Exclusive: Trump administration banned chosen names at FDA, NIH under new gender policy
Exclusive: Trump administration banned chosen names at FDA, NIH under new gender policy
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Transgender people still face barriers to competent health care
According to the U.S. Trans Survey, conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality, a third of trans people have faced discrimination from a health care provider.
Employees of the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health are being told to use their legal names in official systems, a move the agencies say is in response to President Donald Trump's executive order that reversed protections for transgender people.
The policies affect transgender employees who use a name that aligns with their gender identity rather than the sex they were assigned at birth. But the policies can also affect married women who choose to go by their maiden name at work, and people who go by middle names, initials, or shorten their first names, for example from James to Jim.
The FDA and NIH policies go beyond a January directive from the Office of Personnel Management that ordered agencies to purge contracts and content related to gender identity and turn off features on email platforms 'that prompt users for their pronouns.' Both agencies are part of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Media representatives for the White House, the Department of Health and Human Services, and NIH did not respond to USA TODAY's request for comment. The FDA website refers media inquiries to the Department of Health and Human Services.
Memos came from FDA, NIH
A March 14 memo to FDA employees obtained by USA TODAY said Department of Health and Human Services policy only allows employees to use 'full legal name' in their email signatures and cannot use pronouns or what the agency calls 'nicknames.'
The memo said it was in response to President Donald Trump's Jan. 20 executive order called 'Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.' The order declared the government only recognized two sexes — male and female — that it says are determined at conception.
The National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases told employees March 13 that employees had until the end of the day to remove pronouns and "nicknames" from email signatures, and that they could only use "full legal names." The memo cited guidance from the Department of Health and Human Services.
The NIH sent a similar memo March 21 announcing that the agency was removing 'preferred name' information in an internal contact system in order to comply with Health and Human Services policy on 'nicknames' and the 'Defending Women' executive order.
The email also warned employees against changing their legal names in the system: 'Please be aware that any change to your legal name in (the database) will trigger a new background check and a new HHS badge request.'
HHS news: RFK Jr.: Chronic diseases need top billing, not infectious diseases like measles and COVID
How the policies affect transgender workers
"It's showing how far they're willing to go for an anti-trans agenda," said Adrian Shanker, the former deputy assistant secretary for Health and Human Services under former President Joe Biden who led LGBT policymaking.
A National Institute of Health employee who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation criticized the move as an attack on transgender employees that goes against the agency's tradition of trans inclusion.
"They work with scientists and scientists tend to be people who understand the basics of the diversity of humans," Shanker said. He said that meant the agency historically "brought in a workforce that believe in being an inclusive work environment and I think that's one of the reasons it's so shocking."
Lindsay Dhanani, an associate professor of human resource management at Rutgers University in New Jersey, said choosing a name and pronouns is a big step for transgender people, and when people around them don't use those names or pronouns, 'that causes a lot of damage for people.'
She said not honoring a person's name or pronouns are some of the most common forms of transphobia, and transphobia can lead to anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicide.
However, 'when firms adopt policies that encourage all employees to bring their whole selves to the workplace, they tend to be more productive and may benefit by becoming an employer of choice,' a 2017 study published in the academic journal Human Resources Management found.
Another NIH employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of losing her job, said the policy has confused colleagues who could not find her in the employee database, since she has always used her maiden name at work in order to maintain consistency in her scientific publications. Her legal name is her married name.
USA TODAY requested a full copy of the Department of Health and Human Services policy on 'nicknames' that is referenced in the National Institutes of Health and Food and Drug Administration memos, but the department did not provide it, instead pointing to a press release about what the administration calls 'gender ideology.'
'This administration is bringing back common sense and restoring biological truth to the federal government,' Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said in the release. 'The prior administration's policy of trying to engineer gender ideology into every aspect of public life is over.'
Trump's executive order required agencies to make sure identification documents such as passports and visas "accurately reflect" a person's sex. The order also questioned a 2020 Supreme Court case that made it illegal for employers to fire someone for being gay or transgender, and ordered the attorney general to "correct the misapplication" of the Supreme Court decision.
The Office of Personnel Management ordered agencies to "disband or cancel" employee resource groups that "promote gender ideology," and make sure that bathrooms are "designated by biological sex and not gender identity," among other things.
HHS news: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suggests compensating families of some people with autism
How leaders identify themselves
Websites for agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services now often show formal names for its leaders. The head of the Food and Drug Administration, who is often called Marty, is listed as Dr. Martin Makary on the official website. Kennedy's official bio lists him by his full name and briefly references him as 'Bobby Jr.'
But Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, who went by 'Jay' in his previous academic position, is continuing to use his nickname in government. It appeared in the headline of an April 1 press release, his official biography, and multiple tweets published on official social media accounts. An essay published last week also used Bhattacharya's nickname in the signature.
Dhanani criticized Bhattacharya's use of his nickname, and said it 'demonstrates that the rule isn't for everybody' and 'to me it demonstrates the intention behind the policy.'
'If the rule isn't motivated by disallowing trans people to be themselves, then it has to apply to everybody, and if you're in a leadership position, the modeling of this applying to everybody starts with you,' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Business News
17 minutes ago
- Time Business News
Your Guide to Botox and Lip Fillers in El Segundo
If you've ever looked in the mirror and thought, 'Hmm, maybe just a little boost,' you're not alone. Botox and lip fillers have become incredibly popular, especially among people who want a natural, refreshed look without surgery. In El Segundo, more and more locals are discovering the power of subtle cosmetic treatments. Whether it's smoothing out a few lines or adding volume to your lips, the right provider can make all the difference. That's why so many people are turning to this clinic, known for its careful work and personalized results. Let's clear up the myths first. Botox isn't about 'freezing your face.' It's a simple treatment that relaxes the muscles under your skin, mostly in areas where fine lines form from repeated facial expressions like frowning or smiling. It's FDA-approved and has been used safely for years. Most people use Botox to reduce lines around the forehead, between the eyebrows, and around the eyes (those 'crow's feet'). Treatments take just 10–15 minutes, and you can go back to your day right after. The results appear within a few days and can last three to four months. It's not permanent, which means you can always adjust how much or how little you want in future visits. Lip fillers are perfect if you want fuller, smoother, or more balanced lips. Most fillers today use hyaluronic acid—a substance your body already makes. It adds volume and shape in a way that feels soft and natural. You don't need to go for an over-the-top look. In fact, many people use fillers to correct asymmetry or just add a touch of definition. The procedure usually takes under 30 minutes, and results are immediate. Swelling may happen for a day or two, but it's usually mild. With proper care, lip fillers can last from 6 months to a full year. Most adults are good candidates, but your provider will always check your medical history to make sure it's safe for you. These treatments are great for: ● People see early signs of aging ● Anyone wanting subtle improvements ● Those preparing for events like weddings or reunions ● People who want to boost their confidence What's important is going to a qualified injector. You don't want just anyone putting a needle in your face. A licensed expert knows how to enhance your natural features, not change them. If it's your first time, don't worry. Most clinics make the process easy and comfortable. Here's how it usually works: 1. Consultation: You'll talk about what you want, ask questions, and get expert advice. 2. Prep: The provider may mark the treatment areas and apply a numbing cream if needed. 3. Injection: It takes just minutes to do the actual injections. 4. Aftercare: You'll get tips on how to avoid swelling or bruising, like skipping alcohol or heavy workouts for a day. You may be surprised by how quick and simple the whole thing is. Myth 1: Botox and fillers are only for older people. Truth: Many younger people use these treatments to prevent lines before they form. Myth 2: You'll look fake or 'done.' Truth: When done right, the results look natural and fresh—not frozen or overfilled. Myth 3: It's super painful. Truth: Most people say it feels like a tiny pinch or quick sting. Plus, numbing options help. Don't just look at price—look at experience and reputation. Read reviews. Check before-and-after photos. Ask how many years they've been doing this work. A great provider listens, explains clearly, and never pressures you into getting more than you need. Also, make sure the place is clean, licensed, and uses approved products. You deserve the best care for your face. Getting Botox or lip fillers or any form of cosmetic help isn't about changing who you are. It's about feeling confident in your skin and doing something for you . Whether you're after smoother skin or fuller lips, a little enhancement can go a long way when done right. Ready to explore your options in El Segundo? A good first step is booking a consultation and asking questions. You'll be amazed at how small changes can lead to a big boost in self-esteem. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Boston Globe
24 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Shifting views and misdirection: How Trump decided to strike Iran
It was almost entirely a deception. Trump had all but made up his mind to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, and the military preparations were well underway for the complex attack. Less than 30 hours after Leavitt relayed his statement, he would give the order for an assault that put the United States in the middle of the latest conflict to break out in one of the world's most volatile regions. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump's 'two weeks' statement was just one aspect of a broader effort at political and military misdirection that took place over eight chaotic days, from the first Israeli strikes against Iran to the moment when a fleet of B-2 stealth bombers took off from Missouri for the first U.S. military strikes inside Iran since that country's theocratic revolution in 1979. Advertisement Interviews with administration officials, Trump allies and advisers, Pentagon officials and others familiar with the events show how, during this period, different factions of Trump's allies jockeyed to win over a president who was listing in all directions over whether to choose war, diplomacy or some combination. Advertisement Outsiders tried to divine which faction was ascendant based on whom Trump met with at any given time. Trump seemed almost gleeful in telling reporters that he could make a decision 'one second before it's due, because things change, especially with war.' All the while, Trump was making blustery statements indicating he was about to take the country into the conflict. 