Search This Blog

Thursday, December 4, 2025

Republican healthcare plan to include pharmacy benefit manager reform

 At a hearing on health care affordability Wednesday, senators left the door open for a bipartisan agreement that would extend expiring Affordable Care Act enhanced subsidies before year’s end, a day after many of their colleagues had essentially slammed it shut. 

The tone at the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee was set by Chairman Bill Cassidy, R-La., who acknowledged that a large overhaul this late would be impossible, even as he wants to end enhanced credits in favor of funding health savings accounts that individuals could use to cover medical expenses like copays.

“Now, we can push for big ideas, grandiose ideas on the right or the left, but we gotta have a solution for three weeks from now,” Cassidy said. “I’m hoping that we can find a bill that can get 60 votes that can fix the problem with these changes for Jan. 1, 2026.”

At issue are the enhanced Affordable Care Act credits that subsidize costs for about one-third of marketplace enrollees. Those credits expire on Dec. 31.

Cassidy said the Senate has three choices: accept no deal is possible and let the credits lapse with no other changes; conduct separate votes on partisan bills that both get rejected; or work together to pass something bipartisan in which both sides make concessions.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has indicated he will tee up a vote on a health bill of Democrats’ choosing next week, following up on a deal made with moderates in exchange to reopen the government last month.

HELP ranking member Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., agreed with Cassidy — in part.

“Yes, we need to create a new system, but unfortunately, we aren’t going to do it in two weeks,” said Sanders, who called for extending the subsidies for at least one to three years.

“Your program is not going to guarantee health insurance for all people. We will not accept that, will not accept the doubling of premiums,” Sanders said of Cassidy’s HSA proposal.

Extension ideas

At least some members on both sides seemed willing to find common ground on an ACA credit extension before the coming deadline — in contrast to a more partisan Finance Committee hearing on the same topic last month. The mood was also more optimistic than Tuesday, when several senators doubted any bill next week could pass.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said she wanted to accept Cassidy’s “challenge” to find a bipartisan deal.

“To your point, sir, the status quo is not sustainable. … If we fail to do something relatively soon here, the consequences are severe to people,” she said to Cassidy.

She called for a short-term extension with “reasonable caps,” as lawmakers move forward with longer-term committee work to reduce health costs. 

“There’s no great secret sauce here to how we’re going to deal with this particular dilemma that we’re in,” Murkowski said.

Republican Sens. Jon Husted of Ohio, Susan Collins of Maine and Josh Hawley of Missouri also spoke in favor of a short-term extension to buy time.

“Just because we continue those tax credits does not drive down the cost,” Husted said. “But it is a little help right now that we both can agree on, and then we gotta fix it.”

“There are at least five to 10 really solid pieces of legislation that I know have some bipartisan support that we could tackle to prove that we’re serious about driving down the overall cost, and that’s what I hope we’ll do,” Husted said.

Hawley similarly said the committee needed to take action on the subsidies but that “doing nothing is not a solution,” while Collins said she thinks “there’s a limit to what we can do in this first year. I think we’re going to need a two-year plan.” 

Collins asked one of the witnesses, Council for Affordable Health Coverage President Joel White, whether there should be a reasonable, phased-in income cap.

“There needs to be some kind of recognition that we can’t tax low-income people to pay for high-income people’s subsidies,” said White, who added there is no asset test to qualify for subsidies for people who may possess large investments. 

Some Democrats have warmed to the idea of tweaking the existing structure of the tax credits.

“In my own view, this means we do have to do a short-term extension, straight up,” said Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H. “There are a couple of reforms on the enhanced subsidies that I think there’s some bipartisan agreement we might be able to get to. But we need to do that right now and then think about what’s next in terms of overall cost reduction.”

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said she was less optimistic.

“If their call for reforming tax credits is serious, we should look at that. We can talk about those reforms ahead of the 2027 year,” Murray said.

One lawmaker previewed another coming extension bill. 

Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester, D-Del., said she plans to introduce legislation Thursday that would extend the credits for three years while reducing barriers to enrollment and increasing transparency from insurers. 

Bipartisan efforts

The hearing did spur some broader debate over what bipartisan health legislation can move forward outside of ACA changes.

