Connecticut lawmakers are demanding answers from Connecticut Children’s Medical Center over its agreement with the Trump administration to stop providing gender-affirming medical care to minors, raising questions about whether the hospital’s decision conflicts with its obligations under state law.
State Sen. Matt Lesser and state Rep. Jillian Gilchrest, the Democratic co-chairs of Connecticut’s Human Services Committee, requested a copy of the hospital’s agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, along with related correspondence and records. The lawmakers have warned that they could use the committee’s subpoena power if the requested information is not provided.
The dispute follows an August announcement from the Justice Department that Connecticut Children’s had reached a settlement stemming from a federal investigation into gender-affirming care for minors.
Under the agreement, the hospital committed to no longer providing puberty blockers or hormone therapy for gender transition to minors or performing gender-affirming surgeries on patients under 18. Connecticut Children’s also agreed to pay a monetary penalty and dedicate an additional $500,000 in medical care for people the Justice Department describes as experiencing harmful consequences from gender-affirming treatment.
The Justice Department acknowledged that the claims resolved through the agreement were allegations and that there had been no determination of liability. Connecticut Children’s denied the allegations.
Lawmakers Question Hospital’s Obligations
Lesser and Gilchrest argue that the agreement deserves additional scrutiny because Connecticut Children’s participates in Medicaid and has obligations not to discriminate against patients based on characteristics, including gender identity.
“We’ve said that we are a safe state to be able to receive these services,” Gilchrest told the Connecticut Mirror, adding that lawmakers therefore need to understand exactly what the hospital agreed to and why.
The lawmakers requested documents by Sept. 4 and warned that failure to provide a timely response could result in the committee exercising its statutory subpoena authority.
Connecticut Children’s pushed back against suggestions that it acted improperly, saying lawmakers publicly reached conclusions before speaking with hospital leadership.
The hospital said protecting patient privacy was a central concern throughout the federal investigation and stressed that it did not provide protected patient health information to the federal government. Hospital officials said they have scheduled a meeting with Lesser and Gilchrest and are willing to answer appropriate questions about the organization’s decisions.
The controversy now puts two competing pressures squarely in view: a federal government pushing hospitals away from gender-affirming care and Connecticut lawmakers questioning whether complying with that pressure could run afoul of state protections.
For transgender young people and their families, the outcome could reach well beyond a single hospital. If Connecticut lawmakers pursue subpoenas or determine that the agreement conflicts with state Medicaid or anti-discrimination requirements, the fight could become an important test of how far federal pressure can reshape transgender health care in states that have explicitly sought to protect it.