'Everyone should evacuate Tehran!' he wrote last Monday on Truth Social, the social media platform he owns. The following day, he posted that he had not left a meeting of the Group of 7 in Canada to broker a Middle East ceasefire but for something 'much bigger.' So, he told the world, 'Stay tuned!' These public pronouncements generated angst at the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command, where military planners began to worry that Trump was giving Iran too much warning about an impending strike. They built their own deception into the attack plan: a second group of B-2 bombers that would leave Missouri and head west over the Pacific Ocean in a way that flight trackers would be able to monitor Saturday. That left a misimpression, for many observers and presumably Iran, about the timing and path of the attack, which would come from another direction entirely. The strike plan was largely in place when Trump issued his Thursday statement about how he might take up to two weeks to decide to go to war with Iran. Refueling tankers and fighter jets had been moved into position, and the military was working on providing additional protection for U.S. forces stationed in the region. Advertisement While the 'two weeks' statement bought the president more time for last-minute diplomacy, military officials said that ruse and the head fake with the B-2s also had the effect of cleaning up a mess -- the telegraphing of the attack -- that was partly of the president's making. Asked to comment on the details of this article, Leavitt said the president and his team 'successfully accomplished one of the most complex and historic military operations of all time' regarding Iran's nuclear sites. She added that 'many presidents have talked about this, but only President Trump had the guts to do it.' A shifting tune Trump had spent the early months of his administration warning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against a strike on Iran. But by the morning of Friday, June 13, hours after the first Israeli attacks, Trump had changed his tune. He marveled to advisers about what he said was a brilliant Israeli military operation, which involved a series of precision strikes that killed key figures in Iran's military leadership and blasted away strategic weapons sites. Trump took calls on his cellphone from reporters and began hailing the operation as 'excellent' and 'very successful' and hinting that he had much more to do with it than people realized. Later that day, Trump asked an ally how the Israeli strikes were 'playing.' He said that 'everyone' was telling him he needed to get more involved, including potentially dropping 30,000-pound GBU-57 bombs on Fordo, the Iranian uranium-enrichment facility buried underneath a mountain south of Tehran. The next day, the president told another adviser he was leaning toward using those 'bunker buster' bombs on Fordo, while taking pride in both the bomb's destructive power and the fact that the United States is the only country that has the bomb in its arsenal. The adviser left the conversation convinced that Trump had already decided to bomb Iran's nuclear sites. Advertisement At the same time, the president's team was closely monitoring how their most prominent supporters were reacting on social media and on television to the prospect of the United States joining the war in a more visible way. They paid close attention to the statements of Tucker Carlson, the influential podcaster and former Fox News host, who was vehemently opposed to the United States joining Israel in taking on Iran. Trump became infuriated by some of Carlson's commentary and started complaining about him publicly and privately. Political advisers to Trump had been swapping notes on various public and private polls examining the popularity of military action against Iran, noting that American support for an operation depended in part on how pollsters asked the question. While polls showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans did not want the United States to go to war with Iran, most Americans also did not want Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. The president was closely monitoring Fox News, which was airing wall-to-wall praise of Israel's military operation and featuring guests urging Trump to get more involved. Several Trump advisers lamented the fact that Carlson was no longer on Fox, which meant that Trump was not hearing much of the other side of the debate. Deliberations among administration officials about a possible American strike on Iran were in full swing by Sunday night, June 15, when Trump left for Canada for the G7 meeting. Trump seemed to his advisers to be inching closer to approving a strike, even as he told them that Israel would be foolish to try to assassinate Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader. Advertisement Moreover, he said, if the United States were to strike Iran, the goal should be to decimate its nuclear facilities, not to bring down its government. The 'biggest threat to Opsec' By then, a small group of top military officials at the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida, had already begun refining attack plans on the Fordo facility and other Iranian nuclear sites that military planners had drawn up years ago. The planning was led by Gen. Michael Erik Kurilla, the Centcom commander, and Gen. Dan Caine, the chair of the Joint Chiefs. B-2 stealth bombers, based at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, are the only warplanes capable of delivering the GBU-57 bombs without detection by Iranian radar. B-2 bomber