The federal government will no longer subsidize transgender procedures for either adults or children.
On Thursday, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. issued a declaration prohibiting gender transition procedures as valid treatments for addressing gender dysphoria.
“Sex-rejecting procedures for children and adolescents are neither safe nor effective as a treatment modality for gender dysphoria, gender incongruence, or other related disorders in minors, and therefore, fail to meet professional recognized standards of health care. For the purposes of this declaration, ‘sex-rejecting procedures’ means pharmaceutical or surgical interventions, including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries such as mastectomies, vaginoplasties, and other procedures, that attempt to align an individual’s physical appearance or body with an asserted identity that differs from the individual’s sex.”
The declaration cited the HHS evidence review on pediatric gender dysphoria care published in May as justification for the cessation of funds. As part of this evidence review, HHS invited peer reviews from other major medical associations. Among those invited, the American Academy of Pediatrics and Endocrine Society declined to participate. However, the American Psychiatric Association and eight other peer reviewers submitted their own reviews, which HHS published along with their own responses last month.
Further justification for the declaration came from evidence reviews and consensus by other European nations: the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Brazil, and Australia.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will also be proposing new rules barring hospitals which participate in Medicare and Medicaid from performing gender transition procedures, and prohibiting Medicaid from paying for those procedures.
The FDA issued warnings to around a dozen manufacturers of breast binders to cease marketing to children for gender dysphoria. Noncompliance would result in enforcement actions, including product seizures.
HHS will also be reversing the Biden administration’s efforts to make gender dysphoria a protected class within the federal definition of “disability.”
In a press conference on the declaration, Kennedy said medical professionals supportive of transgenderism had “betrayed” their oath and “moral obligation” to do no harm.
“This is not medicine, it is malpractice. We’re done with junk science driven by ideological pursuits, not the well-being of children,” said Kennedy. “Sex-rejecting procedures rob children of their futures.”
One report cited by HHS estimated that 2023 revenue for gender-transitioning drugs and surgeries exceeded $4.4 billion, a figure which is on track to exceed $7 billion by 2030.
CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz said children were sold a “dishonest narrative” about gender transitions as healthcare.
“You know what you get when you mix politics and medicine? Politics. There is no medicine left,” said Oz.
53 percent of children are in Medicaid or CHIP programs.
Oz offered a non-comprehensive list of recurring health problems within gender transition patients: puberty blockers associated with reduced bone density, altered brain development, lifelong disrupted sexual dysfunction; cross-sex hormones associated with infertility, loss of sexual function, cardiovascular issues, and long-term endocrine problems; and gender transition surgeries associated with disfiguration, pain, and mental health troubles.
Oz pointed out the high costs of the gender transition surgeries, offering examples of a vaginoplasty ($60,000) and phalloplasty ($150,000).
HHS estimates these bans will result in $250 million in savings for the taxpayer.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Earlier this week, Republican Congressman Abe Hamadeh’s (R-AZ08) social media team offered words of gratitude and even praise for Laurie Roberts, an opinion columnist for the Arizona Republic. The exhange came in regard to the framing of her recent op-ed entitled “Rep. Abe Hamadeh says no Medicaid cuts? He’s not fooling anyone.” According to Roberts, she incorrectly wrote in a post to X that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act contains cuts to Medicare, rather than reforming Medicaid.
Addressing the erroneous post, Roberts wrote a new post to X and commented, “Deleted my earlier tweet as I mistakenly said the cuts were to Medicare. Don’t want to start a panic, so I deleted it. The cuts are to Medicaid, as the column correctly points out.”
Deleted my earlier tweet as I mistakenly said the cuts were to Medicare. Don't want to start a panic, so I deleted it. The cuts are to Medicaid, as the column correctly points out.
Abe Hamadeh War Room, the Rapid Response account for the Congressman’s office, highlighted Roberts’ correction writing, “Thank you for showing integrity. In this case and correcting your mistake, Laurie. Unfortunately, the Democrats have created panic for months now by conflating these two very important issues. The last thing we would want is to scare people.”
Thank you for showing integrity. In this case and correcting your mistake, Laurie.
Unfortunately, the Democrats have created panic for months now by conflating these two very important issues.
As explained by the White House, “Medicare has not been touched in this bill— absolutely nothing in the bill reduces spending on Medicare benefits. This legislation does not make a single cut to welfare programs—it safeguards and protects these programs for all eligible Americans.”
The White House further noted that H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBA), does not in fact make cuts to Medicaid either.
