The American Medical Association (AMA) recently made headlines for its comments regarding surgical interventions for transgender minors, indicating a significant shift in its stance. The AMA stated that “surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood,” a position that has drawn widespread attention and debate among medical professionals and advocates for transgender rights. This statement aligns with a similar recommendation from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), which suggested delaying gender-affirming surgery until the age of 19.
While the AMA’s position appears to be a clarification rather than a complete reversal, it has been celebrated by some conservative commentators who argue that it reflects a broader reevaluation of pediatric gender-affirming care. “If the AMA was wrong about surgeries, could it also have been wrong about hormones?” questioned Leor Sapir, a conservative political scientist, on the platform X.
The AMA’s statement emphasizes the need for evidence-based treatment but expresses concerns over the current data supporting surgical procedures for minors, labeling it as “insufficient.” The organization’s comments have not been formally published on its website and lack direct attribution to its leadership. This has led to mixed interpretations, with some viewing it as a retreat from previous supportive positions on gender-affirming surgeries.
Context and Implications for Healthcare Providers
The issuance of the AMA’s statement comes during a politically charged environment where healthcare providers face increasing scrutiny over gender-affirming care. Kellan Baker, a senior adviser for health policy at the Movement Advancement Project, noted that medical professionals are navigating a complex landscape influenced by federal pressures and potential legal ramifications. Baker remarked, “I see what ASPS and AMA have put out as clarifications of long-standing principles of the standard of care in an environment where many of their members are likely looking at them and saying, ‘We don’t understand exactly what the Trump administration is doing.’”
Experts highlight that the real concern for hospitals and providers is not only the AMA’s statement but also proposed regulations threatening federal funding for facilities offering gender-affirming care. According to Hannah Oliason, an attorney specializing in healthcare law, these pressures have already led to numerous hospitals halting surgical procedures for transgender youth since January 2025.
Research indicates that surgery for transgender minors is infrequent. A study revealed that between 2016 and 2020, approximately 3,200 individuals aged 18 and under underwent top surgery. In the same timeframe, fewer than 760 received other gender-affirming procedures.
Legal and Ethical Considerations
The AMA’s position has sparked debate regarding the implications for malpractice liability and the ethical considerations surrounding medical decision-making for minors. While the organization has historically advocated for patient-centered care, including gender-affirming treatments, its recent comments may influence how individual providers assess risk in light of potential lawsuits.
Carmel Shachar, director of the Health Law and Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School, stated, “The AMA was very vocal in opposing restrictions on gender-related care based on age, saying this should be driven by the patient and their perspective on their needs. And now they are walking it back.”
Despite the controversy, the AMA has not altered its overarching policies on gender-affirming care. In 2024, the AMA reaffirmed that gender-affirming medications and surgeries are medically necessary, as determined through shared decision-making between the patient and physician. The policy explicitly opposes legislative efforts to criminalize such care.
Other medical organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), continue to support case-by-case evaluations for surgical interventions in minors. AAP President Andrew Racine emphasized that decisions should be made collaboratively between patients, their families, and physicians, rather than dictated by external political forces.
The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) also provides guidelines that require comprehensive criteria to be met before recommending surgical treatment for minors. These include established diagnostic criteria, documented gender incongruence, and thorough evaluation of mental health considerations.
In the ongoing discussions surrounding gender-affirming care, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine has expressed its commitment to scrutinizing the evidence supporting such treatments, indicating that the conversation is far from over.
As the AMA navigates its position amid political pressures, the implications for transgender youth and their access to necessary medical care remain critical. The evolving dynamics of healthcare policy will continue to influence how these decisions are made in practice.
