Claims spread Trump wore catheter at UFC event. Here's what we know

On June 9, 2025, a photograph of U.S. President Donald Trump spread online, claiming he was wearing a catheter under his suit while at an Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) event. The photograph in question showed fighter Kayla Harrison, who had just won the UFC women's bantamweight championship bout, putting her victor's belt around Trump's waist.
A number of posts on X, Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok made this claim. One post stated:
Trump is absolutely wearing a Foley catheter.
It's a tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine into a bag strapped to the leg.
That line down his pants? Not a crease. It's tubing.
Every step he takes sounds like the sloshing of a warm Capri Sun
(Instagram user "oldrowofficial")
We looked closely at footage of the 78-year-old president walking around at the event, as well as photographs of him alongside Harrison. At this time, we were unable to independently confirm whether he wore a catheter under his suit.
White House spokesperson Steven Cheung denied the claim in an email:
The President has been the most transparent president in history, and the recent medical report that was released clearly and unequivocally shows he is in peak condition. These conspiracy theories peddled by demented individuals hiding behind social media, and now being given a platform by the fake news, clearly suffer from a debilitating case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. These are the same people who have been caught trying to gaslight the American people for years by saying Joe Biden was cognitively fine, when in fact, he was in much worse condition than thought.
On June 7, 2025, Trump attended a UFC 316 event in New Jersey. The above photograph appears to be authentic, given that the White House posted other pictures of Harrison putting the championship belt on Trump, though his pants are not visible.
(The White House)
In most available press images showing Trump interacting with Harrison, or standing around at the UFC event, his upper leg is shadowed by his suit jacket making it difficult to determine if the bulge was just a fold in the pant leg or something else.
According to the Cleveland Clinic, a "Foley catheter" is a device that "drains urine from your urinary bladder into a collection bag outside of your body when you can't pee on your own or for various medical reasons." Images from the website show a narrow tube connecting to a bag that collects urine.
The following YouTube video compiles a range of clips of Trump walking into the UFC arena and interacting with Harrison. At the 32-second mark, Harrison puts her championship belt over his shoulder. We paused at numerous moments in the clip and found there was a noticeable shadow on Trump's leg but no evidence of a bulge as he stood at that angle.
It is possible the bulge was visible when Harrison wrapped the belt around Trump's waist, pulling his pants back. However, there is no way to independently verify whether this bulge is from a catheter.
We also zoomed in on the image in question and found a similar shadow on Trump's other leg, indicating that the bulge is likely also just a result of the angle of the light.
(Instagram user "oldrowofficial")
Many have been also claiming from other photographs at the White House that Trump was wearing a secret "leg brace" under his suit after his stumble while climbing Air Force One.
In April 2025, White House physician Capt. Sean Barbabella said Trump was in "excellent health."
Trump has frequently been the subject of speculation around his health. We previously covered an authentic video of him stumbling while climbing the stairs to Air Force One. We have also reported on unknown red sores that appeared on his hand in January 2024.
"DONALD TRUMP at UFC 316: BEST MOMENTS Nobody Has Seen." YouTube, Dario AS, 8 June 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBRjcv1m3V8. Accessed 11 June 2025.
Garrett, Luke. "White House Doctor Says Trump Is 'fully Fit' in Medical Report." NPR, 13 Apr. 2025. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2025/04/13/g-s1-60074/trump-physical-medical-report. Accessed 11 June 2025.
Ibrahim, Nur. "Strange Red 'Sores' on Trump's Hand Mystify Internet, Then Disappear." Snopes, 18 Jan. 2024, https://www.snopes.com//news/2024/01/18/trump-hand-sores/. Accessed 11 June 2025.
"Kayla Harrison Celebrates with U.S. President Donald Trump and UFC..." Getty Images, 8 June 2025, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/kayla-harrison-celebrates-with-u-s-president-donald-trump-news-photo/2219117151. Accessed 11 June 2025.
Liles, Jordan. "Yes, Video Shows Trump Stumbling up Steps to Air Force One." Snopes, 9 June 2025, https://www.snopes.com//fact-check/trump-falling-on-stairs-air-force-one/. Accessed 11 June 2025.
"President Trump Attends UFC 316." The White House, https://www.whitehouse.gov/gallery/president-trump-attends-ufc-316/. Accessed 11 June 2025.
"Social Media Speculates Trump 'Is Wearing a Leg Brace' after Air Force One Fall." The Independent, 11 June 2025, https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-air-force-one-fall-leg-brace-b2768113.html. Accessed 11 June 2025.
"US President Donald Trump and UFC CEO Dana White Attend a UFC 316..." Getty Images, 8 June 2025, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-donald-trump-and-ufc-ceo-dana-white-attend-a-ufc-news-photo/2218515472. Accessed 11 June 2025.
"What Is a Foley Catheter?" Cleveland Clinic, https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/foley-catheter. Accessed 11 June 2025.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