“As the President has said numerous times, there will be no cuts to Medicaid. The One Big Beautiful Bill protects and strengthens Medicaid for those who rely on it—pregnant women, children, seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income families—while eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse,” the White House wrote. “The One Big Beautiful Bill removes illegal aliens, enforces work requirements, and protects Medicaid for the truly vulnerable.”
According to the latest congressional summary of the bill, the Medicaid reform in the OBBA falls into four main categories:
Reducing Fraud and Improving Enrollment Processes
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) are to create a centralized system by 2027 for states to detect multi-state Medicaid/CHIP enrollment; states must verify addresses and report Social Security numbers monthly by FY2030; funding provided for system setup and maintenance.
States must check Social Security Administration’s Death Master File quarterly starting 2028 to identify deceased Medicaid enrollees.
States to verify provider termination from Medicare, other state Medicaid, or CHIP during enrollment/reenrollment starting 2028, with monthly checks thereafter.
States to check provider death status via Death Master File during enrollment/reenrollment starting 2028, with quarterly checks thereafter.
States to redetermine Medicaid expansion population eligibility every six months starting December 31, 2026.
10% reduction in enhanced federal matching rate starting FY2028 for states providing comprehensive health benefits to non-lawfully residing individuals (except children/pregnant women).
Preventing Wasteful Spending
CMS to survey pharmacies through FY2033 for Medicaid drug pricing; non-participating pharmacies face penalties; OIG to study survey results with FY2026 funding.
Mandates pass-through pricing and bans spread-pricing for Medicaid pharmacy benefit manager contracts.
Prohibits Medicaid/CHIP federal payments for gender transition procedures, with exceptions for minors with parental consent for specific medical conditions.
Bars federal Medicaid payments for 10 years to nonprofit essential community providers primarily offering family planning/abortions (beyond rape/incest/life-threatening cases) if they received over $1M in Medicaid payments in FY2024.
Stopping Abusive Financing Practices
Non-expansion states as of March 11, 2021, must expand Medicaid by January 1, 2026, to receive enhanced federal matching rate.
Prohibits federal matching for revenue from new or increased Medicaid provider taxes.
Limits state-directed payments under Medicaid managed care to Medicare rates (100% for expansion states, 110% for others) through FY2033.
Increasing Personal Accountability (Work Requirements)
Medicaid expansion population must meet 80-hour monthly work/community service/education requirements starting December 31, 2026; exemptions for medical conditions or dependent children; FY2026 funding for implementation.
Cost-sharing required for Medicaid expansion population with income above poverty line starting FY2029; max $35 per service, 5% of family income; excludes certain services; providers may require payment upfront.
Under the OBB, Medicaid isn’t cut but is in fact mandated to expand for “non-expansion states,” to receive enhanced federally matched funding. The only individuals and families purportedly “cut” from Medicaid would be those who fail to meet the program’s work/community service/education requirements and are not exempted by medical conditions or dependent children or whose income exceeds the program’s limitations and “non-lawfully residing individuals.”
Like a cruise ship steaming toward an iceberg, America’s economy is headed for disaster.
The federal government reports an interest-bearing debt of $37 trillion. However, the actual unfunded obligations of the government, according to the Medicare and Social Security Trustees’ reports, is an unfathomable $158.6 trillion.
Yet the band plays on. In the latest game of chicken to avoid the dreaded but largely imaginary “government shut down,” Democrats stood fast on the theory that their electoral success depends on shipping the maximum number of dollars out the door. Republicans once again proved an inadequate bulwark. Those taking a principled stand against business as usual were denominated “far-right obstructionists” and run over.
The current Republican plan combines a $4.5 trillion tax cut with doubtful spending reductions of $2 trillion, a plan the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects will eventually raise the interest-bearing debt to $60 trillion. Reminder: the Rs are the cost-cutting party.
Trump’s deficit-busting credentials are suspect. During his first term, he added debt at twice the annual rate than Barack Obama did. Nevertheless, he has unleashed a dramatic program of mass firings, contract canceling, and agency reduction/elimination.
Serious cost cutters know that the most effective strategy is to cut where the fiscal impact is high relative to the resistance produced. The DOGE strategy is the exact opposite, already producing highly publicized and resented cuts with no possibility, even if fully implemented, of resolving our debt crisis.
The elimination of all federal civilian employees, no matter how useless and overpaid many are, would save only 3% of the federal budget. To save money, you have to go where the money is. By far the largest “bucket” of federal spending is transfer payments, which are $3.19 trillion of the $6.7 trillion total budget in 2023.
Federal subsidies to states, including Medicaid, cost $1.15 trillion, while debt interest of $.9 trillion is not available for cutting. Purchases of supplies and salaries, which fund the military and all other governmental functions, cost a combined $1.4 trillion, yet provide relatively scant opportunity for significant reductions.