Sens. Hassan, Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Roger Marshall, R-Kan., emphasized the need to revive efforts to crack down on pharmacy benefit managers to lower prescription drug costs.

Marshall also received a commitment from Cassidy for a future markup on his price transparency bill with John Hickenlooper, D-Colo.

Hawley spoke about a bill he was introducing Wednesday that would make nearly all health care expenses tax-free. He asked the three witnesses if they would be open to such a proposal. White and Marcie Strouse, the owner and a partner at the Capitol Benefits Group, supported the idea.

The witness invited by Democrats, Claudia M. Fegan, national coordinator for Physicians for a National Health Program, said she would have to look more closely at the details but that “it could work.”

Cassidy, immediately after the hearing, dismissed the idea of the Senate holding a vote only on a Democratic bill next week.

“[T]here will be a Republican plan if I have anything to do with it,” he said.

He also acknowledged that he would be “open” to a plan to give eligible individuals the option to take a subsidy as either a reduction to their premiums or in the form of an HSA to cover other out-of-pocket costs.

https://rollcall.com/2025/12/03/senate-panel-sees-opening-however-slight-for-health-care-deal/

Halozyme granted injunction in Germany barring Merck's subcutaneous Keytruda



Halozyme (NASDAQ: HALO) said a German court granted a preliminary injunction on Dec 4, 2025 ordering Merck to stop distributing and offering Keytruda SC in Germany for activity that would infringe European Patent No. 2 797 622 (EP 622) covering Halozyme's MDASE technology.

The order halts Merck's German launch activities within the injunction's scope; the decision is appealable and separate nullity proceedings filed by Merck in Aug 2025 are pending. Halozyme said Keytruda IV remains available and reiterated ongoing U.S. litigation alleging U.S. subcutaneous Keytruda (marketed as QLEX) infringes multiple MDASE patents.

Trump: US signing mineral accords with DRC, Rwanda

 United States President Donald Trump hosted the leaders of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda at the White House on Thursday to formalize a new phase of the Washington Accords, aimed at ending the long-running conflict in eastern Congo.

"Today, the United States is also signing our own bilateral agreements with Congo and Rwanda that will unlock new opportunities for the United States to access critical minerals and provide economic benefits for everybody," Trump stated.

The meeting builds on earlier US-led initiatives, including a pledge overseen in April by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said that "a durable peace will open the door for greater US and broader Western investment," adding that it will "advance President Trump's prosperity agenda for the world."

https://breakingthenews.net/Article/Trump:-US-signing-mineral-accords-with-DRC-Rwanda/65299929

Dem Senator Warner Joins Seditious Chorus: "Military May Help Save Us" From Trump

 by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Virginia Sen. Mark Warner has jumped aboard the Democrat bandwagon of undermining President Trump, declaring on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that “the uniformed military may help save us from this president.”

The remark, captured in a clip shared widely on X, comes as leftists ramp up efforts to sow chaos in the ranks, painting Trump as a threat to the Constitution while ignoring their own history of politicizing the military.

Watch:

Warner made the inflammatory statement while discussing concerns over Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and an upcoming briefing by Admiral Bradley.

“I’m going to want to get answers on what did Pete Hegseth order? Why haven’t we seen the whole unedited video if there’s nothing inappropriate here? You could have cleared this up without the admiral coming in. He’s got a great reputation, I respect him. I want to get the truth. And I’m not sure we’ve had the truth from Hegseth yet,” Warner said.

He then escalated, accusing the Trump administration of “unprecedented disrespect” toward the military. “Remember, this is an administration that has treated the uniformed military with unprecedented disrespect when they were all brought to get a pep rally in front of Hegseth and Trump. This is an administration that’s fired, you know, uniform generals from the head of the NSA, the head of the Defense Intelligence agency,” Warner claimed.

Wrapping up his rant, Warner added, “I think in many ways, the uniformed military may help save us from this president and his lame people like Hegseth, because I think their commitment is to the Constitution and obviously not to Trump. I expect Bradley to adhere to that.”

Fresh reporting from The New York Times has dismantled the overblown narrative pushed by The Washington Post about illegal strikes on a suspected drug boat. 

