On Tuesday, a crowd of several hundred people assembled outside NYU Langone Health in Manhattan to denounce a newly announced agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice. Under the settlement, the hospital will remit $8.5 million to the federal government and formally cease providing gender-affirming care—including puberty blockers and hormone therapy—to patients younger than 19. The move cements a policy the institution adopted in February after intense pressure from the current administration.
The demonstration featured a mixture of trans youth, family members, LGBTQ+ activists and elected officials. Banners proclaimed slogans such as “Our genders, our choices, our futures,” while one participant drew a trans-pride flag with sidewalk chalk. Actor Elliot Page, who grew up in New York, stood among the protesters, lending a high-profile voice to the call for restored services. Local politicians—including New York State Representative Claire Valdez, City Council members Harvey Epstein and Carl Wilson—joined the march, underscoring the political dimension of the dispute.
Details of the DOJ settlement and its broader impact
The settlement announced on September 18, 2026, marks the latest in a series of agreements between the Justice Department and major medical centers. In addition to NYU Langone, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Centers (UPMC) consented to pay $950,000; earlier arrangements involved Cleveland Clinic, Connecticut Children’s Hospital, Mount Sinai Health System and Texas Children’s Hospital. Collectively, at least six hospitals have agreed to discontinue providing puberty blockers, hormones or gender-affirming surgery to anyone under 19, while also covering costs for families who seek to “detransition.”
These deals effectively close federal investigations into past practices and shield the institutions from being compelled to surrender patient records. The Justice Department frames the agreements as a protective measure for children, a stance echoed by Attorney General Todd Blanche, who stated that the government is “working tirelessly to reach agreements with hospitals to end so-called ‘gender-affirming care’ for minors.” Critics, however, argue that the settlements represent a dangerous precedent in which political objectives override medical ethics.
Response from advocacy groups and the legal community
Legal organizations—including Lambda Legal, the New York Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union and counsel for the class in Coe v. Blanche—issued a joint statement denouncing the settlement. They emphasized that no patient data has been disclosed to the Justice Department because an injunction remains in effect, and called the agreement “shameful” and a “capitulation” that prioritizes political retribution over the wellbeing of transgender youth.
Activists from the Gender Liberation Movement and ACT UP New York organized the protest, highlighting the rapid erosion of a once-robust network of services for trans youth in both city and federal contexts. Eliel Cruz, a co-founder of the Gender Liberation Movement, warned that the settlements set a “really dangerous precedent” by allowing the federal government to politicize care for a specific group. During the rally, some participants self-administered hormone injections to demonstrate the safety of the medication when used under medical supervision.
Family members shared personal stories of how NYU Langone’s services had positively impacted their children. Christen Clifford, mother of two trans teens who were former patients, spoke of the tangible benefits the hospital once provided and urged a restoration of those options. The protest also featured student activists from the NYU chapter of Students for a Democratic Society, illustrating the intergenerational breadth of the opposition.
What the settlement means for trans youth in New York and beyond
Although the agreements specifically target minors, the institutions involved assert that their broader pediatric mental-health programs will continue to support transgender children. Nonetheless, the loss of hormone and surgical options narrows the range of affirming treatments available within the city’s major health systems. With state bans already in place in at least 27 states and more than two dozen hospitals in unrestricted states discontinuing such care since 2025, many families are forced to travel out of state—or even abroad—to access needed services.
The legal landscape remains volatile. While several hospitals have successfully blocked subpoenas for patient records in district courts, a recent 2-1 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the government’s authority to pursue its agenda, granting the administration a modest victory. Democratic officials in several states have filed lawsuits challenging the federal push, arguing that it constitutes unlawful intimidation of medical providers.
In the midst of these developments, the NYU Langone protest serves as a vivid illustration of the clash between governmental policy, medical practice and the lived experiences of transgender youth. As the settlement takes effect, advocates say the fight to protect gender-affirming care will continue both in the courts and on the streets.
