In a move that has sent shockwaves through the medical community and families across the United States, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued sweeping subpoenas to more than 20 health care institutions, including the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), demanding sensitive patient data and internal communications related to medical care provided to transgender patients under the age of 19. According to reporting by the Washington Post, the DOJ's June 2025 subpoenas request a trove of documents—emails, billing records, Zoom recordings, and even encrypted text messages—spanning back to January 2020. The focus: treatments such as hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and gender transition surgeries.
The scope of the DOJ's demands is unprecedented, with the subpoenas seeking not only medical records but also personal information like dates of birth, addresses, and Social Security numbers of patients. The requests are so broad that they include "every writing or record of whatever type" related to gender-affirming care, as outlined in the subpoena received by CHOP. The hospital's Gender and Sexuality Development Program, which provides medical and mental health care to gender nonconforming, gender expansive, and transgender youth, now finds itself at the center of a national controversy.
Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the DOJ's actions in July 2025, stating that the investigations aim to uncover health care fraud and false statements made by medical professionals and institutions. "Medical professionals and organizations that mutilated children in the service of a warped ideology" would be held accountable, Bondi declared, using language that immediately drew fierce criticism from civil liberties groups and advocates for transgender rights.
The DOJ has not publicly specified what potential law violations are under investigation or what it intends to do with the vast amount of information it is collecting. According to sources who spoke to the Washington Post on the condition of anonymity due to fears of retribution, the subpoenas were sent to providers in both states that permit gender-affirming care for minors and those where it has been banned. This marks an extraordinary use of federal authority to gather personal and medical data on a minority group already facing intense scrutiny and legislative restrictions.
The fallout has been swift and significant. Since the subpoenas went out, more than a dozen hospitals across the country—many in politically blue states—have shuttered or scaled back their gender transition programs for minors. Parents are suddenly scrambling to find doctors before their children's prescriptions for puberty blockers or hormone treatments run out, worried that ongoing care may become impossible to access. Meanwhile, doctors who continue to provide gender-affirming care where it remains legal report feeling targeted and fearful of prosecution, even when their actions comply fully with state law.
Jacob T. Elberg, a former federal prosecutor specializing in health care fraud and now a law professor at Seton Hall University, noted to the Washington Post that while the subpoena itself is not unusually broad for a health-care-fraud case, the context is extraordinary. "Bondi’s statement suggests the government is using its investigative powers to target medical providers based on a disagreement about medical treatment rather than violations of the law," Elberg said. Under federal privacy law, the DOJ must show that any information it demands on patient identities is relevant to a legitimate law enforcement probe—a standard that critics argue is not being met in this situation.
Elizabeth Gill, senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, described the DOJ's actions as "deeply troubling—not just for trans people but for anyone that the administration decides they don’t approve of." The chilling effect, she warned, extends far beyond the transgender community, raising concerns about the government's willingness to use its broad investigatory powers to target disfavored groups.
The legal and political backdrop for these developments is complex and rapidly evolving. As of 2025, about half of U.S. states have passed laws restricting or outright banning drug therapies and surgeries for minors undergoing gender transitions. In July 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Tennessee law banning such care for children is constitutional, marking a major legal victory for those seeking to limit access to gender-affirming care for minors. This decision has emboldened lawmakers in other states to pursue similar restrictions, while also providing a legal foundation for federal investigations like the DOJ's current probe.
The numbers, however, tell a different story about the scale of gender-affirming care for minors in the United States. Private insurance data compiled this year by the Journal of the American Medical Association found that fewer than 3,000 adolescents nationwide are currently on puberty blockers or hormone treatments—a tiny fraction of the population. Yet, the Williams Institute at UCLA estimates that about 2.8 million people aged 13 and older in the U.S. identify as transgender, with approximately 724,000 of them between the ages of 13 and 17. These figures highlight the gap between the heated rhetoric and the actual prevalence of gender-affirming medical interventions for minors.
For families and young people affected by the DOJ's actions, the stakes could not be higher. Parents who have sought out medical care for their transgender children now face uncertainty about whether they will be able to continue those treatments, or even whether their private information could be swept up in a federal investigation. Many doctors have declined interviews with the press, citing fears of retribution and the potential for criminal prosecution. The sense of anxiety is palpable, and the future of gender-affirming care for minors in the U.S. hangs in the balance.
At the same time, the DOJ's actions have ignited a fierce debate over the appropriate role of federal law enforcement in regulating medical care. Supporters of the subpoenas argue that the government has a duty to investigate potential fraud and protect children from irreversible medical procedures. Opponents counter that these investigations are driven by ideology rather than evidence, and that they threaten to undermine both patient privacy and the professional autonomy of doctors.
As the legal battles continue and the DOJ's intentions remain unclear, hospitals, doctors, and families are left navigating a landscape marked by fear, uncertainty, and rapidly shifting rules. The outcome of these investigations—and their impact on the availability of gender-affirming care for young people—will likely shape the national conversation about transgender rights, medical ethics, and the limits of government power for years to come.
For now, the only certainty is uncertainty itself, as those at the heart of this issue await answers that have yet to materialize.