Meanwhile, the two parties dare each other to actually cut transfer payments and “push granny over the cliff.” Trump’s response is to adamantly repeat that he will never in any way “cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid benefits.”
This war of words has the unfortunate effect of handcuffing those legitimately trying to plan for the total depletion of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, scheduled to occur within the decade. It also rules out some of the non-draconian solutions available like work requirements for the able-bodied and gradually raising the retirement age.
When and if we get serious about cost-cutting and generational fraud, a good place to start would be Medicaid, the most abused and inefficient welfare program. Spending on Medicaid has grown an inflation-adjusted 671% since 1990. In fact, as Senator Phil Graham recently pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, the real purchasing power of total government transfer payments is 20 times greater than when the War on Poverty began in 1990, while the official poverty rate remains at 11.6%.
How can that be? Gramm provides the key insight. Eligibility standards for means-tested programs including Medicaid are based on the Census Bureau’s calculations. But the Census vastly overstates the extent of poverty because it doesn’t count as income 88% of the transfer payments, including food stamps, refundable tax credits, and Medicaid itself. This incoherent bias in calculating income eligibility has led to massive waste, far exceeding DOGE’s projected savings.
Interestingly, the CBO in January developed a new metric for determining “poverty” in the traditional sense of not having enough resources to meet basic needs. When transfer payments were deemed income, which they obviously are, the actual poverty rate fell to 0.8%.
This is an opportunity to save substantial sums without harming those actually poor. $1.48 trillion in welfare benefits annually go to families not actually qualifying as poor, using the CBO’s calculation of counting transfer payments as income. Simply using the CBO methodology, combined with work requirements and limiting welfare benefits to those truly in need, would generate meaningful savings if we have the political courage to do so.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
One of, if not the, highlights of President Donald Trump’s first months in office has been the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by entrepreneur (and the world’s richest man) Elon Musk. Under Musk’s leadership, DOGE has not just exposed wasteful spending— but worked to reduce spending by eliminating entire agencies and even cabinet departments.
For example, DOGE pulled back the curtain on the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Before DOGE exposed it, most Americans thought of USAID (if they thought of it at all) as an agency that provided humanitarian aid and development assistance to impoverished people in other countries. DOGE revealed that USAID’s humanitarian work was a cover for their true mission: making political and cultural change overseas. This is why USAID has spent millions on absurd “development” projects like transgender plays in Colombia, DEI schemes in Serbia and electric car subsidies in Vietnam.
Eliminating USAID would not mean the end of overseas development and humanitarian aid. It would mean that the aid would come from private charities. These charities can do a better job of providing aid than a government bureaucracy. As outrageous as USAID’s spending is, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the Pentagon’s over $800 billion (and on track to exceed $2 trillion by 2033) budget.
The “defense” budget is the third largest item in the federal budget, behind Social Security and Medicare. Few politicians will risk the wrath of senior citizens by voting to make any changes to these programs unless the changes are phased in such a way as to not affect those currently on, or close to, relying on the programs. Thus, any serious plan to reduce spending and debt must cut the bloated “defense” budget. Savings from reductions in military spending can be used to help support those dependent on federal programs as Congress unwinds the welfare state. Cutting military spending would be politically popular as most polls show a majority of Americans— including Republicans—support reducing America’s military commitments.
The poster child for wasteful Pentagon spending, which is thankfully already in Elon Musk’s crosshairs, is the F-35 —a $1.7 trillion disaster of delays, breakdowns and runaway costs. The plane, the most expensive military program ever, often sits grounded. The F-35 may be the most obvious example of wasteful Pentagon spending, but it is hardly alone. After all, this is the agency that brought us the $500 toilet seat. Shutting down boondoggles like the F-35 could provide revenue to help pay down the debt and protect those currently dependent on federal programs. It could also help ensure the forthcoming tax bill does not further increase the deficit.
DOGE is not the first effort to identify and eliminate wasteful spending. President Ronald Reagan had the Grace Commission, a sort of DOGE 1.0 that unearthed billions in waste—from the Department of Energy to the IRS. Their findings were buried by entrenched interests and a cowardly Congress. The lesson of the Grace Commission is that reducing even the most obvious wasteful spending requires the courage to stand up to the entrenched interests in both parties that benefit from the current system.
Trump and Musk may have the necessary convictions to make serious changes in the ways Washington works. However, they need to be prepared for the swamp to fight back. Democrats and their allies are already waging war against DOGE. To them, trying to identify and eliminate wasteful spending or even asking federal employees what they actually do is an assault on democracy. Most Democrats will join hawkish Republicans in seeking to protect the Pentagon’s budget. It would not be surprising if Congress’s bipartisan military-industrial complex caucus smeared those advocating cuts in the bloated military budget as “Putin’s puppets.”
