In a move that’s sending shockwaves through the scientific community, the Trump administration has quietly ordered the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to refocus transgender health research—this time, on regret.
Yes, you read that right. While the NIH has been quietly pulling the plug on nearly every existing study related to trans health, the agency is now being pushed to fund research that zeroes in on people who regret transitioning. Several NIH insiders confirmed this shift in policy to Nature—but only on the condition of anonymity, because they’re not allowed to speak publicly.
And the language coming from the top is… inflammatory, to say the least.
An internal email from Matthew Memoli, who was acting director of the NIH at the time, refers to gender-affirming care as “chemical and surgical mutilation.” The email claims that both President Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are personally invested in this research happening. According to Memoli, it’s now a top priority.
That email, frankly, reads more like a political memo than a scientific one.
A Dangerous Precedent
To be clear, it’s not unusual for the White House to nudge the NIH toward specific research areas—like cancer, mental health, or opioid addiction. But what’s happening now feels different.
“It’s the specificity, the tone, and the ideology baked into this,” one NIH employee told Nature. “We usually get to figure out how to approach a topic scientifically. This feels like the answer is already decided.”
And that’s what’s scaring a lot of scientists.
Since Trump returned to office in January, more than $180 million in funding for trans-related health research has been abruptly canceled. That’s roughly 187 research grants, gone. Overnight. Poof.
Now, the only trans health research getting federal attention is about how people feel after transitioning—especially those who regret it. There’s nothing wrong with studying regret; it’s a valid part of the picture. But when that’s all you’re funding? It sends a message. A very loud one.
“It positions regret as the most important thing to study about trans people,” says Harry Barbee, a researcher at Johns Hopkins who studies LGBTQ+ health. “It ignores the overwhelming data that shows gender-affirming care reduces anxiety, depression, and even suicide.”
In fact, Barbee’s research found that fewer than 1% of transgender people regret gender-affirming surgery. For comparison, about 14% of people regret other common surgeries. Yet somehow, those don’t spark national panic or presidential directives.
Ideology Disguised as Science?
Let’s call this what it is: a political maneuver.
And it’s not subtle. The Trump administration has also signed an executive order calling to end the idea that gender can differ from sex assigned at birth. That order, along with Memoli’s email, uses phrases like “mutilation” and warns of “sterilizing children.” These aren’t scientific terms—they’re political buzzwords.
Researchers are worried that the real goal isn’t understanding transgender health at all. It’s to cast doubt. To build a case. To generate just enough “evidence” to justify restricting access to care.
Brittany Charlton, an epidemiologist at Harvard, is one of many scientists whose funding was slashed. She’s now suing the NIH and HHS, accusing them of engaging in a politically motivated purge of research that supports LGBTQ+ communities. Her lawsuit claims this shift violates scientific freedom—and public health.
And here’s the catch: without funding, research dries up. And without research, doctors are left without guidance. “We risk creating an evidence vacuum,” says Barbee. “And that’s not just bad for trans people—it’s bad for medicine.”
The Shadow of Project 2025
If all this sounds familiar, it might be because it mirrors ideas in Project 2025, a far-right policy blueprint drafted by the Heritage Foundation. It lays out a vision for a second Trump presidency, including a reimagining of federal science agencies. One of its suggestions? Make the NIH fund studies that focus only on the harms of gender transition.
Trump publicly distanced himself from the plan during the 2024 campaign. But in practice, his administration appears to be following it pretty closely.
Even within the NIH, staff are struggling to figure out how to make these new research directives work. Some are considering new funding calls. Others are thinking of reworking existing research contracts. But the message is clear: they’ve been given six months to show progress.
What Happens Now?
Roughly 1.6 million people in the U.S. identify as transgender. About one-quarter of them seek some form of gender-affirming surgery. These are human beings trying to live full, healthy lives—and the best thing science can offer is honest, objective research to support them.
But when politics overrides science, everyone loses.
We should absolutely study the full spectrum of experiences people have with gender transition. But we need to ask all the questions—not just the ones that support a particular political narrative.
If we don’t, we risk turning science into a tool of ideology. And that’s not just unethical. It’s dangerous.
