The American Medical Association (AMA) is in hot water with several state attorneys general because, like all bad liars, it's told so many fibs that it can't remember what was true and what wasn't.
The issue is gender transition treatments for minors. In July 2025, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) became the first major U.S. medical association to come out against gender transition surgeries for minors. They acknowledge in their statement that there is “considerable uncertainty as to the long-term efficacy for the use of chest and genital surgical interventions."
"The surgeons’ statement cautioned that there is little quality research on the long-term consequences of performing transition surgeries on young people, such as double mastectomies and genital alteration," writes Benjamin Ryan in The Free Press. "The society cited 'emerging evidence of treatment complications and potential harms' of such interventions."
The New York Times then published a statement from the AMA that set off a literal firestorm and roiled the medical LGBTQ community. The AMA said that while it still supporterted gender affirming care for minors, it also endorsed the position of the ASPS.
The AMA statement said, "In the absence of clear evidence, the AMA agrees with ASPS that surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood."
After that statement in Feb. 2026, the AMA has gone dark on the subject. But behind the scenes, there has been considerable disagreement about exactly what the AMA said, and whether or not the statement represented a change in policy.
The context of the controversy was that, about the time the AMA released its statement, a jury in New York had returned a $2 million verdict on a woman who had a double mastectomy at age 16. The legal precedent established, the AMA probably figured they were protecting their members from a deluge of lawsuits from minors who regretted their "transition."
The ongoing controversy at the AMA over what exactly their position is demonstrates how divided the medical field has become over this issue. According to internal video and documentation obtained by The Free Press, the organization’s own top brass can’t even align on its official public stance.
During the days after the New York Times piece ran, members of the AMA’s LGBTQ+ group took to its message board to express concern that the AMA’s published statement departed from its previous policy. The AMA had never before mentioned age limits and previously called medical and surgical treatments for gender dysphoria “medically necessary.” They feared that the AMA backing off its support for medical transition would be weaponized against pediatric gender medicine. Members on the message board focused less on the medical debates surrounding pediatric transition and more on politics. They accused AMA leadership of seeking favor with the Trump administration.
Dr. Frank Dowling, a psychiatrist at Stony Brook School of Medicine, posted: “Our policy was ignored for perceived political gain with HHS and the DysTrumpian regime. Harming teens for political gain.”
Meanwhile, the controversy over what the AMA said or meant in their statement to the Times continued. The AMA accused the Times of misquoting its spokesperson. The AMA’s board chair, Dr. David Aizuss, said in a newsletter that the Times had published an incorrect statement whose “phrasing did not come from the AMA.” Aizuss wrote, “During our Board discussion, we were clear that we were not changing AMA policy."
The Times called its reporting on the AMA statement "Accurate and Factual." The newspaper posted the entire five-sentence statement from the AMA spokesman, Josh Zembick, and also wrote that it “received no requests to correct, clarify or update our articles from the A.M.A.”
The AMA's pants are smokin'.
To complicate matters further, a video The Free Press reviewed from a February 10 AMA town hall showed the organization’s CEO, Dr. John Whyte, insisting that the board had, in fact, signed off on the published statement about youth gender surgeries.
At the gathering, which was limited to AMA employees, Whyte said that the AMA had publicly sided with the ASPS on youth gender surgery because this “was a position that the board of trustees voted on.” He continued: “Consistent with what the board felt was existing policy is that it generally should be delayed until adulthood.” He deferred responsibility, saying, “I’m not a member of the board.” The AMA did not reply to multiple requests for comment.
This proves that the LGBTQ stormtroopers still hold sway over the AMA and most other medical societies, despite fierce pushback coming now from more cautious, science-based factions of these organizations.
Meanwhile, the scientific evidence against gender transition drugs and surgeries for minors continues to build.
"A study of Finnish youths who sought care from gender clinics has found evidence suggesting that a solid majority go on to receive care for serious psychiatric problems," Ryan writes in the New York Sun.
Fanatics who care more about politics than compassionate treatment are threatening the physician's credo of "First, do no harm."
