WEDNESDAY, Feb. 12, 2025 (HealthDay News) — A federal judge has ordered the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to restore access to public health websites that were removed or modified in response to a Trump administration executive order on gender.
The order, issued Feb. 11 by U.S. District Judge John Bates, grants a temporary restraining order requested by Doctors for America, a nonprofit group that sued the administration over the website removals.
The affected sites, some of which have been online for decades, contain public health information on HIV prevention, youth health risks, fertility treatments and more.
The ruling states that the two health agencies removed the sites without explanation and likely violated federal law.
“By removing long relied upon medical resources without explanation, it is likely that … each agency failed to ‘examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action,’” Bates wrote.
He ordered the CDC and FDA to restore access by the day’s end Tuesday, a process that staff members were scrambling to complete.
“It was a double waste for us because we took them offline, put some of them back, edited others and now are putting it back again,” a federal health official who wanted to remain anonymous told The Washington Post.
The removed sites included:
-
The CDC’s guidelines for HIV and PrEP, a medication that reduces the risk of contracting AIDS.
-
The CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index — which was key to identifying high-risk hot spots during COVID.
-
FDA databases that track diversity in clinical trials.
-
The National Assisted Reproductive Technologies Surveillance System, which monitors fertility treatment success rates.
-
Information on youth health risks.
Some researchers also reported that scientific studies on racial health disparities were removed, The Washington Post reported.
Lucia Leone, an associate professor of community health and health behavior at the University of Buffalo, said in a social media post that a 2017 study she co-authored on food access in low-income communities was taken down, likely because it contained the word “diverse.”
Physicians and researchers were alarmed about the removals.
“Restoring access to this vital data is welcome news, if it happens,” Dr. Steven Woolf, director emeritus and professor of family medicine and population health at Virginia Commonwealth University, told The Washington Post. “But this list doesn’t cover everything that has gone missing.”
Some doctors who treat HIV patients said they were already struggling without the CDC’s HIV and PrEP guidelines.
“We recently had an outbreak of chlamydia at the high school where I work and are actively meeting with school leadership to address increasing our efforts around STI testing and prevention,” Dr. Stephanie Liou, who screens students for sexually transmitted infections and prescribes PrEP, said in a court declaration. “Without these crucial CDC resources, I am not able to do my job to help address this urgent situation that is affecting our youth.”
Dr. Reshma Ramachandran, assistant professor at the Yale School of Medicine, said the CDC’s contraceptive guidance for providers was also removed, The Washington Post reported.
“I take care of female patients of reproductive age, many of whom have other medical conditions making it imperative to select the appropriate contraceptive that would not interfere with their existing comorbidities and other medications,” Ramachandran explained.
The lawsuit argues that the CDC and FDA violated federal law by failing to follow correct procedures for removing public information.
The Justice Department, defending the Trump administration, claimed Doctors for America lacked legal standing to challenge the actions. It said the sites could still be accessed through an online archive called the Wayback Machine, The Washington Post reported.
“The doctors just prefer not to search,” Justice Department attorney James Harlow argued in a legal filing. “But one’s ‘desire’ for information from a preferred government source and in a preferred format does not establish informational injury when the content is otherwise obtainable.”
Bates’ 21-page opinion rejected that argument, ruling that the health agencies’ actions would harm “everyday Americans, and most acutely, underprivileged Americans, seeking health care.”
“If those doctors cannot provide these individuals the care they need (and deserve) within the scheduled and often limited time frame, there is a chance that some individuals will not receive treatment, including for severe, life-threatening conditions,” Bates wrote.
More information
Read the full memorandum opinion here.
SOURCES: The Washington Post, media report, Feb. 11, 2025; Memorandum opinion, Doctors for America v. Office of Personnel Management et al., Feb. 11, 2025
Stay up to date on the latest in health — Click here to subscribe to our weekly newsletter!
Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.