According to five U.S. officials familiar with the matter, Hegseth did authorize a Sept. 2 strike intended “to kill the people on the boat, destroy the vessel, and eliminate its drug cargo.” However, his directive “did not specifically address what to do if a first missile failed to fully accomplish these goals, and it was not based on surveillance showing at least two survivors after the initial blast.” 

This directly undercuts WaPo’s sensational claim that Hegseth issued a blanket “kill everybody” order, with officials clarifying the action was to neutralize the threat, not hunt down survivors post-attack. 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt reinforced that Hegseth simply “authorized Adm. Frank M. Bradley to conduct kinetic strikes, ensuring the boat was destroyed and the threat eliminated,” exposing the left’s smear campaign as another desperate hit job.

The clip of Senator Warner quickly drew backlash for promoting what critics call open sedition.

Warner’s comments align with a broader Democrat push to erode trust in Trump’s leadership of the armed forces. Just last week, we covered Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly doubling down on similar rhetoric during appearances on Jimmy Kimmel and Rachel Maddow’s shows. 

Kelly, part of the so-called “Seditious Six” – a group of Democrat lawmakers who released a video urging troops to ignore “illegal orders” from Trump – insisted he’s “not backing down” despite a Department of Defense probe into his actions.

In that video, the six Democrats, including Kelly, warned servicemembers to prioritize the law over commands from the president, fueling accusations of inciting mutiny.

Kelly told Kimmel, “You can’t keep track of this guy and what he says. I’ll tell you this though, I’m not backing down. We said something very simple. Members of the military need to follow the law. We wanted to say that we have their backs. His response, kill them.”

 

He continued, “My oath and every member of the military took is loyalty to the Constitution, not to a person. He is trying to get some fear out there, and fear can be contagious, but what also can be contagious is courage and patriotism.”

Kelly and his seditious friends have all failed to name a single “illegal order” from Trump, reducing the stunt to empty fearmongering. On Maddow’s show, he even conceded Trump has “only given ‘lawful’ orders.”

Former CIA agents have flagged the Democrats’ video as a “handler”-driven op straight from the CIA playbook. Air Force vet Buzz Patterson labeled it “treasonous and seditious,” calling for prosecutions. 

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt accused Kelly of “intimidating” 1.3 million troops, warning, “You can’t have a functioning military if there is disorder and chaos within the ranks… They can’t identify ‘illegal’ orders because there ARE NO illegal orders!”

Conservatives linked the rhetoric to the tragic D.C. ambush where an Afghan migrant killed U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom and wounded U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe. Patterson raged, “What they did was treasonous and seditious… They are circumventing the chain of command.” Leavitt added, “These officials are trying to sow chaos and distrust, which is a very dangerous thing to do within the military’s rank.”

The Pentagon’s review into Kelly signals potential accountability, but with Warner now amplifying the message, the push to politicize the military shows no signs of stopping. This isn’t about protecting the Constitution – it’s a desperate bid to sabotage Trump before he drains the swamp.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/dem-senator-warner-joins-seditious-chorus-military-may-help-save-us-trump

Police 'Will Not Cooperate With ICE Agents': Minneapolis Mayor

 by Janice Hisle via The Epoch Times,

As Minnesota anticipates more U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) action in Minnesota—a state where many Somali immigrants are accused of defrauding welfare programs—Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said the city’s law enforcement will not work with federal agents.

“Our police officers are not ICE agents; they will not cooperate with ICE agents,” Frey said at a Dec. 2 news conference.

ICE has been conducting large-scale immigration enforcement operations in a number of cities, sometimes drawing opposition from protesters and from Democratic leaders.

 

At the news conference, Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O‘Hara and St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter III emphasized support for law-abiding Somalis and other immigrants who hold jobs and run businesses. People who are fearful of ICE action should inform themselves about their rights, the officials said. O’Hara also said that his officers “absolutely have a duty to intervene” if people’s rights are being violated.

 

O‘Hara said his officers “do work with federal law enforcement literally every day around violent crime, around people smuggling fentanyl into the country, gang violence, those types of things.” However, O’Hara said, “Federal law enforcement is aware that we absolutely will have nothing to do with anything related to immigration enforcement.”

