Vice President JD Vance has referred doctors and medical entities to the Department of Justice following a major report that exposed practices allowing providers to benefit from gender-affirming care. “This Administration will not stand idly by while some in the medical community harm our children in search of profit. That is why today I am referring this matter to the Department of Justice to launch a federal criminal investigation,” Vance wrote on social media. “We will stop this fraud and restore trust in public health.” In his letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche, Vance described that “some pediatric gender clinics and children’s hospitals have apparently used misleading or even fraudulent diagnostic and billing codes to ensure that insurance companies will cover the procedures.” Miscoding the diagnoses has “allowed hospitals to bill insurance companies tens of millions of dollars for medications like puberty-blocking drugs,” he wrote, adding, “When providers miscode treatment in order to secure insurance coverage for gender-transitioning interventions that insurance would not otherwise cover, they should be held accountable.” If providers have “done so intentionally,” Vance said, “thereby perpetrating a fraud on Medicaid or on private insurers, they should go to prison.” This Administration will not stand idly by while some in the medical community harm our children in search of profit. That is why today I am referring this matter to the Department of Justice to launch a federal criminal investigation. We will stop this fraud and restore trust in… pic.twitter.com/FCAsl4wpY4— JD Vance (@JDVance) August 13, 2026 The report at the center of the referrals, called “Wolves in White Coats: How Doctors and Hospitals Pushed and Profited from the Fraud of ‘Gender Medicine,'” describes what HHS said is “insurance coding practices, perverse financial incentives, and the provision of sex-rejecting procedures for minors.” According to the report, more than 225 hospitals and health systems across the country created gender programs for minors. Using claims data from 2015 to 2025, the report found an estimated $50 million in insurance claims for puberty blockers billed using an endocrine disorder diagnostic code. Another nearly $11 million in claims for patients between the ages of 13 and 17 were billed under a precocious puberty code. The post Vance Calls for Criminal Probe Into Gender-Care Billing appeared first on American Faith.

The Trump administration released a final rule prohibiting the use of federal Medicaid dollars for so-called gender-affirming care for minors. The rule also blocks the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) plan from paying for gender-affirming surgeries. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a statement that officials “are ending federal taxpayer funding for sex-rejecting procedures on children. These interventions carry serious risks and can cause irreversible harm. The federal government will no longer use Medicaid and CHIP dollars to fund procedures that fail to meet the evidentiary standard our children deserve.” CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz similarly declared that children “deserve our protection, not experimental interventions that pose serious risks and convey no proven benefits.” “By cutting off federal funds for these sex-rejecting procedures, we’re following the science, saving taxpayer dollars, and, most importantly, protecting children from potentially irreversible harm so they can truly flourish,” he said. Last year, New York Attorney General Letitia James led states in suing HHS over actions that would prohibit hospitals from receiving Medicare and Medicaid funding if they engage in transgender surgeries for children. The filing asserts that Kennedy and HHS “cannot circumvent statutorily mandated notice and comment requirements by changing substantive legal standards by executive fiat.” It states, “The Kennedy Declaration has immediate, significant, and harmful impacts on the Plaintiff States as administrators of state Medicaid programs and as regulators of the practice of medicine” and “directly harms Plaintiff States’ abilities to administer approved state Medicaid plans in accordance with state laws that protect and guarantee medically necessary gender-affirming care.” The post Trump Admin Pulls Medicaid Dollars from Gender Procedures appeared first on American Faith.

