Handful Of Hospitals Complying With Trump's Illegal Order To Stop Trans Care Under 19 Years Of Age

A small handful of hospitals nationwide have put fear of President Trump over the needs of their transgender patients, and are withdrawing trans youth from care due to a recent executive order.

Throughout the past week, multiple children’s hospitals across the country have signaled their intent to comply with President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting transgender healthcare, despite the order lacking a clear enforcement mechanism beyond funding threats and conflicting with established law in many states where these hospitals operate. Internal communications obtained by Erin in the Morning reveal that University of Colorado Health has informed physicians it will cease all gender-affirming surgeries for individuals under 19 and stated that it “cannot endorse” hormone replacement therapy for this age group. Similarly, Denver Health has confirmed it will halt all surgeries for minors but has not clarified whether it will continue providing hormones.

New York University Langone is taking a similar approach, banning gender-affirming hormone care and surgeries for individuals under 19. Sources speaking confidentially with Erin In The Morning say that this may only apply to new patients. Meanwhile, Virginia Commonwealth University and the University of Virginia have confirmed to local news outlets that they, too, will comply with the executive order—effectively ensuring that most transgender minors in Virginia will be forcibly detransitioned overnight.

A number of the hospitals pulling back on care are located in blue states that have explicitly designated themselves as “sanctuaries” for gender-affirming care. Sanctuary laws exist to provide legal protections for transgender healthcare, making bans difficult to enforce. The decisions of these hospitals to preemptively comply with Trump’s executive order stand in direct contradiction to state healthcare policies designed to protect access to care. This is a textbook case of institutions surrendering before a fight even begins, bowing to political pressure despite the lack of any immediate enforcement mechanism. Yet, these same hospitals continue to brand themselves as champions of gender-affirming care—New York University, for example, still advertises adolescent services on its website without mentioning its new restrictions for incoming patients. Compliance with these executive orders raises serious questions about the commitment of these hospitals to the transgender patients they have long professed to support.

The most striking example of this preemptive compliance comes from D.C. Children’s National Hospital, which provided Erin in the Morning with an official statement regarding its revised gender-affirming care policies. In the statement, the hospital emphasized its commitment to providing care “in accordance with the law.” However, in direct response to Trump’s executive order, the hospital confirmed that it has “paused prescriptions of puberty blockers and hormone therapy to comply with the directives while [they] assess the situation further.” They also dubiously stated that they have not ended gender affirming care because they still provide “mental health services.” This decision, despite no immediate enforcement mechanism being in place, signals a worrying trend of institutions acting in anticipation of political pressure rather than standing by their established commitments to transgender healthcare.

In the same statement, the hospital asserts its commitment to the very transgender patients it is now denying access to essential medical care. “We recognize the concerns our patients and families have about this pause. We will do everything we can to ensure the same uninterrupted access to mental health counseling, social support, and holistic and respectful care for every impacted patient at Children’s National.” The hospital claims to be providing patients with “the information and support services they need,” adding that they “appreciate [patients’] continued trust and understanding” as they “work through these changes.” They conclude by stating that they “remain steadfast in [their] commitment to creating a better future for children and families.” However, these reassurances ring hollow against the backdrop of policies that strip away critical medical interventions, leaving transgender youth without the care they need.

It is difficult to reconcile a commitment to transgender patients with an immediate decision to comply with an executive order that directly contradicts regional laws protecting this care. Such actions raise serious ethical questions about the responsibility of medical providers to “do no harm,” regardless of political pressure. Pausing essential medical treatments while offering counseling to patients about the very care being denied amounts to a forced medical detransition for many individuals, including some transgender adults who are affected by the executive order. As more hospitals weigh their responses, this approach underscores how institutional support for transgender healthcare can be conditional, dependent on administrative decisions rather than medical necessity. Hospitals choosing to comply prematurely with legally questionable directives risk setting a precedent that prioritizes political expediency over patient well-being.

The coming years under this administration will be a defining test of who truly stands for transgender rights and who merely offers empty rhetoric. As Trump escalates his attacks on transgender Americans, the increasing criticism of Democratic lawmakers for their inaction highlights a harsh reality—many in power champion trans rights only when it is politically convenient. Those who genuinely support the transgender community must resist, not capitulate, to Trump’s executive overreach. History will remember this moment, and those in positions of influence must decide whether they will stand in opposition to tyranny or enable it through silence and compliance.