Major Children's Hospitals Are Closing Transgender Care Programs

Children's Hospital Los Angeles has shut down its center that provided medical care for transgender young people. The hospital is one of several major children's hospitals that have closed these programs in recent months, all after the Trump administration began threatening to cut federal funding to hospitals that provide such care to minors.

The Verge reports that the Los Angeles hospital formally closed its Center for Transyouth Health and Development on July 22, 2025. The closure came after federal pressure campaigns targeting hospitals that treat transgender patients.

Program Shutdowns Across the Country

Kaiser Permanente, one of California's largest providers of healthcare for transgender people, stopped offering surgical gender-affirming care to patients under 19. Connecticut Children's Medical Center and Rady Children's Hospital in California have also closed their gender-affirming care programs. Texas Children's Hospital in Houston was ordered by the federal government to create a clinic focused on reversing gender-related medical treatment for transgender patients.

How the Federal Pressure Works

The Trump administration is using federal funding as a tool to restrict gender-affirming care for children. The Department of Health and Human Services announced two new rules: one that would block Medicaid and Medicare money from going to hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to minors, and another that would prevent federal Medicaid dollars from funding gender-affirming procedures for children.

Think of it this way: Medicaid and Medicare are federal health insurance programs that pay for treatment at many hospitals across the country. By threatening to cut off these payments, the federal government can pressure hospitals to stop offering certain services, even if those services are legal in the state where the hospital operates.

The Department of Justice also took direct legal action. It demanded that some hospitals hand over the medical records of transgender young patients. After facing legal challenges, the Justice Department withdrew some of these demands, but a judge rejected its attempt to get records from Children's Hospital Colorado. Colorado's state Supreme Court later ruled that the hospital must resume offering gender-affirming care.

Medical and Legal Pushback

Parents and medical organizations have raised concerns about these federal actions. Some parents worry that the government could use medical records to remove children from their families. Major medical groups — including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society — have stated that they support evidence-based care for transgender youth based on medical research.

Medical research cited by these organizations shows that transgender people who are denied medical care have higher rates of suicide and self-harm. Studies also indicate that transgender youth who have access to puberty-blocking medications have lower rates of suicidal thoughts compared to those who wanted the treatment but could not get it. One study found that 70 percent of transgender people have experienced mistreatment by medical providers.

What This Means

This approach by the federal government follows a familiar pattern in American healthcare. Decades ago, the government used federal funding to reshape how hospitals delivered care during the HIV crisis and during debates over emergency contraception. The strategy is consistent: threaten to cut off core funding, pursue legal action against specific hospitals, and create enough uncertainty that hospitals voluntarily close programs to avoid the risk.

The practical effect of these restrictions is creating a patchwork system where access to gender-affirming care for young transgender people now depends heavily on where they live, how much legal risk their hospital is willing to take, and whether their state has passed laws protecting this kind of care. For young people who need coordinated medical and mental health support, fragmenting these services across different hospitals or shutting them down entirely creates real challenges in getting comprehensive care.

The long-term legal and practical consequences are still unfolding as courts consider challenges to the federal restrictions.