2 hours ago

• Yahoo

Republican senators' proposed Medicaid cuts threaten to send red states ‘backwards'

Advocates are urging Senate Republicans to reject a proposal to cut billions from American healthcare to extend tax breaks that primarily benefit the wealthy and corporations. The proposal would make historic cuts to Medicaid, the public health insurance program for low-income and disabled people that covers 71 million Americans, and is the Senate version of the 'big beautiful bill' act, which contains most of Donald Trump's legislative agenda. 'With the text released earlier this week, somehow the Senate made the House's 'big, bad budget bill' worse in many ways,' said Anthony Wright, the executive director of Families USA, a consumer healthcare advocacy group, in a press call. The Senate's version makes deeper cuts to Medicaid and so-called Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) plans, 'both by expanding paperwork requirements and making it harder for states to fund Medicaid coverage for their residents', said Wright. Related: Democratic senators call on private firm to reveal how it will profit from Trump's Medicaid cuts If passed, the House-passed bill would have already made the biggest cuts to Medicaid since the program's enactment in 1965. With red tape and an expiration of additional healthcare subsidies to Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the House version would leave 16 million people without health insurance by 2034. CBO has not yet released estimates, or 'scored', the impact of the Senate proposal, but advocates and experts said the cuts are more draconian, 'punish' states that expanded Medicaid, and attack Medicaid by going after its byzantine financing structures. 'If we look at the big picture of our healthcare system that's where the inefficiencies are – not in Medicaid – but in all the groups profiting off the system,' said David Machledt, a senior policy analyst at the National Health Law Program, referring to Republicans' assertions that they are targeting 'waste, fraud and abuse' with cuts. 'What these cuts are going to do is look at the most cost-efficient program and squeeze it further, and take us backwards, and put us back at a system where the people at the low end are literally dying to fund these tax cuts for rich people and businesses.' A recent study found that expanding Medicaid, as was done during the Obama administration, probably saved an additional 27,400 lives over a 12-year period, and did so cheaper than other insurance programs. The same study found that about a quarter of the difference in life expectancy between low- and high-income Americans is due to lack of health insurance. Republicans, such as Senator John Thune of South Dakota, argue that their bill 'protects' Medicaid by 'removing people who should not be on the rolls', including working-age adults, legal and undocumented immigrants; by adding work requirements and by going after a tax maneuver states use to bring in more federal Medicaid funding. Related: 'Fiscally irresponsible': Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' benefits the rich at the expense of the poor 'Removing these individuals is just basic, good governance,' said Thune. But experts and advocates argue the cuts will not only remove the targeted individuals, including many who are working but struggle to get through red tape, but will also place states in impossible situations with potentially multibillion-dollar shortfalls in their budgets. Both versions contain so-called work requirements, which analyses show will cause people to lose coverage even if they are eligible, experts said. Instead, the largest difference between the Senate and House versions of the bill is the Senate's attack on Medicaid's complex financing arrangements. Medicaid is jointly financed by states and the federal government, making it simultaneously one of states' largest expenditures and sources of revenue. The Senate's version specifically attacks two ways states finance Medicaid, through provider taxes and state-directed payments. With a provider tax, states bring in additional federal revenue by increasing payments to providers. Because the federal portion of Medicaid is based on a percentage rate, increasing payments to providers in turn increases the amount that federal officials pay the state. States then tax those same providers, such as hospitals, to bring the funding back to the state. Although this maneuver has been criticized, it has also now been used for decades. It's in place in every state except for Alaska, is legal and openly discussed. The Senate bill caps this manuever by cutting the tax rate by about half, from 6% to 3.5%, according to Machledt. [Cuts will] put us back at a system where the people at the low end are literally dying to fund these tax cuts for rich people and businesses David Machledt, National Health Law Program In a 2024 analysis, the Congressional Research Service estimated that lowering the provider tax cap to 2.5% would effectively cut $241bn from Medicaid payments to states. Although the exact impacts of the Senate tax cap are not yet known, Machledt expects it would be in the billions, which states would then be under pressure to make up. 'We took great pains to close a $1.1bn shortfall caused by rising healthcare costs,' said the Colorado state treasurer, Dave Young, in a press call. 'To protect healthcare and education, we had to cut transportation projects, maternal health programs and even $1m in aid to food banks.' Because of taxing provisions in Colorado's state constitution, Young said: 'It will be nearly impossible to raise taxes or borrow money to make up the difference.' Similarly, the Senate bill goes after 'state-directed payments'. To understand state-directed payments, it's helpful to understand a big picture, and often hidden, aspect of American healthcare – health insurance pays providers different rates for the same service. Providers are almost universally paid the worst for treating patients who have Medicaid. Medicare pays roughly the cost of providing care, although many doctors and hospitals complain it is still too little. Commercial insurance pays doctors and hospitals most handsomely. To encourage more providers to accept Medicaid, lawmakers in some states have chosen to pay providers treating Medicaid patients additional funds. In West Virginia, a federally approved plan allows the state to pay providers more for certain populations. In North Carolina, state-directed payments allow the state to pay hospitals rates equal to the average commercial insurance rate, if they agree to medical debt forgiveness provisions. The first state-directed payment plan was approved in 2018, under the first Trump administration. These kinds of payments were criticized by the Government Accountability Office during the Biden administration. Related: Trump's 'big, beautiful' spending bill, from tax cuts to mass deportations However, the Senate bill goes after these rates by tying them to Medicaid expansion – a central tenet of Obamacare – and gives stricter limits to the 41 states that expanded the program. Doing this will effectively be 'punishing them', Machledt said, referring to states that participated in this key provision of Obamacare, 'by limiting the way they can finance'. Advocates also warned of unintended knock-on effects from such enormous disruption. Medical debt financing companies are already readying new pitches to hospitals. Even people who don't lose their insurance and are not insured through Medicaid could see prices increase. When Medicaid is cut, hospital emergency rooms are still obliged to provide stabilizing care to patients, even if they can't pay. Hospitals must then make up that shortfall somewhere, and the only payers they can negotiate with are commercial: for example, the private health insurance most people in the US rely on. 'Folks who do not lose their health insurance will see increased costs,' said Leslie Frane, the executive vice-president of SEIU, a union that represents about 2 million members, including in healthcare. 'Your copays are going to go up, your deductibles are going to go up, your bills are going to go up.' Republicans hope to pass the bill by 4 July.

