Major News Outlets Can't Bring Themselves to Call Conversion Therapy What It Is

Headlines about Trump's HHS anti-trans report show how the media keeps failing the most vulnerable

Last week, the Trump administration's Department of Health and Human Services, now led by conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., released a 409-page document about transgender health care. The document, which HHS is calling a "report," mischaracterizes the state of transgender health care, pushes debunked theories, cites retracted studies, and recommends what amounts to conversion therapy for transgender youth under the sanitized name of "exploratory therapy."

---

---

This shouldn't be surprising. The "report" was commissioned under Trump's January executive order, which literally called gender-affirming care "mutilation" — its conclusion was predetermined from the start. Even more telling: the document has no named authors. None. Zero. For a supposedly scientific review, this is a massive red flag. The HHS even emphasized this anonymity in its press release, which is highly unusual for a government agency.

Yet if you were to read the headlines from major news outlets, you'd think this was a legitimate scientific document worthy of serious consideration:

NPR: Health care for transgender children questioned in 400-page Trump administration report

The Associated Press: Trump's health agency urges therapy for transgender youth, not broader gender-affirming health care

TIME: New HHS Report Urges 'Exploratory Therapy' for Transgender Youth

Axios: HHS report questions evidence for youth gender care

The Hill: Trump's HHS casts doubt on evidence supporting gender-affirming care for youth

These headlines all lend legitimacy to what is, at its core, a political weapon dressed up as science. This is a classic case of news outlets adopting the framing of those in power rather than accurately describing what's happening.

This document is propaganda. It's a political attack on transgender people masquerading as science, commissioned by an administration that has repeatedly pledged to eliminate gender-affirming care entirely. Its findings directly contradict the positions of every major medical organization in the United States, from the American Medical Association to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The most insidious aspect of these headlines is how they sanitize what's actually being recommended. The report pushes what it calls "exploratory therapy" as an alternative to gender-affirming care. But as medical experts have pointed out, this is just conversion therapy rebranded. Look at these statements from actual experts:

In an interview with The Advocate, Dr. Kellan Baker, Executive Director of the Whitman-Walker Institute, called it precisely what it is: "The idea is the same— it is a practice with a predetermined goal: to try to change who someone is. That is the definition of conversion therapy."

Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, explained to The Washington Blade that the report "promotes the same kind of conversion therapy long used to shame LGBTQ+ people."

And Casey Pick of The Trevor Project was equally direct: "Despite the report's claims, this is, in fact, the same harmful practice of conversion therapy, just using friendlier language."

The American Academy of Pediatrics immediately condemned the report as "inaccurate" and "misleading." But most major news outlets didn't consider that worth putting in their headlines.

Instead, they opted for neutral-sounding language like "questioned," "urges therapy," and "casts doubt." This is the media's harmful "both sides" framing at work. It presents a fundamentally unscientific document as one legitimate side in a scientific debate.

This isn't the first time we've seen mainstream media fail in this way. When state legislatures began passing laws targeting transgender care, too many outlets framed bans on established medical treatments as simply "protecting children," adopting the language of those pushing the bans rather than accurately describing the policies.

Contrast these headlines with those from LGBTQ-focused outlets, which actually told readers what was happening:

The Advocate: Trump HHS posts 'so-called report' pushing conversion therapy for trans kids

Them: HHS Report on Trans Youth Relies on Junk Science and Endorses Conversion Therapy

Erin Reed's newsletter: Fact Check: Trump's HHS Review On Trans Care Filled With Pseudoscience, Pushes Conversion Therapy

These headlines aren't "biased" — they're accurate. They tell readers what the document actually is and what it's recommending.

Worth noting: media literacy experts often suggest that when reading news articles, you should start by asking "who benefits from this framing?" The neutral-sounding headlines from mainstream media benefit the Trump administration by laundering its political attacks into seemingly legitimate scientific debate. They damage transgender people and their families by suggesting there's genuine scientific controversy over care that has been endorsed by every major medical organization.

HHS officials know exactly what they're doing with this document. They understand that if they can get mainstream media to frame their political attacks as scientific debate, they've already won half the battle. When outlets like NPR and the AP fail to see through this strategy — or worse, actively participate in it — they're not practicing objective journalism. They're being played.

This kind of language laundering is dangerous. It gives cover to policies that harm vulnerable people. When journalists fail to call things what they are, they fail their readers and they fail democracy.

What's happening here is straightforward: The Trump administration has produced a political document masquerading as science to justify its attacks on transgender people. News outlets have a responsibility to make that clear to their readers, not to obscure it behind euphemisms and false neutrality.