DOJ issues grand jury subpoenas targeting trans minors’ care

DOJ criminal – The U.S. Department of Justice has begun issuing criminal grand jury subpoenas tied to gender-affirming care delivered to minors, with NYU Langone Health disclosing that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of Texas sought detailed records from

For the third week in a row, the question has been the same in hospital offices and legal departments: how much medical truth can a provider be forced to hand over—on pain of criminal consequences.

Last week, NYU Langone Health informed its patients that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of Texas had issued criminal subpoenas to multiple medical institutions seeking information on providers and every minor to whom it had administered gender-affirming care in recent years. The hospital’s disclosure was not voluntary in the usual sense—it came in compliance with New York’s shield law. which requires disclosure within 30 days.

NYU Langone appears to be the only hospital system so far to publicly acknowledge receipt of the subpoena. That grand jury subpoena matters because. according to the hospital’s action and the scope described in the document. it suggests the Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation into providers. In practice. that introduces the possibility of future jail time. prosecution and even charges—an outcome critics say makes the threat fundamentally different from civil scrutiny.

The subpoena. issued by the federal government as part of what it calls “sex-rejecting procedures. ” seeks names and files of providers. administrators. accountants. attorneys. volunteers and other personnel involved in “billing or coding activities.” It also demands the names and medical documentation of every transgender minor who received gender-affirming care from the hospital since 2020. including “documents relating to the clinical indications. diagnoses and assessments that formed the basis for providing” the care. The summons adds a HIPAA statement saying “de-identified information,” it argues, “could not reasonably be used in its stead.”.

Tyler Hack. the founder and executive director of Christopher Street Project. a PAC boosting candidates committed to protecting trans rights. said the demand is frightening not just because of what it asks for. but because of what it implies about privacy. “They are asking for identifiable patient records. which should scare every American. whether they’re trans or not. ” Hack told Salon. “Everyone relies on patient privacy in the relationship between them and their provider. and that’s something the Trump administration wants to throw out the window because they want to look through our medical records and decide what they like and don’t like.”.

The stakes, critics say, are intensified by the legal posture itself. Katie Eyer. a Rutgers University professor of anti-discrimination law. told Salon that the criminal subpoena increases the risk that institutions will feel compelled to disclose sensitive information rather than trying to hold it back. because of criminal penalties that can attach to noncompliance. She also warned that once the government receives the material. it raises an immediate fear about what it could do with it.

“I think the clear target is to shut down gender-affirming care for children in the United States. even in states that permit it or that are trying to protect access to that type of healthcare. ” Eyer said. “It’s sort of a backdoor way to try to effectively ban gender-affirming care for minors nationwide.”.

Eyer pointed to what happened before this moment. NYU Langone shuttered its Transgender Youth Health Program in February, citing the “current regulatory environment” among other reasons. For Eyer, that shutdown could be a signal that enforcement pressure is no longer hypothetical. “The thought could be. on the part of the administration. ‘Let’s make sure that the places that have stopped will stay stopped. ’” Eyer said. She added that the approach could also be meant to ensure institutions that paused services remain afraid even if they receive letters from state officials.

A DOJ spokesperson told Salon the department does not comment on grand jury subpoenas or investigations.

The broader picture critics draw from this subpoena is that the federal government is using legal force and jurisdictions known for hostility to trans-rights litigation to escalate from policy changes into investigations. Jessica Clarke. a professor of anti-discrimination law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. said in an email that the latest subpoena makes clear “the administration is using every legal tool at its disposal to end gender-affirming healthcare.” She emphasized the Northern District of Texas as the origin point. describing it as one of the most conservative jurisdictions in the country.

“The effect of these subpoenas is to intimidate healthcare providers and patients. ” Clarke said. and she noted that seven district judges. from courts around the country. have found subpoenas issued to healthcare providers were for an improper purpose. Clarke also pointed to the Northern District of Texas as a way to keep disputes before a particular judge.

That judge, in Clarke’s framing, is Judge Reed O’Connor, who would handle cases in that venue—described by Hack as a frequent choice for the Trump administration.

Hack called the subpoena “incredibly disturbing” and “really dangerous” because it threatens children’s access to care as providers “sunset and rollback services.” He said the policy pressure isn’t abstract. “These are real kids. These are real patients who need their healthcare and are not going to be able to get it,” Hack said. “More broadly. everyone deserves to be able to seek and receive the healthcare that they need without fear that they. their parents or their doctors are going to be prosecuted for it.”.

He also argued that the federal targeting could extend beyond minors. “We have seen that anyone who is trans is on the target list, and no one is really safe,” Hack said.

The DOJ subpoena comes at the end of a wider federal push since Trump returned to office. On his first day. Trump signed an executive order admonishing what it describes as harmful “gender ideology extremism” and federally recognizing only two “immutable” sexes—male and female—established “at conception.” Days later. Trump authorized another executive order barring the government from funding. sponsoring. promoting or assisting in minors’ transitions and stripping funding from institutions providing gender-affirming care.

Since then, critics say the assault on healthcare for trans minors has intensified alongside state legislative action. Hundreds of anti-trans bills have been considered in state legislatures across the country year-to-year. The Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Skrmetti. handed down a landmark decision last summer involving a Tennessee law restricting gender-affirming care for minors. and that ruling denied transgender Americans sex-based protection from discrimination under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

In December 2025, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. issued a declaration claiming that gender-affirming care for children failed to meet professional standards.

During former Attorney General Pam Bondi’s tenure. the DOJ issued administrative subpoenas to some two dozen medical institutions that provided gender-affirming care. Last Friday. the department announced it reached its first settlement in the nationwide civil investigation. securing agreements with Texas Children’s Hospital. Those agreements include the hospital’s commitment to cease gender-affirming treatments and establish a “detransition clinic.”.

And now. with the grand jury subpoena tied to providers and “every transgender minor” treated since 2020. the line—critics say—has shifted again. It is no longer just about courtrooms and compliance filings. It is about medical records, criminal exposure, and the fear that institutions will choose self-protection over care.

Even the subpoena’s wording reflects that tension. It demands individualized medical documentation tied to “clinical indications. diagnoses and assessments. ” and it rejects the idea that “de-identified information” could reasonably substitute. For parents and patients, that is the moment where privacy risks are no longer theoretical.

Hack described the threat in stark terms: the government could be using the pressure of criminal investigation to push institutions to stop and to keep them stopped. “It’s clear what their goal is. and we both need to run out the clock here and stop them by enacting protections at the next possible opportunity. so that no administration and no Congress can do this ever again. ” he said.

DOJ grand jury subpoena NYU Langone gender-affirming care transgender minors Northern District of Texas New York shield law privacy Pam Bondi U.S. v. Skrmetti Robert F. Kennedy Jr.