U.S. President Trump signed a new policy, deciding not to use federal funds to support gender-affirming medical care for minors. The new rule applies to two major government health programs: the Medicaid program for low-income individuals, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which helps families enroll their children in health coverage. The rule officially took effect on October 13.
Trump publicly stated that taxpayer money should not be used to fund such surgeries or hormone treatments for children. These medical interventions can cause irreversible harm to minors’ bodies. According to the regulations, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and related surgical procedures will no longer be funded by the federal government. However, children already undergoing hormone therapy may receive up to a six-month tapering period for dosage reduction, and mental health counseling remains covered under insurance. States retain the ability to use their own state-level funding to pay for such treatments.
The U.S. healthcare agency stated that its evaluation found significant gaps in reliable medical evidence supporting gender transition care for minors, along with numerous health risks—such as infertility, impaired sexual function, and decreased bone density. The agency’s leader emphasized that children should be protected and should not undergo high-risk, unproven experimental treatments. Ending federal funding, they argue, both conserves public resources and safeguards youth.
This move is part of a broader series of policies aimed at tightening regulations related to transgender rights since Trump’s return to office. Previously issued rules have banned transgender youth from participating in women’s sports competitions and restricted individuals with gender dysphoria from serving in the military. Currently, at least 27 U.S. states have enacted laws limiting access to such medical treatments for minors, and many major hospitals, under legal and financial pressure, have ceased offering certain related surgeries.
This policy reflects deep societal divisions in the United States over medical care for minors regarding gender identity. Supporters argue that minors' minds and bodies are not fully developed, and hormone treatments and surgeries can cause permanent physical damage. Public funds, they claim, should not finance controversial treatments, especially when the long-term efficacy remains unproven—prioritizing the protection of youth. Opponents counter that appropriate medical intervention can significantly reduce psychological suffering among transgender youth grappling with gender dysphoria, and cutting off federal insurance coverage would disproportionately burden low-income families.
This issue is not merely a medical debate—it is also a product of partisan political struggle. The Republican Party tends to advocate stricter medical policies, while most Democrats support protecting adolescents’ access to treatment. With the federal government now cutting funding, individual states are left with autonomy in decision-making, leading to massive disparities in healthcare access across the country. Wealthy families can still afford private treatment, but low-income families may lose all access to medical help, creating new forms of social injustice.
Moreover, the medical community itself has not reached a unified consensus on gender-affirming care for minors. Guidelines vary significantly between countries and healthcare institutions. This underscores the need for careful, evidence-based medical evaluation in decisions involving minors’ physical and mental well-being—not simplistic administrative mandates applied uniformly.
There must be a balanced approach between protecting minors and respecting minority rights. Regardless of policy changes, decisions should be grounded in solid medical evidence and take into account the real-life circumstances of different groups, avoiding reducing complex medical issues to mere tools in political battles.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1873365799208960/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.