Axios

3 hours ago

• Axios

Accidental death data threatened by Trump CDC cuts

The CDC center that provides a window into how Americans are accidentally killed could see much of its work zeroed out under the Trump administration 2026 budget after it was hit hard by staff cuts this spring. Why it matters: Unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death for Americans younger than 45, and the data the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control churns on fatal car accidents, drug overdose deaths, firearm injuries and even dog bites help inform public health strategies. The Trump budget targets the CDC with more than $3.5 billion in proposed cuts and lists the injury center under "duplicative, DEI or simply unnecessary programs" that can be conducted more effectively by states. Where things stand: The center was hit by layoffs under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s reorganization of federal health agencies, losing about 200 staffers in April who primarily worked on violence prevention and unintentional injuries. That crippled key data repositories, such as a web-based injury statistics system called WISQAR and the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), with few data scientists and other technicians left to crunch the numbers, current employees and advocates say. "Those are existing in name only from here on, because the staff who have the expertise and the know-how and the access to the databases and all of that were RIF'd," Sharon Gilmartin, executive director of the Safe States Alliance, told Axios. Trump's 2026 budget request would eliminate funding for both data repositories and the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS). Between the lines: Also potentially at risk is the CDC's federal surveillance report of drowning statistics, which found the number of drowning deaths among kids 4 and younger increased 28% during the pandemic, between 2019 and 2022. That information revealed COVID-era patterns, such as kids spending more time at home or distracted parents juggling remote work with child care, that may have increased their risk, Katie Adamson, vice president of health partnerships and policy for YMCA, told Axios. That kind of data, as well as $5 million in funding for drowning prevention programs such as swimming lessons, from groups like the YMCA, has been cut. "Why wouldn't the federal government have a role in [addressing] the leading cause of death in our babies?" Adamson said. The cuts extend beyond the CDC to grantees around the country who use the data to implement prevention strategies, said one CDC official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the press. Among the uses of funding specifically eliminated in the president's budget is money for a network of 11 Injury Control Research Centers at universities around the country that assist in researching the most efficient prevention programs based on the data collected by the CDC. The work includes a University of Michigan study of the effectiveness of anonymous tip lines at schools. Over four years, it identified more than 1,000 opportunities for mental health intervention, with dozens of weapons recovered from schools and several students with school shooting plans. "The return on investment for preventing these kinds of injuries and deaths is enormous," the official said. "If you care about saving dollars, you should be investing in the kind of work that the CDC injury center has historically done. It's not duplicative, it's unique." The other side: HHS has indicated plans for some of the work would be transferred within the planned Administration for a Healthy America. "HHS and CDC remain firmly committed to maintaining the availability of high-quality public health data essential to injury prevention and response nationwide," an HHS spokesman said. "As part of Secretary Kennedy's broader vision to streamline HHS operations and improve government efficiency, the CDC's critical work will continue to inform data-driven strategies that protect the health and safety of the American people." Yes, but: It's not that easy to just shift the work of the injury center and its complex data infrastructure, including laboratory work and response work, to another agency, the CDC official said. "Everybody's really worried around here. We've already lost the world's experts in a lot of these topics and a lot of incredible work in every one of these areas. It's not easy to just turn that back on or rebuild," the CDC official said.

