President Donald Trump recently claimed that American hospitals are performing “reverse surgeries” on transgender individuals directly because he ordered them to do so.
This dramatic statement has sparked widespread confusion across the healthcare industry and the political landscape. While the claim makes for striking headlines, medical professionals and legal records tell a very different story.
To understand what is actually happening, look past the political rhetoric and examine federal regulations, hospital settlements, and medical research.
What Trump Actually Claimed at the Rally
During a campaign rally in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, Trump told supporters that hospitals were executing surgical reversals under his command.
“In fact, hospitals now are doing reverse surgery at my order,” Trump claimed during his speech. He added, “They’re doing reverse surgery. Nobody ever heard about it.“
Medical experts quickly pushed back against the assertion. Adrian Shanker, a former senior health policy adviser in the Biden administration, noted that politicians should stay out of personal healthcare decisions.
“Trans people deserve access to the care that their bodies need, not the care that President Trump thinks that they need,” Shanker emphasized. Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, Chief Medical Officer at Callen-Lorde, also stated he was unaware of non-clinicians ordering clinical hospital procedures.
The Real Financial Mechanics Behind the Executive Orders
Federal executive directives do not mandate surgical procedures; instead, they focus on cutting off government funding to institutions.
An executive order signed in January 2025 directed federal agencies to restrict research and education grants to health systems that offer gender-affirming care to people under age 19. Additionally, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services finalized a rule in August 2026 ending Medicaid funding for minor gender-affirming treatments, with a six-month hormone tapering period.
Rather than ordering operations, federal policies rely entirely on financial leverage to influence medical providers.
DOJ Settlements and What Hospitals Are Really Doing
The federal government has used legal settlements to require select medical centers to fund voluntary services for patients seeking to detransition.
Trump’s statements likely stem from Justice Department agreements with major medical centers like Texas Children’s Hospital and the Cleveland Clinic. Under a June 2026 agreement, the Cleveland Clinic pledged $2 million in services for individuals who received care before age 19 and later chose to detransition.
None of these civil settlements require any patient to undergo surgery or force anyone to detransition. However, the threat of losing millions in federal grants led several institutions, including NYU Langone, Denver Health, and Children’s National Hospital, to pause youth treatments.
Related: 8 States Where Healthcare Costs Take the Biggest Bite Out of Your Paycheck
What Clinical Data and Medical Experts Say
Empirical healthcare research demonstrates that gender-affirming surgical operations on young children simply do not happen in American hospitals.
Save this article
Enter your email address and we'll send it straight to your inbox.
A 2024 study published in JAMA Network Open analyzed insurance claims covering nearly 23 million minors nationwide. Researchers found exactly zero gender-affirming surgeries performed on transgender children aged 12 or younger in 2019.
Andrew Ortiz, a senior policy attorney at the Transgender Law Center, pointed out that executive policy moves show where the administration wants federal agencies to focus their energy. Medical groups maintain that individualized care decisions should remain grounded in established clinical science rather than political campaigns.
Court Decisions and the Broader Impact on Healthcare
Federal judges across the United States have consistently blocked enforcement of key funding restrictions aimed at transgender care.
U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson issued a nationwide temporary restraining order prohibiting federal agencies from withholding funds from providers caring for youth. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Lauren King in Washington blocked directives after states argued the funding threats caused severe institutional disruption.
Alex Sheldon, executive director of GLMA, stated that forcing providers to withhold evidence-based care undermines the integrity of the entire healthcare system. The ongoing legal battles emphasize the rising tension between federal regulatory authority and state healthcare administration.
The Big Picture: Facts Versus Political Claims
While headlines highlight claims of executive command, legal battles and federal grant leverage shape health policy.
Presidential orders have disrupted clinical care by threatening hospital budgets, but no executive mandate forces doctors to perform “reverse surgeries.” Courts continue to evaluate whether federal agencies exceeded their authority by conditioning medical funding on policy preferences.
How do you feel about political leaders using federal healthcare funding to shape medical decisions?
More Articles You Might Like:
