Cutting funds to trans clinics for kids is a moral and fiscal imperative

If someone is willing to endanger your child, what wouldn’t he or she be willing to do to you?

That’s why the Trump administration’s move to cut federal funds from so-called nonprofit hospitals that provide chemical and surgical — and highly profitable — “gender-affirming care” to minors is not only justified — it’s long overdue.

If nonprofit hospitals won’t even protect the children in their care, taxpayers should no longer be forced to subsidize them.

The new policy protects children, of course. But it also protects taxpayers and reins in massive, unaccountable hospital systems that cloak predatory behavior in the language of charity.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ recent rulemaking, led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., raises several urgent questions:

• How long have taxpayers been funding these irreversible procedures?
• How much public money has been funneled into these programs?
• Which hospitals are responsible?
• And how transparent have hospitals been about it?

Until recently, America’s nonprofit hospitals — and their outsized role in America’s astronomically high health care costs — have largely escaped scrutiny from the legacy media. But the Trump administration’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which seeks to root out waste, fraud, and abuse, changed that. The attention was long overdue and well deserved.

Investigations revealed that many nonprofit hospitals:

In other words, they act less like charities and more like corrupt corporations — with none of the accountability.

In addition, while resisting compliance with federal transparency laws, nonprofit hospitals have become some of the most successful land speculators in the country. It’s hardly a coincidence that these same nonprofits play an aggressive role in state, local, and national elections, directing enormous cash donations to candidates that will do their bidding. Charitable, indeed.

RELATED: The return of common sense: HHS urges medical facilities to overhaul gender dysphoria protocols in major policy shift

  Photo by Douglas Rissing via Getty Images

Take, for example, the Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital, which drew national attention after a pro-trans, same-sex married nurse turned whistleblower exposed how the hospital targeted children. Jamie Reed testified that the center:

• Pressured families into life-altering decisions through bullying and misinformation.
• Consistently failed to meet even minimal mental health evaluation standards.
• Never disclosed that treatments would cause permanent infertility.
• In some cases, proceeded with interventions even after parents withdrew consent.

Her testimony was central to the Supreme Court’s recent decision affirming states’ rights to restrict “gender-affirming” surgeries based on age.

Or consider Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville. There, whistleblowers exposed staff who pressured skeptical parents with the manipulative question, “Would you rather have a dead daughter or a living son?”

Finally, at the Benioff Children’s Hospital at the University of California, San Francisco, things went a step further. It, too, was credibly accused of the same aggressive surgical-advocacy and anti-transparency practices of the aforementioned hospitals. But Benioff didn’t keep its indoctrination within its hospital walls. Hospital officials partnered with the local public school system to “educate” students about teen trans surgeries.

The “manual” Benioff distributed to public schools posed questions including, “What role can the school take in supporting mom and exploring medical options?” and “How many times is too many times to call mom about a student’s comments about depression and testosterone?” Internal emails later revealed staff asking how they could evaluate children’s mental health without involving parents at all.

These aren’t isolated incidents. They reveal a systemic pattern of deception, coercion, and radical ideology under the banner of “health care.”

Cutting federal funding to hospitals that promote this abuse is a critical first step. But it can’t be the last.

If nonprofit hospitals won’t even protect the children in their care, taxpayers should no longer be forced to subsidize them.