Vox

3 hours ago

• Vox

How a 2004 law created a massive pancreas harvesting boom

is a senior correspondent and head writer for Vox's Future Perfect section and has worked at Vox since 2014. He is particularly interested in global health and pandemic prevention, anti-poverty efforts, economic policy and theory, and conflicts about the right way to do philanthropy. You probably haven't heard of organ procurement organizations, but if you or anyone you know has ever received an organ transplant, they're the ones who procured is a graph showing a trend that exploded during the 2020s: What is this depicting? Compute use for AI? Crispr gene edits per year? No, this is another, much less-known example of massive growth these past several years. This is a chart of the number of pancreases (or, to use the correct plural, 'pancreata') collected each year from dead bodies in the US for research purposes: How this happened is no mystery. The surge is, by all accounts, due to a regulation that took effect in 2021 focused on groups called organ procurement organizations (OPOs). You probably haven't heard of OPOs, but if you or anyone you know has ever received an organ transplant, they're the ones who procured it. OPOs are nonprofit, nongovernmental bodies to which the US outsources the job of collecting organs from deceased organ donors. Each OPO has a monopoly on recovery of all organs in a particular geographic area; there are 55 groups, some of which only cover part of a state and some of which cover multiple states. For some time now, critics have argued that OPOs are massively underusing deceased donor organs. One report from 2019 estimated that every year 28,000 usable organs (mostly badly needed kidneys but also pancreata, hearts, livers, etc.) are removed from deceased donors but never used; another put the number at 75,000. This, when the national waitlist for organs is more than 100,000 people long. OPOs are not paid to collect these organs per se: They are entitled to 100 percent reimbursement of costs they report related to retrieving, preserving, and delivering organs, with ultimate payment coming from Medicare or transplant centers (which in turn charge Medicare and other insurers). This system, critics have long charged, does not provide enough incentive to procure harder-to-retrieve organs from patients who may be older or have certain medical conditions. To get OPOs to collect more organs, the Trump administration in 2019 issued an executive order calling for new rules governing how the organizations are certified by the federal government, rules that were finalized two years later. This was high stakes: If an OPO loses certification, it has to shut down, and another OPO gets its territory. The rules were meant to more strictly grade OPOs on the share of organs they eventually transplant than the earlier, laxer rules did. But there was a catch. In addition to organs recovered from deceased donors and transplanted, pancreata recovered and used for research would count toward recertification as well. Not any other organs for research — just pancreata. What happened next can be see in the chart above: a massive, sudden surge in the number of research pancreata being recovered by OPOs, beginning in 2022, the precise year the new evaluation system took effect. I've long been fascinated by this trend, which OPO critics call the 'pancreas loophole' and OPO defenders describe as a perfectly legal response to overly onerous regulations. The numbers represent thousands of real, physical human pancreata, taken from real, recently deceased donors, that wouldn't have been taken from those bodies without this regulation. I've tried in recent months to make sense of how this happened, and what it means. I'm not the only one; the Senate Finance Committee has been investigating, and released a report in early June on the problem. There is still plenty that remains unknown about the fate of these pancreata (if you work at an OPO or research center and know more details, please email me). But what is clear is that they represent an approach by the federal government toward increasing organ supply that absolutely no one is happy with. If the point of the regulations is to help people in need — including the millions of Americans with diabetes, a disease of the pancreas — evaluating OPOs based on the number of pancreata they donate to researchers simply doesn't make any sense. But to understand how we started judging them this way regardless, you have to go all the way back to an obscure law passed in George W. Bush's first term. Pancreata (and why you might need one transplanted), explained Everyone knows, in broad strokes, what the heart or the lungs do. But the pancreas doesn't have the same level of fame. Its basic purpose is to excrete enzymes, hormones, and other compounds to both 1) help the body digest food and 2) regulate blood sugar levels. The latter function is performed by the islets of Langerhans, cells in the pancreas (named after their discoverer, 19th-century German researcher Paul Langerhans) that secrete two different hormones: insulin (to lower blood sugar) and glucagon (to raise it). In Type 1 diabetes, the ability of the pancreas to produce insulin is impaired and thus blood sugar levels are dangerously elevated; in some kinds of Type 2 diabetes, the body develops resistance to insulin's effects. Typically, people with diabetes deal with this through injecting insulin directly, a process that has become much more sophisticated in recent decades as finger pricks and needles have given way to insulin pumps that can directly measure and adjust blood sugar levels. But even with advanced care, diabetes carries lifelong medical consequences, so researchers have long sought a more permanent fix: What if you could replace or supplement the faulty islet cells in patients with diabetes with healthy islet cells? Could you, then, cure diabetes at the source and avoid the need for insulin injections and the risk of long-term health effects altogether? In the most extreme version of this approach, a complete new pancreas is transplanted into a patient with diabetes, like swapping out a faulty part. This is a proven treatment (915 occurred in 2023) and when done it works well, essentially curing the recipient's diabetes. But there are major downsides: you have to undertake major abdominal surgery with a small but real chance of failure, and if that succeeds, you have to remain on immunosuppressant drugs for the rest of your life to prevent organ rejection. For that reason, physicians generally rule that the costs of a pancreas transplant outweigh the benefits for most people with diabetes. Living with an insulin pump is better than risking surgery and having a permanently compromised immune system. Very few of the 38 million Americans living with diabetes, then, are going to be candidates for a pancreas transplant. This math changes, however, if the patient in question also needs a kidney transplant. Diabetes accounts for nearly half of all new cases of kidney failure, so a higher share of people with diabetes than people without find themselves in this situation. In these cases, since the patient is already going to have surgery and be on immunosuppressants, throwing in a new pancreas to the surgery and curing their diabetes in the same operation that cures their kidney failure begins to look like an attractive option. That's why almost no one gets a pancreas transplant in the US without getting a kidney transplant too. A cure for diabetes Behold, the beauty of the human pancreas. De Agostini via Getty Images For decades, researchers searching for effective diabetes treatments have experimented with an approach called islet cell transplantation. Rather than transplant the whole pancreas, the procedure merely transplants insulin- and glucagon-producing islet cells into the recipient's liver. It's far less invasive, and can be done with local anesthesia and without an overnight hospital stay (though, skeptics argue, often less effective than whole pancreas transplantation too). If the islet cells come from a deceased donor, it does mean a lifetime of immunosuppression, but in 'autograft' procedures, which use a subset of still-healthy islets from one's own impaired pancreas, immunosuppression isn't necessary. Islet cell transplantation, though, remains little-used and mostly experimental in the US. Unlike its big brother surgery, though, islet cell transplantation remains little-used and mostly experimental. Part of the reason why is regulatory: While pancreases are legally 'organs,' and therefore excluded from regulation by the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA has asserted its authority to also regulate islet cells as human tissues and to require premarket approval before they can be transplanted into a patient, just like a drug would. To gain such approval, it would be necessary to conduct clinical studies to demonstrate that the islet cells are 'safe and effective'; ones approved they would need to be produced in compliance with 'good manufacturing practices.' To receive islet cells not approved by FDA, a patient would need to join a clinical study (if one is being conducted) or go to a country (including Canada, Australia, and several EU and Asian countries) with different regulations. Future Perfect Explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. FDA's requirements have unsurprisingly slowed the islet cell transplant field down. The most recent data comes from 2021, when only 10 such procedures were performed in the US. In 2012, 111 were performed, but the number has steadily fallen ever since. It's orders of magnitude rarer than a whole-pancreas transplant. But islet cell transplants have some champions, including politicians. In 2004, Congress passed, and George W. Bush signed, the Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act. It was sponsored by Rep. George Nethercutt Jr. (R-WA), who said he was driven by his daughter's diabetes to try to expand access to islet cell transplants so patients could 'live without being dependent on insulin injections.' Nethercutt's bill sought to speed up research progress by, among