House Republicans have advanced legislation that would create a new federal legal pathway for individuals who received gender-affirming medical care as minors, allowing them and their parents to sue healthcare providers years after treatment. The proposal marks the latest escalation in Congress’s broader effort to restrict transgender healthcare and increase legal risks for providers who continue offering gender-affirming care.
The House Judiciary Committee approved the Chloe Cole Act of 2026 this week in a party-line vote, with all Republican members supporting the measure and all Democratic members opposing it. The bill now awaits consideration by House leadership, which will determine whether it moves to the full House for a vote.
A New Federal Cause of Action
Introduced by Rep. Bob Onder (R-Mo.) and backed by dozens of Republican co-sponsors, the legislation would establish a federal private right of action allowing individuals who underwent what the bill defines as “covered interventions” as minors to seek compensatory damages from physicians, hospitals, and clinics involved in their care.
One of the bill’s most significant provisions is that it would apply retroactively. That means lawsuits could be filed regardless of whether the medical treatment occurred before or after the law’s enactment if the patient was under 18 at the time.
Supporters argue the measure would provide legal recourse for people who later regret receiving gender-affirming care as adolescents. The bill is named after Chloe Cole, a detransitioner who has become one of the country’s most prominent advocates for restricting gender-affirming care for minors.
Critics Warn of Chilling Effect
While supporters frame the legislation as accountability for medical providers, LGBTQ+ advocates and many major medical organizations have consistently argued that bills like this are designed to discourage doctors and hospitals from providing evidence-based care altogether.
Although the legislation focuses on minors, healthcare experts note that the threat of costly litigation could make hospitals and physicians increasingly reluctant to offer any gender-affirming services, particularly in states where political pressure has already intensified.
Major U.S. medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Endocrine Society, continue to support access to gender-affirming healthcare for appropriately evaluated transgender youth under established clinical guidelines. They have repeatedly opposed legislative efforts that replace individualized medical decision-making with political mandates.
Part of a Larger Strategy
The Chloe Cole Act follows a series of federal actions by the Trump administration aimed at limiting access to gender-affirming care. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14187 directing federal agencies to oppose gender-affirming medical care for minors, and congressional Republicans have introduced multiple bills targeting transgender healthcare, school policies, and participation in sports.
If enacted, the legislation would add another legal hurdle for providers already navigating an increasingly complex patchwork of state restrictions and federal policy changes.
For transgender families and healthcare providers, the bill represents more than another policy debate. It signals an expanding effort to use civil liability, alongside criminal penalties and funding restrictions, as a tool to reshape access to gender-affirming care across the United States.
