On Tuesday, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) officials strongly denied an NPR report claiming that they are dropping plans for a final rulemaking on a proposal to ban Medicaid funding for hospitals doing transgender surgery on minors.

“Claims that HHS has ‘abandoned’ federal rulemaking to establish a condition of participation in Medicare and Medicaid for hospitals are completely inaccurate and unfounded,” the HHS Rapid Response site on X declared.

“The Department has not withdrawn or reversed course on the ‘Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Hospital Condition of Participation: Prohibiting Sex-Rejecting Procedures for Children’ rule. HHS and CMS continue to follow statutory requirements by reviewing comments, and we intend to issue a final rule. HHS remains committed to protecting children from potentially lifelong, irreversible, and harmful sex?'rejecting interventions.”

That tweet flatly contradicted an NPR report on Monday that claimed in its headline that “Trump’s HHS abandons threat to withhold Medicare and Medicaid funding over trans care.” The body of the NPR story said the administration “is abandoning its most aggressive attempt to end gender-affirming care for youth nationally, according to an official document obtained by NPR. The document shows that the Department of Health and Human Services will not be finalizing a proposed rule that would have blocked all Medicaid and Medicare funding for hospitals that provide pediatric gender-affirming care,” the formerly tax-funded media outlet claimed in a Monday segment on its “All Things Considered” feature.

The official document NPR claimed to have obtained was not included, nor quoted from directly, in the published version of the segment. Shortly after the article was published, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) Media Relations office neither confirmed nor denied the NPR report, telling NPR that it “does not comment on future rulemaking or speculate on potential actions. The Trump Administration rejects ideologically driven surgical interventions on vulnerable children.” The CMS, as part of HHS, would be responsible for enforcing the rule should it ultimately be added to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

The NPR report initially prompted anger among members of the House Freedom Caucus (HFC), which had insisted on the issuance of the new proposed rule during negotiations last year before final passage of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) Act, but those concerns were reversed by the HHS tweet. All 32-members of the HFC are Republicans, and the group is one of the most vocal and effective voices in Congress on behalf of limited government, traditional morals, reduced federal regulation, and a strong national defense.

“Despite inaccurate reporting, I am pleased that HHS has made clear it has not reversed course and intends to issue a final rule on withholding Medicare and Medicaid funding from hospitals that perform so-called ‘gender affirming care’ of minors,” Rep. Mark Harris (R-N.C.) told The Washington Stand Tuesday.

“President Trump and his administration have taken strong action to restore biological truth and protect children from dangerous, irreversible ideological medical interventions. Such procedures have no place in pediatric medicine, and American taxpayers should never be forced to fund the harm they cause,” Harris said.

Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.) further emphasized that he will continue his efforts to secure an end to taxpayer-funded transgender surgery for minors. “Tennessee has laws that prohibit sex transition treatment for minors, and our attorney general prevailed in the Supreme Court last year on challenges to that law. The court found that the law did not constitute sex-based discrimination and did not violate the U.S Constitution’s 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. I agreed with that decision, I agree with Tennessee law, and I will continue to work to see that federal laws and regulations conform with this position as well.”

As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, Harris and nine other HFC members who are also on that panel will have an opportunity Wednesday to move forward with legislation that would make the proposed HHS rule unnecessary. The Chloe Cole Act of 2026, introduced by HFC member Rep. Bob Onder (R-Wis.), has 76 House co-sponsors and establishes a right of action for any child, parent, or guardian to seek damages resulting from a covered transgender medical procedure. The judiciary panel markup of the bill can be viewed here.

“An individual subjected as a child to a covered intervention, or the parents or legal guardians of such individual, may bring a civil action in an appropriate district court of the United States for damages against any health care professional, hospital, or clinic who participates in the covered intervention on that child. Such a cause of action shall be available regardless of whether the alleged covered intervention occurred before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act,” the proposed legislation provides.

The proposal specifies that the following damages for strict liability may be available to such an individual: “1) compensatory damages, including all economic damages associated with undoing, correcting, or ameliorating the effects or results of any covered intervention; (2) non-economic damages for emotional distress and pain and suffering; and (3) punitive damages, if the claimant proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant against whom punitive damages are sought acted maliciously, intentionally, fraudulently, or recklessly.”

Whatever happens with the Chloe Cole Act, the judicial landscape has already provided multiple bumps for the Trump administration’s efforts to defund transgender surgery for minors.

In June of last year, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in the United States v. Skrmetti to uphold a Tennessee law that prohibited the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors when used to facilitate gender transition. But the high court specifically noted that state governments are primarily responsible for regulating medical standards and procedures within their borders.

On March 10 of this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision in the case of Anderson v. Crouch upholding West Virginia’s explicit ban on the use of Medicaid funds administered by the state for transgender procedures generally. The decision explicitly relied upon the Skrmetti decision, saying it “compels the conclusion that the policy violates neither the Equal Protection Clause nor the Affordable Care Act. Medina, in turn, dictates that Plaintiffs lack a cause of action under the Medicaid Act.”

Opponents of the Trump rule have argued successfully in other lower courts that the proposed regulation violates such state authorities, as well as the Medicaid Act. In a February 2025 decision, for example, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle blocked Trump’s previous executive orders barring federally funded transgender surgery and revoking federal grants to groups advocating for the unrestricted availability of transgender treatments. The court said Trump’s actions violated both the Constitution’s separation of powers between Congress and the executive branch and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal treatment.