Title: Transformation in Policy and Its Ramifications for Medicine: The Abolition of Federal DEI and Gender-Inclusive Guidelines
Shortly following his inauguration on January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump implemented two far-reaching Executive Orders that dramatically altered the federal government’s position on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), along with gender-related terminology and policies. One order halted DEI programs across all federal entities. The second required the use of “sex” rather than “gender” in official documents and concurrently eliminated federal funding for gender-affirming healthcare. These actions triggered a series of alterations throughout public institutions, having significant consequences for the medical field.
The Federal Directives: What Changed?
The initial directives banned the use of specific language in federally funded programs and organizations. According to a memo from an acting Secretary of Health and Human Services, federal entities—including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—were ordered to eliminate references to terms such as “gender,” “transgender,” “pregnant person,” “LGBT,” “transsexual,” and “non-binary” from official communications, scientific research, and educational resources.
In practice, the CDC, which allocates around $11 billion annually for public health initiatives like maternal health, HIV prevention, cancer research, and addressing social determinants of health, started removing inclusive language from its platforms. While some altered pages were eventually restored, the action cast a long shadow over scientific freedom, establishing a precedent for politically motivated censorship in healthcare.
Impact on Medical Research and Public Health
At its essence, DEI in medicine is not merely concerned with representation—it aims at enhancing health outcomes. Inclusive and precise language in healthcare allows for better diagnoses, builds trust, and ensures effective treatment. The withdrawal or limitation of this language poses dangers, particularly for marginalized groups that are already contending with systemic health inequities.
Research consistently demonstrates that inclusive health terminology and accessibility to gender-affirming care can enhance mental health outcomes, reducing rates of suicide, depression, and anxiety. Public health studies depend on demographic specifics, including gender identity, to monitor disease prevalence, outcomes, and health access trends. A departure from these standards undermines public health research and jeopardizes care delivery.
Medical Education in the Crosshairs
Medical schools function as breeding grounds for future patient care. The absence of DEI principles and inclusive terminology from educational programs may impact how upcoming physicians receive their training. Medical students are trained to care for individuals—not just symptoms—and inclusive language is fundamental to that approach.
The chilling repercussions of these executive choices are already evident. Students and healthcare providers have expressed concerns about discussing sensitive subjects like gender identity, fearing political or professional backlash. This apprehension mirrors the distress observed after abortion restrictions in various states, where providers have been discouraged from performing even necessary medical procedures.
The ramifications may stretch well beyond classroom unease. By reversing decades of advancements in medical education, we risk developing a workforce ill-equipped to assist diverse patient populations—a regression that threatens to undo improvements in patient-centered, evidence-based care.
Implications for Marginalized Communities
The primary burden of these policy alterations will fall on communities already marginalized in their access to equitable care: transgender and non-binary individuals, racial minorities, rural dwellers, and those facing socioeconomic challenges. Institutions in conservative areas may feel emboldened to further restrict care, exacerbating existing health inequalities.
Medicine, at its finest, is a science grounded in adaptability and empathy. Removing language that validates patient identities can validate discrimination masquerading as scientific neutrality. However, scientific neutrality is not equivalent to silence. It necessitates an active quest for accurate, inclusive, and representative data to guide treatment strategies and public health initiatives.
The Flawed Argument Against DEI in Medicine
Supporters of these policy changes contend that DEI creates division rather than unity, and that inclusive language lacks scientific validity. These assertions overlook both historical examples and contemporary medical best practices. The classification of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder in the DSM until 1973 starkly illustrates how entrenched biases can infiltrate medicine when ideology overshadows science.
Critics also claim that patients are indifferent to inclusive terminology. Yet clinical insights suggest otherwise. In fields such as psychiatry, pediatrics, and OB/GYN, a patient’s identity significantly impacts their health outcomes. Accurate terminology is not merely performative—it is diagnostic, therapeutic, and respectful.
The Role of Medical Students: Catalysts for Change
Medical students exist at a significant intersection: they are trainees influenced by educational policies, engage with patients under supervision, and are often involved in advocacy efforts. Organizations such as the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) empower them to voice concerns, reform educational content, and challenge outdated norms—often with reduced institutional risk compared to established physicians.
Medical students also enjoy exceptional access to contemporary research and are well-positioned to identify contradictions between classroom teachings and clinical practices.