I don't think the New York Times coverage of gender clinic closures is that bad. What's missing, however, is genuine curiosity about why the hospitals agreed to settle.
This was not a decision taken lightly. It's fair to assume that gender clinicians and their allies within these hospitals, especially those located in blue states, face little-to-no opposition from other doctors or administrators.
It's also known that hospitals went to the mat to fight closure efforts previously. That's Exhibit A. So, what's changed? Why the seeming capitulation now?
Enter Exhibit B: mounting evidence of billing fraud, which comes from 3 sources.
(1) Inferentially, from billing of puberty blockers for treatment of central precocious (abnormally early) puberty in 14- and 15-year-olds.
(2) From gender clinicians and quasi-medical groups like WPATH, which has openly and explicitly recommended using "endocrine disorder" when billing for medical interventions in minors without an endocrine disorder (although they are likely to develop such a disorder as a result of treatment).
(3) From court records in resolved qui tam lawsuits (e.g., in Texas) that show evidence of False Claims Act violations.
The combination of these easily verifiable sources, together with the unexpected willingness of blue state hospitals to settle with the DOJ, should trigger curiosity about the leverage the DOJ actually had over NYU, Mt. Sinai, and other hospitals.
It seems highly implausible that hospitals in New York, with Letitia James and Mamdani paying close attention, would shutter their clinics and pay out millions of $ unless the DOJ had court-proof evidence of billing fraud.
Also, it's September 2026, and the New York Times still hasn't done an investigative report on how major medical associations and scientific journals have promoted misinformation and stifled debate on youth gender medicine.