That has been true for years in the Twin Cities, which are among more than a half-dozen so-called sanctuary cities that the Justice Department has sued over policies that shield illegal immigrants.

The pending lawsuit, coupled with the new public remarks from the Twin Cities’ leaders, reflects increasing tensions between Minnesota and the federal government.

After recent publicity over massive Minnesota welfare-fraud schemes that mostly involve suspects of Somali origin, President Donald Trump announced plans to end “temporary protected status” for Somalis in the North Star State. Minnesota Democrats, including Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Gov. Tim Walz, and Attorney General Keith Ellison, have criticized the president’s actions.

At Trump’s direction, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said she investigated immigration programs in Minnesota; she reported finding that “50 percent of visa applications” and other immigration-related programs were fraudulent.

Noem, speaking during the president’s Dec. 2 Cabinet meeting, did not specify which immigrant groups were allegedly submitting false immigration applications.

During “Operation Twin Shield” earlier this year, ICE, the FBI, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) found 275 cases of suspected immigration fraud in and around Minneapolis and St. Paul, USCIS officials said, calling it a first-of-its-kind operation to detect and deter immigration fraud.

Mayors Defending Somalis Amid Fraud Cases

The two mayors, Frey and Carter, said that the entire Somali community is being unfairly targeted and wrongfully vilified over the actions of a few.

Since 2022, charges have been brought against 78 people, and dozens have been convicted or await trial in the Minnesota-based Feeding Our Future scandal, which involved a nonprofit and its affiliates falsely claiming they provided meals to needy children.

A pair of other welfare-fraud scandals emerging from the region are still developing. Altogether, the fraudulent claims amount to billions of dollars, authorities have said. The fraud was allegedly committed mostly by Somalis who sent much of the stolen money back to their homeland. The Treasury Department is investigating claims that Somalia-based terrorist group al-Shabaab took a percentage of those financial transfers.

Frey and Carter emphasized that most of the estimated 80,000 Somalis living in Minnesota are U.S. citizens. Seventy-eight percent of them live in the Twin Cities, according to Minnesota Compass, making Minneapolis home to America’s largest Somali community. Frey said he is proud of that fact.

On Dec. 3, the day after the Minnesota news conference, a reporter asked Trump to react to Frey’s expression of pride in the Somali community. The president criticized Frey’s comments, adding that Somalis “have taken billions of dollars out of our country” and hail from a crime-ridden nation.

Trump has also stated that Somalis who complain about America are unwanted.

The Epoch Times sought a comment from Frey, who did not immediately respond.

Frey criticized Trump’s stance at the news conference.

“He’s wrong, and we want them here,” Frey said. “Somali people have been an extraordinary benefit ... They have started businesses and created jobs. They have added to the cultural fabric of what Minneapolis is. They were welcoming to me when I first came out to Minneapolis.”

‘Zero Tolerance’ for Impeding ICE

Both mayors expressed concern that ICE will make mistakes and snare lawful Somali American citizens once the illegal-immigrant dragnet hits the Twin Cities.

In response to the comments from the Twin Cities’ officials, border czar Tom Homan said, “We’re going to enforce the law, without apology.”

Homan, in a Dec. 2 interview with Fox News, said Noem’s findings and the welfare-fraud crimes are making the Twin Cities a higher priority for ICE.

He didn’t say when increased enforcement operations might begin, or how many agents might be sent there. Homan said he has told police in other sanctuary cities that it is their duty to make their communities safer—and that communities do become safer after ICE removes criminal illegal immigrants and legal immigrants who commit deportable offenses. Homan said it was “shameful” for local law enforcement not to partner with ICE to achieve that common goal.

He urged non-cooperative police to “stand aside” and allow ICE to operate. Otherwise, the Justice Department will show “zero tolerance” and will prosecute anyone who impedes ICE.

O'Hara, the police chief, said his officers stay out of immigration issues.

“We don’t provide information to federal immigration authorities; we don’t ask people about their immigration status,” he said at the news conference.

Those actions align with a city ordinance that forbids city employees from asking people about their citizenship or immigration status. The local law also prohibits city workers from using “any knowledge of [a resident’s] status to enforce immigration laws,” the Minneapolis government website states.

