The Chloe Cole Act, a Republican-backed bill that would allow minors who underwent gender-related medical treatments to sue their healthcare providers, has advanced through the House Judiciary Committee markup and is awaiting floor consideration. The legislation was introduced by Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., a former physician who has become one of Congress's most vocal critics of pediatric gender medicine.

The bill would create a private right of action for minors who received puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgical interventions before age 18, as well as for their parents. Supporters say it provides accountability and protects vulnerable children from irreversible treatments they may later regret. The legislation builds on President Trump's January 2025 executive order titled "Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation," which directed federal agencies to pursue greater scrutiny of gender-affirming care for minors.

Chloe Cole, a 23-year-old woman from California who began identifying as male at age 12, has become the most prominent public figure advocating for such legislation. She received puberty blockers at 13, testosterone at 13, and underwent a double mastectomy at 15 before detransitioning at 16. She attended this year's State of the Union address as Mast's guest.

What the Left Is Saying

Democrats and medical organizations have largely opposed the Chloe Cole Act, arguing it would undermine evidence-based care and stigmatize transgender youth. The American Academy of Pediatrics has maintained that gender-affirming care, when appropriately delivered, represents standard medical practice supported by major professional organizations. "This legislation second-guesses clinical judgment and could delay or deny care to young people who need it," the AAP stated in a 2025 policy brief.

Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., called the bill "medically dangerous" and argued it would create new avenues for litigation that could chill providers from offering legitimate mental health support. "We should be expanding access to comprehensive care, not creating legal liability for doctors who follow clinical guidelines," Garcia said in a floor speech. The Democratic caucus has uniformly opposed the measure, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries urging members to vote against what he called "government overreach into medical decisions."

LGBTQ+ advocacy groups including the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD have warned that the legislation could incentivize parents to sue providers years after treatments occur, long after clinical standards may have shifted. They note that regret rates for gender-affirming care remain a subject of ongoing research and should not form the basis for retroactive legal liability.

What the Right Is Saying

Conservative supporters argue the bill provides essential protections for minors who cannot fully consent to irreversible medical procedures. Mast, speaking on the House floor, cited his background as a physician in defending the legislation. "The foundation of medicine must always be evidence, caution, and the principle of doing no harm, especially when treating children," he said. "We are seeing generations of young people subjected to treatments that should have never been presented as options."

Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., a co-sponsor of the legislation, argued that parental rights include the right to be fully informed about medical risks. "For too long, parents who raised concerns were dismissed by providers pushing an ideological agenda," she said in a committee hearing. The Family Policy Alliance and Heritage Foundation have listed the bill as a legislative priority for conservative activists.

The American College of Pediatric Medicine, a smaller organization that opposes mainstream AAP guidance, has submitted testimony supporting the legislation. "Children deserve time to develop without being rushed into permanent decisions," the group's president testified during markup. Trump administration officials have signaled support, with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. calling gender-affirming care for minors "a scandal" in Senate confirmation hearings.

What the Numbers Show

The Chloe Cole Act currently has 187 co-sponsors in the House, all Republicans. It cleared the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote of 23-18. The legislation would apply retroactively to treatments received after January 1, 2017, potentially exposing providers to lawsuits for care delivered nearly a decade ago.

According to a 2025 Government Accountability Office report commissioned by Senate Republicans, approximately 17,000 minors underwent gender-related medical interventions in the United States between 2018 and 2023. The same report found that three states—California, New York, and Illinois—accounted for roughly 40 percent of those procedures.

Research on regret rates varies significantly depending on methodology. A 2025 study published in the Journal of Pediatrics found that approximately 2.5 percent of minors who received gender-related treatments later sought some form of reversal care. Critics note this figure likely undercounts cases where patients do not formally detransition, while supporters argue even a small percentage represents thousands of affected individuals given the volume of procedures.

The Biden administration's HHS had previously estimated that roughly 300,000 youth ages 13-17 identified as transgender in 2023, with approximately 15 percent having received some form of gender-related medical intervention. The Trump administration has disputed these figures and ordered a new data collection effort through the CDC.

The Bottom Line

The Chloe Cole Act represents one of Congress's most direct interventions into medical practice related to gender identity, and its advancement signals continued Republican focus on restricting pediatric gender medicine following President Trump's January executive order. With 187 House co-sponsors and White House backing, supporters believe they have momentum heading into the 2026 midterm cycle.

The bill faces steeper challenges in the Senate, where it would need 60 votes to overcome procedural hurdles. No Democrats have indicated openness to supporting the legislation, and several moderate Republicans in competitive districts have not yet taken public positions. The American Medical Association has warned that retroactive liability provisions could set a precedent affecting other areas of medical practice.

What happens next: House leadership must schedule a floor vote, which would require a simple majority for passage under rules used for this type of legislation. If it passes the House, Senate sponsors have not yet introduced companion legislation but are expected to do so following the August recess.