NY attorney general demands hospital resume gender-affirming treatment for trans youth

New York Attorney General Letitia James has demanded that NYU Langone Health resume providing gender-affirming care to transgender youth, following the hospital’s recent decision to discontinue such treatments for patients under 19 years of age.

In a strongly worded letter sent to the Manhattan-based medical center on February 25, the attorney general’s office stated that shuttering the Transgender Youth Health Program violated New York’s anti-discrimination laws by “jeopardizing access to medically necessary healthcare for some of the most vulnerable New Yorkers.”

The attorney general threatened “further action” if NYU Langone, one of New York City’s largest hospital systems, fails to immediately restore services including hormone therapies and puberty blockers. When reached for comment, a spokesperson for NYU Langone declined to address the letter, which was made public this week.

The hospital announced last month it would phase out certain gender-affirming treatments for minors, citing the “current regulatory environment” and the departure of a medical director. The decision came shortly after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed cutting federal Medicaid and Medicare funding to hospitals that provide such care to minors.

However, the attorney general’s office emphasized that these federal proposals have not yet changed existing law and do not affect “medical institutions’ existing duties and obligations under New York law.” The letter, signed by health care bureau chief Darsana Srinivasan, gave NYU Langone until March 11 to demonstrate compliance.

“The sudden discontinuation of medically necessary transgender healthcare can have severe, negative health outcomes,” Srinivasan wrote. “Accordingly, the Attorney General is extremely concerned by your institution’s decision to cease the provision of care to this vulnerable, minority population.”

NYU Langone’s decision reflects a growing trend across the United States, where several hospitals have suspended transgender youth treatments following an executive order issued by President Donald Trump. The order threatened to withhold research and education grants from hospitals that allow what it controversially described as the “chemical and surgical mutilation of children.”

This characterization has drawn sharp criticism from transgender advocacy groups and major medical associations, who view gender-affirming care as evidence-based medicine supported by organizations including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association.

Dr. Scott Leibowitz, a psychiatrist and board member for the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, warned about the precedent being set. “This sets a very dangerous precedent for all areas of health care, if the government can cherry-pick one area of medicine to use to withhold necessary funding from entire groups of people,” he said.

The standoff between NYU Langone and the New York Attorney General’s office highlights the intensifying national debate over transgender healthcare. While many medical organizations affirm that gender-affirming care is medically necessary for many transgender youth, political pressures have created a patchwork of access across different states.

For patients currently receiving care at NYU Langone, the hospital had previously stated it was “committed to helping patients in our care manage this change.” However, the attorney general’s office argues this is insufficient, as the interruption of ongoing medical treatments could potentially harm patients who rely on these services.

The attorney general’s office has not specified what enforcement actions it might take if NYU Langone fails to comply with its directive by the March deadline, though potential options could include legal proceedings under state anti-discrimination statutes.

This case represents one of the most significant challenges to date against healthcare institutions that have restricted transgender care in response to federal funding threats rather than medical evidence or patient needs.