Within days, Minneapolis officers will be receiving updated guidance for handling immigration-related matters, the police chief said, incorporating “feedback from community and community-based organizations.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/police-will-not-cooperate-ice-agents-minneapolis-mayor

Jensen To Rogan: "Next 6-7 Years You Will See A Bunch Of Small Nuclear Reactors"

 Jensen "sign my tit" Huang, the CEO of NVIDIA and the man responsible for the AI boom, was recently on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast discussing a wide range of topics, when he gave the nuclear sector the ultimate tailwind: the AI revolution needs small modular reactors (SMRs), something we have been saying for over a year. 

When the conversation turned to energy, and particularly new nuclear power, Huang spoke about the immense and growing power demands of AI data centers, which he dubbed as "gigawatt factories", and echoed what we just said, namely that that these power needs cannot be integrated into the existing public grid without risking instability and soaring power prices...

... and should instead remain "behind the meter", with data centers using dedicated or off-grid power generators - such as SMRs necessary for the continued growth of AI.

As a result, Jensen sees "a whole bunch of small nuclear reactors in the next six or seven years"

Rogan: By small, like how big are you talking about?

Huang: Hundreds of megawatts.

Rogan: Okay. And that these will be local to whatever specific company they have.

Huang: That's right. Will all be power generators.

Reactors such as those currently being built by Nano Nuclear and Oklo. No wonder their stocks are soaring today.

Here is the exchange:

Of course, we have been pounding the table on modular nuclear reactors as the only real solution to the data center power drain for nearly two years, focusing on the more realistic options in recent weeks, and highlighted this very scenario just a few days ago, when the Department of Energy said it was assisting the Tennessee Valley Authority and Holtec International with the development and deployment of 300 MW small reactors in the 2030s, all small but critical initial steps in the rollout of small modular reactors. 

There was also a significant development from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission when they announced the completion of their final safety evaluation for the construction permit application for Bill Gates’ sodium reactor project in Wyoming. This was the last stage of reactor developer TerraPower’s construction permit review for their 345 MW reactor, and they now expect to have the construction license in hand early next year. Commercial operations are targeted for 2031.

Anyway, back to the podcast where, to the surprise of none of our readers, it took only 5 minutes of them talking to come to the topic of how dependent new AI is on the development of new energy.

Jensen went on a short run about how critical it was to the AI industry that Trump started his latest term by beating the table on new energy development:

“[Trump] came into office and the first thing that he said was ‘drill baby drill’. His point is we need energy growth. Without energy growth, we can have no industrial growth. It saved the AI industry. I got to tell you, flat out, if not for his progrowth energy policy we would not be able to build factories for AI, not be able to build chip factories, we surely won't be able to build supercomputer factories, none of that stuff would be possible without all of that. Construction jobs would be challenged, right? Electrician jobs, all of these jobs that are now flourishing would be challenged. And so I think he's got it right, we need energy growth. We want to re-industrialize the United States. We need to be back in manufacturing.”

As we recently covered in our summary of how well Europe's grand green energy transition is going, we highlighted how the availability of cheap energy is enabling the growth of the AI industry in the US. Had the US followed in the footsteps of our peers across the water, we could have been facing energy prices as much as three times higher for industrial customers.

With the U.S. taking the more productive “and” approach to renewable energy, the country has added GW of power across a range of energy varieties, including both green sources like wind and solar, and traditional sources like coal, gas, and nuclear. Then again, as we discussed yesterday, the US will need to add over 100+ GW by 2032 to maintain the AI cycle, a staggering amount of power generation.

Jensen elaborated a little bit further on the energy-AI relationship, noting that energy is “the” bottleneck with developing new AI factories:

Rogan: So currently that is a big bottleneck, right? [It] is energy.

Huang: Yeah, it is the bottleneck. The bottleneck

Because you can print money, you can't print energy.

https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/jensen-rogan-next-6-7-years-you-will-see-bunch-small-nuclear-reactors

HHS’s Peer-Reviewed Gender Dysphoria Report Answers Critics

 Last month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a peer-reviewed version of its previously published report on evidence and best practices for the treatment of pediatric gender dysphoria. Notably, the reviewers praised the report’s methodology and declined to challenge the finding of its umbrella review (a systematic review of reviews) that only “low certainty” evidence exists for benefits of hormonal and surgical treatments.