other measures, ensuring adequate supply of pancreata for scientists. The law includes a provision stating, 'Pancreata procured by an organ procurement organization and used for islet cell transplantation or research shall be counted for purposes of certification or recertification.' That meant that when regulators in 2019 were reconfiguring certification rules for OPOs to encourage them to effect more transplants, they had to include a carve-out for pancreata used for islet cell research. The carve-out existed from the very first draft proposal that Trump's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released, and stayed into the final rule in 2021. The mysterious pancreas boom That rule's changes applied for evaluations of organ procurement organizations starting in August 2022. In the years 2018 through 2021, OPOs collected around 500–600 pancreata for research each year. In 2022, that figure was 1,432, a three-fold increase. In 2024, the number hit 2,053. The effect of the new regulation was clear. It's important to note that there are no indications that the pancreata being collected by OPOs for research are cutting into the supply of pancreata for donation. The share of dead people whose pancreata are suitable for transplant is incredibly low, because of the exacting standards for donor age and health. 'Only a certain number of donors are going to be young enough (probably less than 50, maybe less than 45) and lean enough (maybe less than 30 BMI, probably less than 27 or 28),' Jonathan Fridell, a transplant surgeon and director of the pancreas transplant program at IU Health in Indianapolis, told me. 'We're still going to look at the people that are older, still look at the people that are heavier, but the likelihood that they're going to have a transplantable pancreas is lower.' There are thus plenty of non-transplantable pancreata left over that could be used for research once the prime ones are taken away for surgery. The problem with the surge in research pancreata, then, isn't that it's taking pancreata away from recipients who need them. It's subtler than that. By racking up large numbers of pancreata for research, OPOs are improving the grades they receive from federal regulators, and avoiding the risk of losing certification and having to turn over territory to another OPO. This grading and decertification process was meant to incentivize OPOs to collect more organs for transplant, especially kidneys, which are both easier to transplant than pancreata and more desperately needed. But the research pancreata provide a way around that incentive. Calculate the grades that OPOs would get without these pancreata versus the ones they are getting now, and you'll find the results are radically different. CMS classifies OPOs into three tiers: 1, 2, and 3, with tier 3 OPOs facing decertification. Using data obtained from the organ procurement transplant network, we are able to calculate which tier each OPO would be in with and without their research pancreata based on their performance in 2023. The year that is actually binding for OPOs and determines whether they will be decertification is 2024, for which data does not yet exist, but the 2023 data gives us some indication of which OPOs are using pancreata to save themselves. For two OPOs, including research pancreata meant they went from tier 3, which would result in decertification, to tier 2: Donor Network of Arizona, which covers that whole state; and OneLegacy, which includes most of Southern California including Los Angeles and Orange counties. Another, Kentucky Organ Donor Affiliates, went from tier 2, where it could face pressure to improve performance, to tier 1, suggesting it excels. These are not small institutions. OneLegacy is by far the largest OPO in the country by volume of organs collected and population covered. Its CEO, Prasad Garimella, earned $1.1 million in total compensation in 2023, the last year for which public IRS filings are available. It stood a real chance of being decertified if it did not meet the new organ collection standards. And it went from reporting 83 pancreata collected for research in 2021 to 441 in 2022 and 492 in 2023. An over fivefold increase, in one year — and no wonder, given its existence was at stake. (In response to a request for comment, OneLegacy stated, 'When recovering organs for transplant, OneLegacy will allocate pancreata to reputable islet cell research agencies only if they are not viable for transplant into patients. Over 99.6% of pancreata recovered by OneLegacy for research between 2018-2022 were allocated to two National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIH-NIDDK) laboratories.') Again, the 2023 data is not binding. The 2024 data will be. But unless something changes with the way the government evaluates these pancreata, some major OPOs will avoid dire consequences for the sole reason that they started collecting hundreds of pancreata for research. Where did all the pancreata go? The increase is so obviously a result of the new rules that OPOs don't even bother to deny it. Responding to the