The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., released a report on Wednesday questioning the safety and efficacy of gender-affirming care for transgender and gender-diverse children. This follows an initial report published in May, which drew immediate criticism for its lack of transparency regarding authorship and promotion of unproven therapies. The latest study maintains a skeptical stance, asserting that puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical interventions carry “significant, long-term” risks often overlooked or inadequately monitored.
The Core Dispute: The HHS report stands in direct contrast to the consensus among major medical organizations like the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which support psychological and medical treatments to align gender identity with expression. Between 2.5% and 8.4% of children identify as transgender or gender-diverse, meaning their self-identified gender differs from their assigned sex at birth. Gender-affirming care includes puberty blockers (reversible) and sex hormones (testosterone, estrogen – with lasting effects).
The HHS asserts that such care inflicts “lasting physical and psychological damage.” However, medical professionals argue that delaying or denying such care can be equally harmful. Transgender youth already face disproportionately high suicide rates, and access to appropriate healthcare is seen as a protective factor.
Authorship and Criticism: The updated report identifies its nine authors, most of whom are known critics of gender-affirming care. Critics, like Meredithe McNamara of Yale School of Medicine, argue the report serves a political agenda. HHS press secretary Emily Hilliard defends the study as “science-driven,” claiming independence in following the evidence. However, peer reviews have been critical. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) found the methodology lacked transparency, while the AAP and Endocrine Society declined to review it.
Political Context: The HHS report’s release coincides with broader Republican-led campaigns to restrict transgender children’s rights, including participation in sports and access to school facilities. President Trump issued an executive order in January framing gender-affirming care as “chemical and surgical mutilation,” contributing to program closures due to fears of federal funding cuts.
The AMA and AAP responded with a joint statement condemning the HHS characterizations as political and harmful, asserting that gender-affirming care is standard, developmentally appropriate, and potentially lifesaving. The debate underscores the increasing politicization of healthcare, with implications for vulnerable populations.
The Bigger Picture: This situation highlights a growing tension between scientific consensus, political agendas, and public health. The HHS report’s findings are likely to fuel further restrictions on gender-affirming care, even as medical experts maintain that denying such care can have devastating consequences for transgender youth.
