Transgender care ends at NYU Langone youth programme

Published: 19 February 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

In a move that has reverberated across the United States and international medical communities, a major New York hospital has announced the permanent closure of its programme providing transgender care to minors, citing the “current regulatory environment” as a primary concern. The decision by the prominent NYU Langone Health network to discontinue these services has ignited fierce debate about medical ethics, federal policy, and the future of healthcare access for transgender youth.

NYU Langone Health’s Transgender Youth Health Program was established as part of a broader commitment to young people navigating gender identity, offering specialised transgender care that included comprehensive assessments, puberty blockers, and hormone therapy. The network confirmed that the programme will no longer be available to patients under 18, primarily due to sustained pressure from the federal government and the departure of the clinic’s medical director, who played a central role in its operation. The hospital emphasised that its broader paediatric mental health services will remain active even as the specialised programme shuts down.

This development unfolds against a backdrop of intense political and legal battles over transgender care in the United States. Since the beginning of President Donald Trump’s second administration, a series of executive actions and regulatory proposals has targeted federally funded gender‑affirming services for minors. One key executive order issued in early 2025 declared that the federal government would not fund, promote, or support gender transition procedures for individuals under 19, prompting healthcare providers nationwide to reconsider their policies. Hospitals that continue to offer such transgender care risk losing crucial Medicare and Medicaid funding, which can account for a significant portion of their revenue.

In response to these directives, NYU Langone had already been gradually reducing the scope of its transgender youth services, cancelling appointments and declining new patients even before the formal closure announcement. While some institutions have faced legal challenges or injunctions against federal funding cuts, the broader climate has left many healthcare systems wary of maintaining programmes that could expose them to financial penalties or regulatory scrutiny.

The decision has prompted swift condemnation from local officials, advocacy groups, and families of transgender youth who say that ending access to transgender care will have deeply harmful consequences. Manhattan Borough President Brad Hoylman‑Sigal warned that withdrawing these services jeopardises the well‑being and safety of young people who have come to rely on medically endorsed treatments as part of their development. Supporters of gender‑affirming care argue that interventions such as puberty blockers are reversible and that surgical options for minors remain exceptionally rare, with protocols involving careful evaluations and extensive family consultation.

Critics also point out that major professional medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and other international bodies, endorse gender‑affirming treatment as evidence‑based and essential for improving the mental health outcomes of transgender youth. Research has indicated that access to supportive transgender care can reduce instances of anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation among young people struggling with gender dysphoria. Advocates argue that removing these services not only undermines established medical consensus but also places vulnerable children at increased risk during an already difficult phase of life.

The response from families directly affected by the closure has been one of alarm and uncertainty. Parents whose children were receiving transgender care through NYU Langone described scrambling to identify alternative providers capable of meeting their children’s needs. Some families said they were exploring options outside the United States, raising questions about healthcare equity and access depending on socio‑economic status. Others voiced plans to continue advocacy work at state and local levels to ensure that transgender care services remain available through public health systems or specialised clinics not dependent on federal funding.

The backlash has also translated into public demonstrations. A rally in support of transgender youth was planned outside Manhattan’s historic Stonewall national monument, where participants intended to highlight the importance of affirming care and protest what they see as political interference in healthcare decisions that should rest with families and doctors. Many activists argue that NYU Langone’s decision reflects a capitulation to political pressure rather than a medically justified change in policy.

In contrast, the White House officially welcomed the hospital’s decision, framing it as aligned with broader efforts to “restore common sense” and halt what the administration characterises as unscientific or harmful procedures. A White House spokesperson reaffirmed the government’s position that federal policy should protect children from irreversible interventions, a stance that supporters of the policy argue safeguards minors against significant medical risks.

The legal landscape remains unsettled, with federal judges having issued temporary blocks against some funding threats, even as regulatory proposals continue to evolve. New York’s attorney general previously warned hospitals against violating state anti‑discrimination laws by refusing gender‑affirming care, highlighting the tension between state protections and federal directives. Despite these warnings, NYU Langone proceeded with the closure, suggesting the powerful influence of federal funding pressures on institutional decision‑making.

Medical professionals who specialise in care for transgender youth have expressed deep concern that more hospitals may follow NYU Langone’s lead unless legislative measures are put in place to shield transgender care from federal funding penalties. Some clinicians warn that the chilling effect of political interference could lead to broader reductions in care availability, forcing families to navigate a patchwork of providers or consider risks associated with untreated gender dysphoria. Observers note that continuity of care is particularly critical for young people already engaged in treatment, with abrupt policy shifts potentially exacerbating mental health issues.

As this controversy continues to unfold, the closure of NYU Langone’s programme stands as a flashpoint in the broader debate over transgender rights, healthcare autonomy, and the role of government in personal medical decisions. Advocates of gender‑affirming care see this as a stark warning of what could happen in other states or institutions without legal protections and sustained activism. Conversely, proponents of the federal policy applaud what they view as a necessary check on medical practices they believe should not be funded or supported by taxpayer dollars.

The ramifications of this decision will likely play out over months and years as families, medical professionals, and policymakers seek pathways to ensure that young people in need of specialised transgender care can still find it. For many transgender youth and their supporters, the loss of services at NYU Langone represents more than a policy shift: it is a deeply personal setback in the fight for healthcare equity and human dignity. Stories emerging from New York underscore the urgency of this moment and the complex challenges that lie ahead for transgender healthcare in the United States.

Check our latest news