Senate report earlier this month, the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, which lobbies for the groups and against the CMS's stricter rules, said simply, 'Today, pancreata recovered for research remain part of the performance evaluation metrics, and OPOs have operated in accordance with the rule.' In other words: yeah, we found a loophole. And what are you going to do about it? It's an attitude that has pervaded the industry since the loophole came to light. In a listserv thread discussing the new rules, leaked to the Senate Finance Committee, an OPO employee wrote, 'If you have a donor with only a pancreas for research, that is an organ donor for the Donor Rate. Otherwise, a donor is any donor with at least 1 organ transplanted. Savvy (or cynical?) OPOs ought to start a pancreas for research program immediately.' But there's a question that remains unanswered: Where did all these thousands of pancreata go? It is clear that the vast majority of research pancreata did not go into islet transplants. We are talking about thousands of organs, not the few dozen that plausibly could have been transplanted as part of islet procedures in the past couple of years. Indeed, OPOs have admitted as much. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services asks OPOs for data on organs recovered every year, and in August 2024 clarified that it would only count pancreata as ''used' for research if they are accepted for use in bona fide islet cell research conducted by a qualified researcher, such as research approved by the National Institutes of Health.' It then asked OPOs to resubmit their data, clarifying which organs were for islet cell research specifically. Once they did, the number of reported pancreata fell dramatically: In 2023, the total went from 3,338 pancreata before the guidance, to 1,812 after, a drop of 46 percent. Some OPOs, like Legacy of Hope in Alabama, now reported zero pancreata for research; before the guidance narrowed qualifying purposes, Legacy of Hope had claimed 226 pancreata. But even after the change in guidance, we're left with smaller numbers that are still much too big to be explained by bona fide islet cell transplants. There simply were not 1,812 islet cell transplants in the US in 2023, but there were 1,812 pancreata credited as donated for islet cell research. And that number is still over triple the number claimed in 2021, meaning the increase sparked by the new OPO rules largely remains even after the government's clarification. Research by David Goldberg, Erin Tewksbury, and Matthew Wadsworth has shown that the number of pancreata reported as recovered by OPOs also swamps the number that the Integrated Islet Distribution Program (IIDP), a consortium that collects and extracts islet cells from pancreata, reports receiving from these OPOs. One of the points of the Senate investigation was to determine where exactly these pancreata went. The Senate Finance Committee, with the benefit of subpoena power, went about asking major OPOs for what actual purpose the research pancreata were used. The main answer they received was 'we don't know.' 'Many of the OPOs stated that it is the responsibility of the research facilities or institutions receiving the pancreata to inform the OPOs on the purpose, methods, and efficacy of the research being conducted on the pancreata and other organs that OPOs supply,' the report states. In other words, OPOs themselves don't keep track. 'Many of these OPOs,' the report continues, 'have sent pancreata to biobanks and other institutions or facilities that hold pancreata for an unknown period to be used for purposes that may be undefined or nonexistent.' Put another way: These pancreata could, for all the OPOs or the Senate knows, be sitting on a freezer somewhere, not transplanted into anyone. Or maybe not even sitting there at all. Greg Segal, an activist advocating for reform to the pancreas loophole, testified before a House committee that staff at one OPO, joked 'that they're conducting research on the efficacy of garbage disposal A versus garbage disposal B' when disposing of pancreata. Exploiting the loophole Throughout all this, OPOs have had one consistent message: They've complied with the law, as they see it. 'Pancreata recovered for research remain part of the performance evaluation metrics, and OPOs have operated in accordance with the rule,' the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, the groups' lobbying shop in Washington, said in its statement after the Senate investigation was released. 'When CMS issued clarifying guidance in 2024 limiting this metric to pancreata used for islet cell research, OPOs responded immediately and worked with the agency to validate data and ensure compliance.' Jedd Lewis, CEO of the Organ Preservation Alliance and a decades-long veteran of the transplant field, notes that CMS's rule neglected to define what it means to use a pancreas for research, despite many OPOs and industry experts specifically flagging the problem for CMS before that rule took effect. And CMS's new guidance last year did little to solve the problem, he argues. 