The Daily Wire reports that a watchdog group, the American Accountability Foundation (AAF), has filed a suit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health, accusing the entities of withholding the release of data from a federally funded study of puberty blockers. Notably, one of the primary investigators of the study in question, Dr. Johana Olson-Kennedy, told The New York Times last year that her team was concerned about releasing the data for how it could be weaponized against the trans-identified, prompting AAF to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to acquire the data. AAF subsequently filed its suit after the materials acquired failed to include the data and were highly redacted. “Though the NIH sent a response and produced some records in November 2024, NIH’s production appeared incomplete, as it didn’t include Dr. Olson-Kennedy’s data and contained redactions throughout. NIH’s response also appeared incomplete and insufficient because it didn’t justify any of the redactions, nor did it explain how the search was conducted to find responsive records pertaining to the data set...” the suit reads. Although Olson-Kennedy has published a pre-print of the study, it has not undergone formal peer review.
A new article sheds light on the role played by McMaster University students in pressuring the university to severe ties with the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM), the organization which provided funding for several influential systematic reviews on “gender-affirming care.” After pressure from students and university leadership, researchers from McMaster’s Department of Health Research, Evidence and Impact (HEI) condemned the “misuse” of their reviews “to harm transgender youth and to deny gender-affirming care.” The statement even goes on to call GAC “medically necessary” despite the claim being undermined by the reviews themselves. Dr. Gordon Guyatt, who despite signing the statement, recently said in a podcast interview that the claim is “ridiculous” and that he would never use that language to describe the state of evidence on “affirming care.” Of note, McMaster faculty involved with the reviews have not called into question their methodological integrity or findings. “We want the university to pursue a retraction of the research and acknowledge the harm that has come from it,” one student told reporters. “We think that’s some of the first steps in rebuilding the relationship with trans people on campus and beyond” they added.
After researcher Eric Kaufmann attracted some criticism for claiming that trans-identification is in free fall among the young, Psychologist Jean Twenge says that a more nationally representative survey echoes Kauffman’s conclusions. Kauffman’s claim drew scrutiny because it was largely based on non-representative surveys that used a decline in non-binary identification as a proxy for a decline in trans-identification overall. Drawing on data from the Cooperative Election Study, Twenge says trans-identification was cut in half among 18–22-year-olds between 2022-2024, while non-binary identification dropped by more than half between 2023-2024. Twenge also notes that there are signs of cohort effects, with trans-identification being uncommon among Boomers and Gen X, increasing steadily among millennials, peaking among Gen-Z born around the year 2000, and dropping again for those born in the middle of the 2000s. Without data for 2025, however, Twenge is quick to point out that the trend may not hold, but there is some preliminary evidence that trans-identification has moved past its peak.
On Wednesday, a district court judge in Mississippi vacated a 2024 Biden-era rule which redefined “sex” under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to include “gender identity” while also asserting that the denial of “affirming care” is discriminatory under the ACA. The court rejected the Biden admin’s assertion that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock—a Title VII case—required interpreting “sex” to include “gender identity” under Title IX, and by extension, Section 1557 of the ACA which imports its sex protections from Title IX. In essence, the court determined that the rule exceeded the scope of HHS’ authority and that only Congress has the authority to interpret sex to include “gender identity.”
A federal judge in Oregon has signaled that she will issue a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from mandating that several states must remove references to “gender ideology” in sex education curricula funded through federal Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) grants. After the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) sent letters to 46 states warning that references to “gender ideology” must be removed from federally-funded educational materials, a coalition of states led by Oregon, Washington & Minnesota challenged the directive. Now, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken seems poised to side with the states, and their arguments that the directive clashes with Congressional requirements and usurps the authority of lawmakers to determine spending.
On Monday, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel appeared unconvinced by the logic of the administration’s EO prohibiting the trans-identified from serving in the military. Although lawyers for the government argued that the policy is based on a determination that a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is incompatible with troop readiness, the judges were quick to point out that the scope of the military’s policy was broader and targeted the trans-identified without a diagnosis of dysphoria, with U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz remarking that the EO asserts that the “adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle.” The appellate court also maintained that the seven plaintiffs challenging the policy served with distinction, and that there was no evidence that their identity undermined military standards or troop cohesion.
The grace period for a new U.S. Customs and Border Protection federal rule has ended, requiring U.S. airlines to ignore gender-neutral markers on U.S. passports (X) for data collection purposes. Because the Advance Passenger Information System used by airlines no longer has a field for gender-neutral markers, carriers and travelers are required to enter either a male or female designation. Notably, the policy only applies to international flights and has no bearing on a passenger’s ability to fly. The rule was catalyzed by a provision in EO 14168, which directs the state department to ensure that passports reflect the biological sex of the document holder, although U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction in June temporarily blocking enforcement.
Joseph Figliolia
Policy Analyst
News
