Trump Administration Faces Lawsuit From 19 States Over Gender Treatment Ban for Minors

The Trump administration’s efforts to protect children from irreversible gender transition procedures now face a coordinated legal assault from 19 Democrat-led states and Washington, D.C. The lawsuit, predictably spearheaded by New York Attorney General Letitia James, challenges a recent Department of Health and Human Services declaration restricting gender transition treatments for minors.

Let us be clear about what is actually happening here. The HHS declaration, issued last week, designates treatments such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and gender surgeries as unsafe and ineffective for children experiencing gender dysphoria. This is not radical policy. This is common sense grounded in medical reality.

The declaration also establishes consequences for medical providers who continue these experimental procedures on children, warning that they could face exclusion from federal health programs including Medicare and Medicaid. This represents a proper use of federal authority to protect vulnerable minors from irreversible medical interventions that lack long-term safety data.

Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. framed the administration’s position clearly during a press conference last week, stating that HHS is taking “six decisive actions guided by gold standard science” to implement President Trump’s January executive order protecting children from “chemical and surgical mutilation.”

The facts matter here. European countries including Sweden, Finland, and the United Kingdom have already pulled back from aggressive pediatric gender transition protocols after comprehensive reviews of the evidence. The Cass Review in Britain, the most thorough examination of this issue to date, found weak evidence supporting these interventions for children. Yet American medical establishments, captured by ideological activism, continue pushing treatments that permanently alter developing bodies.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Eugene, Oregon, makes predictable arguments. James claims that “Secretary Kennedy cannot unilaterally change medical standards by posting a document online” and insists that patients should not “lose access to medically necessary health care” due to federal interference.

This framing is deliberately misleading. First, these procedures are not medically necessary. Gender dysphoria is a psychological condition that historically resolved in the vast majority of children without medical intervention. Second, the federal government absolutely has authority to establish standards for federally funded healthcare programs.

The complaint argues that HHS violated administrative procedures by not providing public notice and comment periods before issuing the declaration. This represents a technical legal argument designed to delay implementation of policies that protect children.

NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya has been vocal in supporting the administration’s position, particularly in response to backlash from the American Academy of Pediatrics. The AAP’s resistance to evidence-based policy changes reveals an organization more committed to progressive ideology than child welfare.

The HHS declaration bases its conclusions on a peer-reviewed report conducted earlier this year recommending greater reliance on behavioral therapy rather than immediate medical intervention. This represents sound medical practice: address psychological distress with psychological treatment first, rather than rushing to irreversible physical alterations.

The Trump administration has also proposed additional rules to further restrict pediatric gender transition treatments, though these have not yet been finalized and are not addressed in the current lawsuit.

The fundamental question remains straightforward: Should children be subjected to experimental medical procedures that permanently alter their bodies before they possess the maturity to consent to such life-changing interventions? The answer, supported by growing international evidence, is obviously no.

This lawsuit represents another example of progressive state attorneys general prioritizing ideological commitments over child safety. The Trump administration deserves credit for standing firm on protecting vulnerable children from activist medicine.

Related: JD Vance Warns Mass Immigration Threatens American Social Cohesion