The federal debt is growing by approximately $1 trillion every three months. To put that in perspective, consider that the federal debt did not reach the $1 trillion mark until 1981. Unless action is taken soon to reduce spending, pay down the federal debt and roll back the welfare-warfare state—America will face a serious economic crisis. Therefore, it is important that everyone who understands the stakes do what they can to support Trump and Musk’s efforts.
Senator Mark Kelly defended the foreign terrorist sympathizer deported recently by the Trump administration: Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a Lebanese kidney transplant specialist and Brown University professor.
Kelly described Alawieh to constituents as a “talented transplant doctor” and a “lawful H1B visa holder” during a town hall on Monday. Kelly failed to mention Alawieh was deported for attending the funeral of terrorist Hassan Nasrallah — Hezbollah’s late longtime leader — and defending the terrorist to immigration agents. Instead, Kelly alleged her deportation had no justification.
“She was tossed out of the country because she visited some relatives in, I think, Lebanon, or somewhere. So, thrown out without cause, without due process. So we’re up against an administration that does not follow the rules, I think it’s very fair to say, and in some cases breaking laws,” said Kelly.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) explained Alawieh was deported for openly admitting her support of Nassrallah to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers. Alawieh was in the country as a kidney transplant specialist.
“A visa is a privilege not a right—glorifying and supporting terrorists who kill Americans is grounds for visa issuance to be denied. This is commonsense security,” stated DHS.
Court documents revealed Alawieh had photos supportive of Nasrallah along with Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on her phone. Alawieh’s legal counsel withdrew recently from her case, citing “further diligence” as their cause for dropping her as a client.
“Dr. Alawieh stated that Nasrallah is the leader of Hezbollah and as a Shia Muslim, he is highly regarded in the Shia community as a religious figure,” stated the prosecutors. “According to Dr. Alawieh, she follows him for his religious and spiritual teachings and not his politics.”
Kelly made the remarks during a town hall with fellow Senator Ruben Gallego on Monday.
The pair came home this week to disseminate their Democratic leadership’s talking points criticizing the House Republican-led budget as a threat to Medicaid.
House Republicans’ proposed budget (HCR 14) looks to reduce spending by $880 billion. The House approved the plan last month. In response, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries claimed the budget plan would issue “the largest cut to Medicaid in American history,” since the committee charged by the proposed budget to find cuts, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, mainly oversees Medicaid funding (93 percent of its oversight, per the Congressional Budget Office).
House Republicans contested the Democrats’ claim, arguing the budget plan doesn’t mention Medicaid.
While Kelly admitted the mass cancellations of Medicaid hadn’t occurred yet, he said it was a “high probability.” Kelly said Trump’s “giant tax cut” benefited “millionaires and billionaires” mainly.
“All of this stuff you’re hearing every single day is so they give a big giant tax cut to people who don’t need a tax cut. We can raise the taxes of billionaires, and they will still be billionaires, and that’s what we should be doing, we shouldn’t be cutting these services” said Kelly.
Kelly predicted the Trump administration’s changes to Medicaid and Medicare would include additional red tape that would prevent people from getting on or staying on Medicaid, and possibly cutting the match funding number for states.
With reduced or eliminated Medicaid and Medicare, Kelly predicted people would “get sicker” and come to rely on emergency room visits as their primary form of health care, consequently driving up health care costs. Gallego echoed this assessment.
“You will see these emergency rooms become the primary care doctors,” said Gallego.
“This hasn’t happened yet, and it’s possible we can prevent it from happening,” said Kelly.
Kelly proposed expanding access to Medicaid and Medicare as well as increasing taxes on the wealthy as the remedies for reducing health care costs.
According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Arizona has about 780,000 individuals enrolled in Medicare and over 483,000 enrolled in a prescription drug plan only out of over 1.5 million individuals recorded as Medicare eligible in the state.
“There’s no way they can get to those tax cuts without Medicaid. The math doesn’t math,” said Gallego.
Gallego said he thought Republicans were “dumb enough” to go after Medicaid, but perhaps not Medicare.
“In order for them to cut $850 billion from a very narrow slice, that means they’re going to have to go deep,” said Gallego.
Kelly disagreed, saying Republicans were “dumb enough” to go after Medicare.
Gallego predicted certain working families above the federal poverty line but still within Arizona eligibility levels would be cut from Medicaid.
Gallego and Kelly encouraged a mass grassroots response to oppose the Trump administration.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