The peer review supplement—which features reviews by international experts in evidence-based medicine and identifies the report’s coauthors, including Manhattan Institute senior fellow Leor Sapir—addresses two of critics’ major pretenses for refusing to grapple with the report’s findings: the anonymity of the authors, and the previous lack of peer-review.

The report’s authors are politically diverse and were granted full independence from the Trump administration. But critics have pointed out that some of them had publicly criticized “gender affirming care,” suggesting that the report’s conclusions were predetermined and its findings suspect.

Having an informed perspective is not the same thing as having a conflict of interest. And practitioners of “gender-affirming care”—whose livelihoods depend on the continued existence of this practice—are rarely held to a similar standard when testifying as expert witnesses or when issuing position statements supporting such interventions.

Despite its authors’ perspective, the report stands on its scientific merits. Peer reviewer Jilles Smids—an expert in medical ethics, philosophy, and history of medicine from the Netherlands—wrote that the report is forthcoming about its perspective, which is informed by “established principles of evidence based medicine, responsible clinical practice, and medical ethics,” and grapples with “all extant considerations presented in favor of the gender affirmative care model.”

As Smids pointed out, critics of the report are free to identify methodological or logical limitations. As Lisa Selin Davis noted in Unherd, the report authors sought out peer reviews from the Endocrine Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)—two organizations that support pediatric medical transition—but neither organization took them up on the offer. This didn’t stop the AAP, though, from issuing a joint statement with the American Medical Association (AMA) criticizing the report after the supplement was released.

“We reject characterizations of our approach to gender-affirming care as negligent or ideologically driven . . . . These claims, rooted in politics and partisanship, misrepresent the consensus of medical science, undermine the professionalism of physicians, and risk harming vulnerable young people and their families,” said David Aizuss, chair of the AMA Board of Trustees, and Susan J. Kressly, president of the AAP, in a joint statement.

This statement is Freudian projection. Organizations like the AAP and AMA have continued to promote pediatric medical transition despite its failure to meet the standards of evidence-based medicine and its unfavorable risk-benefit profile.

Consensus medicine is not evidence-based medicine, and the HHS authors note that pediatric medical transition was originally implemented within an “innovative practice” framework—which allows for “small scale” use—but was scaled up internationally without clinical trials. If medical societies had followed established norms and practices for developing clinical practice guidelines, Smids wrote, “there would have been no need for the current HHS report on [gender dysphoria].”

Peer reviewer Johan C. Bester, a professor of medical ethics at the Saint Louis University School of Medicine, cut to the heart of the debate. Clinicians’ ability to offer a particular treatment, he wrote, “simply hinges on this: is there evidence for benefit? Does the expected benefit outweigh the potential harms?” If it does not, the intervention “cannot be offered as treatment to patients.”

Bester’s point is often overlooked in the debate over pediatric medical transition. While we often dispute the relative weight to assign various medical-ethical principles when considering treatment options, such analyses presuppose that the treatment options under consideration have a favorable risk-benefit profile. But “There is no obligation on medical professionals to offer non-beneficial treatments, and there is no patient right to demand non-beneficial treatments,” Bester wrote.

Activists like Kellan Baker—senior advisor for health policy at the Movement Advancement Project, a think tank that focuses on LGBTQ issues—claim that the “standard of care” in youth gender medicine “is based on the same comparable quality of evidence as care across any other area of medicine.” This statement is patently false. If anything, a common refrain among the HHS peer reviewers is that the field is not held to the same standards as other fields of medicine. If another pediatric subspeciality rendered treatments with low-certainty evidence for benefits and credible indication of significant harm, it would be considered incompatible with scientific and ethical medical norms.

The HHS report is a singular achievement. It deserves praise for both its umbrella review of the evidence and its interdisciplinary weaving of clinical, institutional, philosophical, and ethical strands. And, like the U.K.’s Cass Review, it provides an opportunity to place gender-dysphoria treatment in the U.S. on strong scientific footing—the minimum standard that the afflicted deserve.