'Last years' memos simply identified the scope of pancreas donations that OPOs would be judged on as those for 'islet cell research.' But CMS didn't define what that actually means …and on its face it's a huge scope of research,' Lewis wrote in an email. 'There are so many … ways that researchers are looking at how those cells function: studying the pancreas whole, slicing it into thin sections, isolating the individual islet cells, even breaking the cells into the component parts.' That's all valuable research, he argues, and clearly relates to islet cells, even if the pancreata are never actually used in islet cell transplants. Wadsworth, a coauthor on the study finding a surge in research pancreata and CEO of the LifeConnection OPO in northwest Ohio, concedes that counting pancreata that did not produce islet cells for transplant may technically be legal. But he still thinks it's wrong. 'I worked with this surgeon early on in my career who said 'just because you can do something doesn't mean you should,' Wadsworth noted. 'Based on what's written, maybe they didn't do anything wrong, but you don't have to look far back in history to find examples where something wasn't illegal, but it definitely wasn't right either.' LifeConnection, Wadsworth says, was able to comply with the spirit of the CMS regulations by finding counties in its jurisdiction where low numbers of organs were being procured, and working on fixing the problem hospital-by-hospital. It's harder than just harvesting pancreata, but it means organs get transplanted to people who need them. One irony of the controversy is that most OPOs, and their representatives, don't believe that research pancreata should count for their evaluations. 'AOPO has concerns about including pancreata utilized for research in the data used to calculate the numerator of either proposed measure,' the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations wrote in an early 2020 comment as the regulations were being developed. 'The utilization of pancreata for research is driven by demand of local researchers. Inclusion of pancreata for research in the data utilized for the numerator may skew comparisons of OPOs in that category and potentially lead to inaccurate conclusions.' But both the OPOs and their regulator, CMS, were bound by the 2004 law requiring that research pancreata, at least that for islet cell research, must count for these evaluations. Close the pancreata gap We are running out of time to fix this problem. If nothing changes, OPOs will be evaluated on the basis of data they've submitted now, including hundreds of pancreata that were never used for islet cell transplants. Whether you think that reflects OPOs complying in good faith, or subverting the system, it's not a policy anyone should think makes much sense. CMS has some ability to act here — but perhaps the best fix would come from Congress in the form of a legal provision clarifying the 2004 act. Simply repealing the provision restricting how OPOs can be evaluated would be simplest — but even better would be pairing it with a legal change that could help islet transplantation research far more than the 2004 has to date. Recall that islet transplants currently don't count as organ transplants in the US. They count as treatments with biological tissue ''If islet cells are solely organs, because they are a subpart of the pancreas, which is an organ under transplant law, then the FDA should not have jurisdiction,' Gail Javitt, a veteran lawyer working on FDA regulatory issues at the firm Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, told me. 'However, FDA has taken a different position, that islet cells are a cellular therapy and must undergo premarket approval just like a drug would.' If you want to use it for treatment of a patient, you have to go through them. That has had the practical impact of slowing down the availability of islet cells for transplantation in this country.' Legally clarifying that islet cells are organs, not cellular therapies, and that they are excluded from FDA oversight then, could go a long way to promoting the treatment. Last Congress, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rep. Matthew Rosendale (R-MT) each introduced bills making this change, with exclusively Republican co-sponsors. But this need not be a partisan issue at all, and if you paired this provision with a repeal of the 2004 law permitting OPOs to count pancreata for research as part of its transplant metrics, you could arrive at a close to ideal system. OPOs would be evaluated on their ability to transplant islet cells, because they'd be organs like any other. They would not be able to get higher ratings by recovering pancreata for research that might just languish on a shelf. This does require Congress to make a small change. But it's a small change that should be basically uncontroversial. There's nothing for most OPOs or for advocates trying to maximize donations to dislike here, and there's lots for islet cell researchers to love. It's a small fix that could go a very long way.