain gender transition procedures for minors or impose penalties on clinicians who provide them. One such bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly and is now under consideration in the Senate, though its future remains uncertain due to the need for broader legislative support. (New York Post)

Critics, including civil rights advocates and LGBTQ organizations like The Trevor Project, emphasize the potential human toll of reducing access to care. They note that gender-affirming treatments, when appropriately prescribed and supervised, can be associated with improved mental health outcomes for transgender youth, including lower rates of depression and suicide. Many argue that the federal government should expand, rather than restrict, support for vulnerable populations facing discrimination and health disparities. (AP News)

The public comment period for the proposed federal rules provides an opening for health care providers, advocacy groups, patients, and members of the public to voice their opinions before the proposals potentially become binding. Given the intense political and cultural contest surrounding issues of gender identity and health care, this policy area is likely to remain a focal point of debate in the U.S. throughout 2026 and beyond.

In summary, the Trump administration’s move to cut off federal access to gender-related care for minors represents a pivotal moment in the contentious landscape of U.S. health policy. It reflects deep national divisions over transgender rights, the role of government in health care, and the rights of minors to access medical treatments connected to gender identity. The final outcome of regulatory, legal, and political challenges will have lasting impacts on families, health care systems, and the broader discourse on gender and medicine in America.