Children’s Minnesota is resisting a Department of Justice subpoena seeking information on its pediatric gender health program. The Minneapolis hospital is one of several providers nationwide facing scrutiny for its history of administering chemical or surgical interventions on minors with gender dysphoria.
The Trump administration describes these interventions as “sex-rejecting” procedures, while advocates refer to them as “gender-affirming care.” The hospital has called the subpoena an “invasive fishing expedition” and is moving to quash it.
A similar effort succeeded in Colorado, where a federal court quashed DOJ subpoenas demanding records from hospitals that performed chemical therapies intended to permanently alter children’s bodies to resemble the opposite sex. These treatments are commonly known as “puberty blockers” or “cross-sex hormones.”
This legal battle comes after Children’s Minnesota temporarily paused, in late February 2026, the prescription of puberty-suppressing medications and cross-sex hormones for patients under 18. The hospital took this step in response to Trump administration executive orders and growing research questioning the safety and effectiveness of the procedures.
Children’s Minnesota resumed sex-rejecting hormone therapy for minors early last month after a federal court ruling in Oregon blocked related HHS regulations. Counseling services continued uninterrupted, but the core medical interventions were halted temporarily.
Continuing these risky, permanent, and potentially disfiguring procedures places Minnesota at increasing odds with federal policy and international medical trends. The Trump administration’s Executive Order “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” classifies these interventions as irreversible treatments carrying serious risks of sterility, lifelong complications, and regret. It directs federal agencies to stop funding such practices on minors.
Minnesota’s stance now diverges from that of several European countries. The United Kingdom has sharply restricted puberty blockers for minors, while Sweden, Finland, and Norway have also curtailed these treatments, citing insufficient evidence of long-term benefits and well-documented harms.
By withholding the requested documents, Children’s Minnesota risks escalating its conflict with the Department of Justice and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. At a time when Minnesota’s Medicaid program already faces scrutiny over program integrity, fraud concerns, and improper payments, this lack of transparency further harms the state’s national reputation. It jeopardizes future federal funding and erodes public trust in how taxpayer dollars support children’s health programs. Federal partners expect accountability that prioritizes protecting children—not shielding experimental practices with mounting evidence of harm.