Mount Sinai Gets Subpoena for Under-18 Gender Care Data as Trump Broadens Minors Probe
Updated
Updated · The New York Times · Jun 6
Mount Sinai Gets Subpoena for Under-18 Gender Care Data as Trump Broadens Minors Probe
3 articles · Updated · The New York Times · Jun 6
Summary
Mount Sinai said it received a grand jury subpoena seeking information on patients under 18 who received gender-related care, making it the second Manhattan hospital system to disclose such a federal inquiry.
The subpoena is part of the Trump administration's push to halt adolescent gender-transition treatments, which it says harm vulnerable children.
Mount Sinai said it aims to protect patient privacy and, if forced to comply, plans to provide only de-identified records with identifying details removed.
NYU Langone disclosed a similar subpoena last month seeking information sufficient to identify every patient under 18 treated since 2020; both subpoenas were issued through the Northern District of Texas.
New York law would require Mount Sinai to notify affected patients if any records are ultimately produced, underscoring the widening legal clash over minors' gender care.
With federal investigations expanding, what legal shields can protect patient medical records?
When federal subpoenas demand patient data, can removing names truly protect privacy?
2025–2026 Federal Subpoenas Targeting Transgender Youth Care: Scope, Impact, and Legal Showdown
Overview
In June 2026, the Trump administration escalated its efforts to restrict gender-affirming care for youth by issuing federal subpoenas to major hospitals, including NYU Langone and Mount Sinai, demanding sensitive medical records of patients under 18 who received such care between 2020 and 2026. These actions, following earlier executive orders, led hospitals to scale back services and sparked serious concerns among healthcare providers and advocacy groups about patient privacy and access to care. Mount Sinai responded by pledging to protect patient identities if forced to comply, while families and legal advocates began challenging these federal moves in court.