A federal judge ruled on Thursday that the Trump administration acted unlawfully in removing government health websites related to gender identity issues. U.S. District Judge John D. Bates found that the administration’s Office of Personnel Management violated federal law by instructing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to rapidly implement an executive order targeting what it termed “gender ideology.”
The order, issued by President Trump on his first day in office, directed federal agencies to revise or delete materials and language on their websites considered to be promoting “gender ideology,” a term broadly interpreted to encompass transgender and non-binary identities. In response, divisions within HHS—including prominent public health organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—removed hundreds, possibly thousands, of web pages within a short span of 48 hours, according to the lawsuit brought by the nonprofit group Doctors for America (DFA).
Judge Bates noted that, faced with such a tight deadline, federal agencies resorted to the “most extreme approach,” deleting entire web pages merely because they contained minimal language judged as contrary to the executive order, without providing notice or indicating plans to republish the removed resources.
Doctors for America argued that these removed web pages held critical medical information on various healthcare topics, including youth mental health, HIV prevention, opioid misuse, contraception, vaping risks, osteoporosis, and menopausal care. Furthermore, they included valuable clinical guidance on prescribing FDA-approved medications. According to court documents, the rushed deletion severely impacted doctors’ ability to provide timely, efficient care to patients.
In testimony cited in court documents, a physician working at an underserved Chicago high school described struggles in managing a chlamydia outbreak because CDC resources had suddenly become unavailable. Other healthcare professionals recounted difficulties in providing complex medical guidance regarding sexually transmitted illnesses, contraceptive methods, and managing various patient profiles without these key reference websites.
The court did not address the ideological grounds invoked by the administration, but ruled solely on procedural faults. Judge Bates emphasized in his ruling that while the federal government is certainly free to set forth its views—including those on gender identity—any steps taken by agencies in response must comply with established statutory procedures. These procedures, the judge concluded, were not adhered to.
Judge Bates subsequently directed the government to restore or reinstate the web pages and content that had been removed or significantly altered, particularly those identified by doctors as essential to their clinical practices. However, the decision comes with uncertainties: historically, other federal judges have noted difficulties ensuring compliance from this administration following similar judicial rulings.