pilots have done extensive rehearsals for extended-range missions like the one before them -- crossing the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea, refueling multiple times before syncing up with fighter jets for the final flight leg into Iran. But even as the military planning was being conducted in secrecy, each of Trump's social media posts seemed to be telling the world what was coming. The president, said one military official, was the 'biggest threat to opsec,' or operational security, that the planning faced. To build confusion into the attack plan, military officials decided to have two groups of B-2 bombers leave Missouri around the same time. One group would fly westbound, toward Guam, with transponders on that could be tracked by commercial satellite companies. Another group of seven bombers, carrying a full payload of bombs and with their transponders off, flew east toward Iran, undetected. Advertisement During a news conference Sunday, hours after the U.S. strike, Caine called the Guam feint a 'decoy.' Shaping the conversation By Tuesday, June 17, Trump had largely made up his mind to strike Iran. But he took his coercive diplomacy to a new level, issuing menacing threats over social media. 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,' he posted on Truth Social, adding, 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there -- We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' He demanded, in all-caps, 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!' By this point, several people in the anti-interventionist camp of Trump's advisers realized they most likely could not prevent the president from hitting the Iranian nuclear facilities. So, they turned their focus on trying to ensure the American war did not spiral into an expansive 'regime change' war. That day, June 17, Vice President JD Vance posted a long series of posts on social media that many within the anti-interventionist camp interpreted as him seeding the ground for a potential U.S. military operation and preemptively defending the president's likely decision. 'He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. That decision ultimately belongs to the president,' Vance wrote in the widely shared post. 'And of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy. But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue.' Prominent activists began working to shape the conversation for what was likely to come after the bombing: a debate about whether or not to engage in a war intended to bring about new leadership in Iran. 'Regime change has quickly become the newly stated goal of this operation,' wrote influential activist Charlie Kirk, in a social media post two days before the U.S. strikes. 'America should learn its lesson and not involve itself in a regime change war.' Even as Trump was posting his own hawkish statements, he was becoming annoyed as he watched pundits on television telegraph his likely strike against Fordo. He was infuriated when The Wall Street Journal reported that he had already given a green light to putting the pieces of the operation in place but had not given the final order. On Thursday, Trump was joined for lunch at the White House by Bannon, one of the most prominent critics of U.S. involvement in Israel's war with Iran. Some wishful thinkers in the anti-interventionist camp interpreted the meeting as a sign that Trump was getting cold feet. Leavitt reinforced that sentiment when she delivered Trump's statement, not long after Bannon arrived at the White House, indicating that he had given himself up to two weeks to make a decision, a time frame he often invoked for decisions on complex issues when he had no clear plan. But Trump had already dictated Leavitt's statement before he met with Bannon. It was a calculated misdirection intended to buy some breathing room for the president while suggesting that no attack was imminent. Up through that point, Trump had been willing to continue to listen to those skeptical about the Iran strike, and to hear arguments about its possibly dire consequences -- including for oil prices, civil war in Iran and a possible refugee crisis, in addition to the prospect of retaliatory attacks that could bring the United States into a sustained conflict. On Friday, Trump left the White House in the afternoon for a fundraising event at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey, his main summer retreat, further feeding the impression that no attack was imminent. But within hours, around 5 p.m. Friday, Trump ordered the military to begin its Iran mission. Given the 18 hours it would take the B-2s to fly from Missouri to Iran, he knew he still had many more hours to change his mind, as he did at the last minute in 2019, when he ordered airstrikes against Iranian targets and then aborted them. But few in his administration believed he would pull back this time. A one-off, or not A complex and highly synchronized military operation began. Many hours after the two fleets of B-2s took off in opposite directions, the bombers bound for Iran joined up with fighter jets and flew into Iranian airspace. U.S. submarines launched 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles on the nuclear facilities in Natanz and Isfahan. As the planes approached Fordo and Natanz, the fighter jets swept in front of the bombers and fired strikes meant to suppress any surface-to-air missiles that Iran might muster, Caine said in the Pentagon briefing Sunday. At 2:10 a.m. Sunday morning Iran time, the lead bomber dropped two of the GBU-57 bombs on the Fordo site, buried deep under a mountainside and hundreds of feet of concrete. By the end of the mission, 14 of the 'bunker buster' bombs had been dropped, the first time they had ever been used in combat. Pentagon officials said Sunday that the U.S. bombers and jet fighters never encountered any enemy fire. Hours after the American aircraft had departed Iranian airspace, Trump gave a triumphant speech at the White House saying that the mission had 'completely and totally obliterated ' Iran's nuclear capabilities. He suggested that the war could end with this one-off mission if Iran would give up its nuclear program and negotiate. By Sunday afternoon, however, U.S. officials had tempered the optimism of the night before, saying that Iran's nuclear facilities might have been severely damaged, but not entirely destroyed. Vance acknowledged that there are questions about the whereabouts of Iran's stock of near-bomb-grade uranium. He and Secretary of State Marco Rubio stressed that a regime change in Tehran -- which could mean a protracted U.S. engagement -- was not the goal. But Trump, whose operation was the subject of praise in news coverage not just from allies but some of his critics, had already moved on, hinting in a Truth Social post that his goals could be shifting. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,'' he wrote, 'but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' This article originally appeared in
