U.S. District Judge John D. Bates has ruled that the Trump administration’s Office of Personnel Management did not fully comply with legal requirements when it directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to swiftly implement the president’s executive order on “gender ideology.” This decision highlights concerns over how government agencies handled sensitive health information amid political changes.
When President Trump took office, he issued a series of executive orders, including directives to change the language used in government materials related to “gender ideology,” which broadly refers to issues concerning transgender and non-binary individuals. These orders aimed to reshape how government agencies communicate about gender and sexuality.
Soon after, several HHS agencies began removing or significantly altering numerous healthcare websites. According to Doctors for America (DFA), a nonprofit organization that filed the lawsuit, this included hundreds — possibly thousands — of websites from major agencies such as the CDC, NIH, and FDA. The agencies faced a tight 48-hour deadline to comply, and many chose to remove entire webpages containing any language related to “gender ideology,” regardless of their importance or the amount of content affected.
This sweeping removal eliminated critical health resources on topics like youth mental health, vaping, HIV testing, opioid addiction, contraception, osteoporosis, menopause, sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy, and clinical guidance for prescribing FDA-approved medications. The plaintiffs argued that such rapid and indiscriminate deletions compromised public access to essential health information.
Judge Bates clarified that his ruling was not about the administration’s ideological stance but about the legality and process of these website deletions. The lawsuit contended that the government’s approach violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires agencies to follow proper procedures when making significant changes.
Beyond restricting access for the general public, the lawsuit also revealed that DFA members, including healthcare providers, were blocked from accessing vital reference materials they rely on daily. Some doctors reported that losing these resources hindered their ability to effectively treat patients. For example, a healthcare worker at a high school in Chicago struggled to manage a chlamydia outbreak because CDC resources were no longer available. Other clinicians faced difficulties providing guidance on STI prevention and contraception for patients with complex medical needs.
The court ordered that any websites that were taken down or significantly altered should be restored. However, it remains uncertain how much of the lost information will be recovered, especially since some federal judges have expressed concerns that the administration might be uncooperative in complying with court rulings. This case underscores the importance of maintaining transparent, lawful processes when handling public health information, particularly on sensitive topics related to gender and sexuality.
