FTC Investigates Gender-Transition Care Over Fraud Claims

A Growing Concern Over Gender-Affirming Care for Minors

At a recent workshop hosted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a group of medical professionals, parents, and federal officials raised serious concerns about the practices surrounding gender-affirming care for minors. The event, organized by the watchdog group Do No Harm, highlighted what many see as a crisis in pediatric gender medicine. Dr. Miriam Grossman, a psychiatrist and author known for her opposition to gender-related treatments and progressive sex education, was one of the most vocal critics at the gathering.

Grossman accused the medical community of engaging in what she described as “fraud” and “deception.” She argued that gender-affirming care for children is not just ethically questionable but also potentially harmful. Her comments were echoed by other speakers who shared personal stories of harm caused by these treatments.

The FTC’s involvement marks a significant shift in how gender-affirming care is being viewed. Chairman Andrew Ferguson announced that the agency is preparing to file a Freedom of Information Act request to investigate whether gender clinics, hospitals, and advocacy organizations are violating federal law by engaging in deceptive trade practices. This includes misleading patients and families about the risks, reversibility, and scientific basis of transition-related treatments.

Ferguson emphasized that his role is to protect consumers from deceptive acts, regardless of political considerations. He drew parallels between this issue and other health claims the FTC has addressed over the years.

The Broader Political Context

The debate over gender-affirming care for minors is part of a larger political movement. While the FTC’s jurisdiction over healthcare has traditionally been limited, there are indications that this may change with the proposed 2025 Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act. Initially introduced as a way to ban conversion therapy, the bill could have broader implications, potentially allowing the FTC to target gender-affirming interventions for minors.

Section 5 of the existing FTC Act already gives the agency some power to investigate fraudulent medical practices. If groups like Do No Harm can substantiate their claims — particularly regarding misrepresentations about safety, outcomes, and mental health assessments — the FTC could treat gender treatment as a consumer protection violation.

Whistleblowers and investigative reporters have provided documentation suggesting that some institutions bypass parental consent, falsify mental health records, and miscode diagnoses to receive insurance reimbursement. These actions raise serious ethical and legal questions about the integrity of the care being provided.

Personal Stories of Harm

The emotional weight of the event was evident in the testimonies of de-transitioned youth and their families. Many spoke about the irreparable harm they experienced, including misdiagnosis, medical betrayal, and psychological trauma. Simon Amaya Price, for example, described how he was fast-tracked into transition treatments while dealing with sexual trauma, depression, and undiagnosed autism. He felt betrayed by the medical professionals he trusted.

Claire Abernathy shared her experience of irreversible damage caused by double mastectomy and hormone use, including pelvic floor dysfunction, brittle bones, and chronic nerve pain. She emphasized that she was never fully informed of the risks involved.

Elvira Syed, a mother whose daughter died by suicide after receiving gender-affirming care, expressed deep sorrow over how her daughter's mental health issues were ignored in favor of focusing on her gender identity. She said that clinicians treated her ideology rather than her illness.

Medical Ethics and Legal Accountability

During a panel of doctors, lawyers, and regulatory experts, participants presented documents showing that patients with active mental health issues were cleared for transition without proper evaluation. Some studies used to support gender care guidelines were found to have manipulated data or omitted negative outcomes.

Edmund LaCour Jr., solicitor general of Alabama, stressed the importance of medical consensus being based on dispassionate science rather than impassioned advocacy. Dr. Grossman added that medical institutions are using deceptive language and pushing vulnerable kids into irreversible decisions.

Attorneys on the panel called for legal accountability, emphasizing that doctors need to follow the rules they claim to uphold. Jordan Campbell, deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Consumer Protection Branch, echoed this sentiment.

A Call for Transparency and Regulation

Jared Ross, a board-certified emergency physician and senior fellow at Do No Harm, was one of the most forceful voices at the workshop. He described pediatric gender medicine as a profound departure from standard medical ethics, arguing that it is subjective, untested, and driven more by ideology than science.

Ross noted that testosterone, a controlled substance, can increase emotional dysregulation and suicidal ideation, while puberty blockers impair brain development. He criticized the lack of objective measures in determining the reality of a child's gender identity, calling the practice manipulation and blackmail.

Despite the challenges, Ross expressed optimism about the growing movement pushing back on gender medicine’s prevailing standards. He emphasized the importance of transparency, regulatory oversight, and legal reform, including state-level audits to ensure that gender care bans are being enforced.

As the debate over the ethics and oversight of gender medicine intensifies, the FTC’s involvement signals a new front in the legal and regulatory battle. Whether the agency ultimately moves to prosecute deceptive practices remains to be seen, but the workshop marked a turning point — elevating concerns once confined to whistleblowers and dissident doctors to the highest levels of consumer protection. For critics like Dr. Ross, Dr. Grossman, and the families who shared their stories, the message was clear: Safeguarding children requires not only compassion, but accountability.