Boston Globe
24 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
GOP tax bill would ease regulations on gun silencers and some rifles and shotguns
Advertisement Republicans who have long supported the changes, along with the gun industry, say the tax infringes on Second Amendment rights. They say silencers are mostly used by hunters and target shooters for sport. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Burdensome regulations and unconstitutional taxes shouldn't stand in the way of protecting American gun owners' hearing,' said Clyde, who owns two gun stores in Georgia and often wears a pin shaped like an assault rifle on his suit lapel. Democrats are fighting to stop the provision, which was unveiled days after two Minnesota state legislators were shot in their homes, as the bill speeds through the Senate. They argue that loosening regulations on silencers could make it easier for criminals and active shooters to conceal their weapons. Advertisement 'Parents don't want silencers on their streets, police don't want silencers on their streets,' said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. The gun language has broad support among Republicans and has received little attention as House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., work to settle differences within the party on cuts to Medicaid and energy tax credits, among other issues. But it is just one of hundreds of policy and spending items included to entice members to vote for the legislation that could have broad implications if the bill is enacted within weeks, as Trump wants. Inclusion of the provision is also a sharp turn from the climate in Washington just three years ago when Democrats, like Republicans now, controlled Congress and the White House and pushed through bipartisan gun legislation. The bill increased background checks for some buyers under the age of 21, made it easier to take firearms from potentially dangerous people and sent millions of dollars to mental health services in schools. Passed in the summer of 2022, just weeks after the shooting of 19 children and two adults at a school in Uvalde, Texas, it was the most significant legislative response to gun violence in decades. Three years later, as they try to take advantage of their consolidated power in Washington, Republicans are packing as many of their longtime priorities as possible, including the gun legislation, into the massive, wide-ranging bill that Trump has called 'beautiful.' 'I'm glad the Senate is joining the House to stand up for the Second Amendment and our Constitution, and I will continue to fight for these priorities as the Senate works to pass President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill,' said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who was one of the lead negotiators on the bipartisan gun bill in 2022 but is now facing a primary challenge from the right in his bid for reelection next year. Advertisement If the gun provisions remain in the larger legislation and it is passed, silencers and the short-barrel rifles and shotguns would lose an extra layer of regulation that they are subject to under the National Firearms Act, passed in the 1930s in response to concerns about mafia violence. They would still be subject to the same regulations that apply to most other guns — and that includes possible loopholes that allow some gun buyers to avoid background checks when guns are sold privately or online. Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, who supports the legislation, says changes are aimed at helping target shooters and hunters protect their hearing. He argues that the use of silencers in violent crimes is rare. 'All it's ever intended to do is to reduce the report of the firearm to hearing safe levels,' Keane says. Speaking on the floor before the bill passed the House, Rep. Clyde said the bill restores Second Amendment rights from 'over 90 years of draconian taxes.' Clyde said Johnson included his legislation in the larger bill 'with the purest of motive.' 'Who asked for it? I asked,' said Clyde, who ultimately voted for the bill after the gun silencer provision was added. Clyde was responding to Rep. Maxwell Frost, a 28-year-old Florida Democrat, who went to the floor and demanded to know who was responsible for the gun provision. Frost, who was a gun-control activist before being elected to Congress, called himself a member of the 'mass shooting generation' and said the bill would help 'gun manufacturers make more money off the death of children and our people.' Advertisement Among other concerns, control advocates say less regulation for silencers could make it harder for law enforcement to stop an active shooter. 'There's a reason silencers have been regulated for nearly a century: They make it much harder for law enforcement and bystanders to react quickly to gunshots,' said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. Schumer and other Democrats are trying to convince the Senate parliamentarian to drop the language as she reviews the bill for policy provisions that aren't budget-related. 'Senate Democrats will fight this provision at the parliamentary level and every other level with everything we've got,' Schumer said earlier this month.
