Doctors’ group says American Medical Association didn’t retreat on gender-affirming care for minors

The American Medical Association is rejecting claims it has stepped back from support for gender-affirming care, saying its guidance remains unchanged even as political pressure and public confusion intensify.

Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate's email newsletter.

In an interview with The Advocate, Alex Sheldon, executive director of GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality, said the controversy reflects misinterpretation rather than any substantive shift in medical guidance.

“We knew right away that any shift in policy that was being reported was a grave exaggeration,” Sheldon said, pointing to GLMA’s role within the AMA’s House of Delegates, where it has a voting seat and direct visibility into policymaking.

At the center of the confusion is a dispute between the AMA and The New York Times over how the organization’s position was characterized. In February and March, the Times reported that the AMA had aligned with the American Society of Plastic Surgeons in backing limits on gender-affirming surgeries for minors, framing the development as a shift. The AMA later pushed back, saying that the interpretation overstated its position and that its policies had not changed. The newspaper, in turn, defended its reporting, citing prior AMA language noting that such surgeries are generally deferred until adulthood.

Related: Two medical associations update their recommendations on gender-affirming care for trans youth

Related: World's largest psych association passes policy supporting trans youth care by massive margin

In a recent board newsletter, the AMA sought to settle the matter, stating that its policies “remain unchanged” and reiterating that gender-affirming care is “medically necessary” and should be guided by patients, families, and physicians rather than government mandates. The organization also emphasized that its existing framework continues to support access to care across the full spectrum of treatment options.

The clarification followed weeks of scrutiny that blurred the distinction between long-standing clinical caution and a broader retreat that medical groups say never occurred.

As previously reported by The Advocate, the AMA has acknowledged limited evidence around surgeries for minors and noted that such procedures are typically deferred until adulthood. But those interventions represent only a fraction of gender-affirming care, which more commonly includes counseling, hormone therapy, and social transition, all of which remain supported by major medical organizations.

Sheldon argued that the nuance was lost in translation and then amplified.

“In this case, the New York Times relied on a quote that was itself sourced from another outlet,” they said, describing an “echo effect” that distorted the AMA’s underlying policy framework.

That distortion, they said, has had consequences beyond the news cycle. In Washington and statehouses across the country, policymakers have seized on perceptions of medical uncertainty to justify restrictions on care. “The federal government is using its own power to try to undermine medical integrity, expertise, and science,” Sheldon said. “It’s not based on evidence or science, it’s based on their own ideology.”

Related: American Medical Association Strengthens Support for Gender-Affirming Care

Related: White House clarifies support for gender-affirming care for transgender youth after backlash (exclusive)

Those efforts have also faced resistance in the courts. In one recent case, a federal judge in Oregon rebuked elements of the Trump administration’s prohibition on transgender health care, siding with a coalition of states that challenged federal efforts to restrict access.

Sheldon pointed to those legal outcomes as evidence that the broader medical consensus remains intact, even as political actors attempt to reshape it.

“The vast majority of them continue to stand up and say that that is not what science and evidence are telling us,” Sheldon said, pointing to the AMA’s clarification as reaffirming that gender-affirming care is “medically necessary, evidence-based, and supported by the vast majority of medical organizations.”

GLMA itself has sued the federal government over efforts to restrict access, winning an injunction, Sheldon noted, in a case that challenged an executive order targeting care for transgender and nonbinary young people. For clinicians and families, the practical question is less about institutional disputes than about what guidance to trust. Sheldon’s answer was direct: the underlying standard of care has not changed.

“This clarification specifically should give confidence to clinicians, health systems, and policymakers that affirming care remains the medically appropriate approach,” they said.

“Health professionals, not politicians, are best equipped to make decisions about patient care,” Sheldon added.