Trump Admin Illegally Targeted Health Websites, Court Finds

Ruling on Trump Administration's Website Removals

A decision was delivered on Thursday by U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, finding that the Office of Personnel Management under the Trump administration did not adhere to all legal requirements when directing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to swiftly act on the president’s executive order concerning “gender ideology.”

Executive Order and Initial Response

President Trump initiated a series of executive orders early in his term, one of which mandated government agencies to revise the wording in official materials relating to “gender ideology.” This terminology was utilized by the administration to refer to individuals who identify as transgender or non-binary.

Following this directive, numerous websites within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) experienced the deletion of content – estimated by Doctors for America (DFA) to be “hundreds or even thousands” of pages. Affected sites included those belonging to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the National Institute of Health (NIH), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Agencies' Compliance Approach

Agencies were given a 48-hour deadline for compliance. Judge Bates characterized the response of many as “the most extreme approach,” involving the complete removal of any webpage containing potentially problematic language, irrespective of its extent, without any plan for revision or republication.

Plaintiffs contended that these removals encompassed crucial health information on a wide range of topics. These included youth mental health, the dangers of vaping, HIV testing procedures, opioid abuse prevention, contraception methods, osteoporosis management, menopause, sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy guidance, and instructions for healthcare professionals regarding FDA-approved medications.

Focus of the Ruling

It is important to note that the judge’s ruling did not address the administration’s underlying ideology. Instead, the decision centered on the manner in which the agencies proceeded with the deletion of websites and datasets. The plaintiffs asserted that the speed and process of information removal violated laws such as the Administrative Procedure Act.

“The government retains the freedom to express its views, including those pertaining to ‘gender ideology,’” Judge Bates stated in his ruling. “However, when taking action, it must operate within the boundaries of the authority and procedures established by Congress… and in this instance, that requirement was not met.”

Impact on Healthcare Professionals

The removal of these websites not only impacted the public’s access to reliable health resources but also hindered DFA members’ ability to access data and reference materials essential to their work. Court documents reveal that some physicians testified to a decline in the efficiency of patient care due to the loss of these resources.

For example, a physician working in a Chicago high school serving an underserved population reported being unable to utilize CDC resources to manage a chlamydia outbreak. Other doctors indicated increased difficulty in providing guidance on STI prevention and contraception to patients with complex medical backgrounds, necessitating more extensive clinical research.

Restoration of Websites

Judge Bates has ordered the restoration of websites relied upon by the plaintiff doctors, provided they have been taken down or significantly altered. However, the extent to which this health information will be fully reinstated remains uncertain, given past instances where this administration has demonstrated resistance to judicial rulings.