A study commissioned by President Trump on the scientific grounding for “gender-affirming care” in children has concluded there is minimal medical evidence supporting hormone therapies or other interventions for minors identifying as transgender. The final report was made public on Wednesday after undergoing scientific peer review.
This report, evaluated by a panel of ten experts, identified no substantial errors in its conclusion that U.S. physicians should pause treatments for prevalent gender dysphoria until the long-term impacts on patients are better understood, as explained by the lead author.
“They were given the chance to point out any mistakes, but they couldn’t find any,” stated Dr. Leoa Sapir, a senior research fellow at the Manhattan Institute and one of the study’s contributors.
In January, President Trump instructed the Department of Health and Human Services to compile this report, with a team primarily composed of liberal researchers taking on the task.
“There were some minor comments here and there, but the significant findings related to evidence and ethics were not contested,” he remarked. “So they accepted it.”
“This includes the former president of the Endocrine Society, who advocates for these treatments,” Sapir added.
The report was initially released in May following Trump’s issuance of Executive Order 14187 after he assumed office.
The order tasked HHS with assessing the care standards for minors identifying as transgender, contending that U.S. doctors are “harming” teenagers with gender-affirming procedures, which “must stop.”
A subsequent report indicated that much of the research utilized by advocates of gender-affirming care was of “very low quality,” with little understanding of the long-term psychological effects or the degree of regret among patients after receiving such treatment.
The report suggested that the U.S. limit the use of puberty blockers and similar treatments for minors, proposing that doctors should prioritize psychotherapy until more evidence about gender-affirming treatments for children becomes available.
Upon its May release, the report faced significant backlash from transgender advocates, many of whom argued that the authorship was obscured and that the report reflected the Trump administration’s clear bias against the transgender community.
However, Sapir emphasized that the nine authors and their research methodology were “completely independent of HHS,” and most were Democrats.
This group included Dr. Alex Byrne from MIT, Evgenia Abbruzzese from the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, Dr. Farr Karlin from Duke University, and Dr. Moti Gorin from Colorado State University, among others.
“We’re quite diverse politically and ideologically,” he mentioned. “Most of us lean liberal; they wouldn’t back Trump even if he tried. This is a bipartisan effort.”
He mentioned that it’s standard in peer review for author names to be kept anonymous in order to avoid bias in feedback.
Only one of the three organizations approached for peer review provided a response—the American Psychiatric Association. Sapir expressed no issues with the final conclusion regarding the lack of evidence supporting gender-affirming care.
Seven other experts from various medical sectors participated in the review and similarly found no major issues.
Notably, Dr. Richard Santen, a professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and former president of the Endocrine Society, called the HHS review “scientifically sound.” Other supporters echoed the report’s key findings as “correct,” indicating that it was an “important contribution” to the field.
Critiques of the report have not matched the uproar that followed its initial release. “They can say whatever they want, but they couldn’t pinpoint even one error. Not a single mistake was made,” Sapir stated.
What the Trump administration might do with the report remains uncertain, but Sapir expressed hope that the medical community will step back from cultural debates surrounding gender-affirming care and instead focus on the scientific evidence. “Let’s reexamine. Let’s create space for open discussions. Let’s consider opposing perspectives and engage in rigorous analysis,” he encouraged.