A sweeping new Executive Order could significantly reshape childhood vaccine policy by prioritizing individualized recommendations, parental choice, flexible scheduling, and new scrutiny of vaccine safety. Listen to the audio version of this article: THE TOPLINE The executive order would reshape the childhood vaccine schedule by narrowing universal recommendations, shifting some vaccines to risk-based or shared decision-making categories, and directing HHS to study vaccine timing, sequencing, and spacing. It would expand parental and clinician choice by encouraging more individualized vaccination decisions, making separate measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines available alongside MMR, and prompting review of school vaccine mandates and exemptions. It calls for additional vaccine-safety research, including comparative studies of aluminum adjuvants, development of possible alternatives, stronger safety monitoring, and ongoing evaluation of the benefits and risks of childhood vaccines. President Trump’s August 10 executive order, “Delivering Gold Standard Childhood Vaccine Recommendations for Americans,” marks a significant change in federal vaccine policy. The order directs the federal government to align core childhood vaccine recommendations more closely with those of peer developed countries while preserving access to vaccines and giving parents and doctors greater discretion over individual decisions. The new framework divides recommendations into three categories: vaccines recommended for all children, vaccines recommended primarily for certain higher-risk groups, and vaccines to be considered through shared clinical decision-making. Universal recommendations would include vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, Haemophilus influenzae type B, pneumococcal disease, HPV, and varicella. Other vaccines, including hepatitis A and B, meningococcal vaccines, influenza, COVID-19, rotavirus, and dengue, would fall into risk-based or shared decision-making categories depending on the circumstances. ANH has long argued that there is a difference between asking whether an individual vaccine can prevent a particular disease and asking whether the entire childhood schedule—its timing, sequencing, combinations, and cumulative exposures—has been adequately studied. We’re not alone in asking these questions: a 2013 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine noted that key elements of the vaccine schedule have “not been systematically examined in research studies.” The executive order now directs the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to assess the “ideal timing and sequencing” of core childhood vaccines and revise the federal schedule where appropriate. More Choice on Timing and Combination Vaccines The order also calls for the combined measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine to eventually be available as three separate single-disease vaccines. Combination vaccines would remain available. It further states that, to the maximum extent feasible, childhood immunizations should be given at separate medical visits. Whether separating vaccines or spacing them differently produces better outcomes will require careful research. But giving parents and clinicians more options could allow vaccine decisions to be better tailored to an individual child rather than forcing families into an all-or-nothing approach. That is an important component of meaningful informed consent that has largely been absent from the discourse for many years. Aluminum Adjuvants Get a Closer Look Another significant provision directs HHS to develop alternatives to aluminum adjuvants and conduct comparative safety and efficacy studies. Aluminum salts have been used for decades in vaccines to strengthen the immune response. ANH has previously reported on questions surrounding cumulative aluminum exposure from childhood vaccines. A 2022 CDC-funded observational study involving more than 325,000 children found an association between greater vaccine-associated aluminum exposure before age two and persistent asthma later in childhood. A common refrain from those who tell us not to worry about these aluminum exposures is that aluminum is an abundant metal found in many foods, but this does not account for different absorption rates from aluminum ingestion versus direct injection.There are many issues with the use of aluminum in vaccines that we’ve raised for years. The FDA has set a limit on the amount of aluminum that can be in vaccines, but this number was based on the amount of aluminum required to enhance the effectiveness of the vaccine. The agency has not empirically determined the safest amount of intramuscularly injected aluminum, relying instead on mere belief that current levels are safe.The EPA determined a minimum risk level for orally ingested aluminum based on rat studies, which is often what is used to justify aluminum adjuvants in vaccines. The problem is that ingesting aluminum orally, where only about 0.25% is absorbed and then filtered by the kidneys, is very different than injecting it directly into muscle, where it may be absorbed at nearly 100% efficiency over time and can accumulate in organs, including the brain. This gap in evidence verifying the safety of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines, combined with evidence demonstrating the potential of real harm, is unacceptable and should understandably concern any parent who entrusts health authorities with the safety of their children. If aluminum remains the safest and most effective adjuvant for certain vaccines, rigorous comparative studies should demonstrate that. If safer or more effective alternatives exist, families deserve to know that as well. A Shift Toward Parental Choice The Executive Order also encourages states to review school vaccine requirements and directs federal agencies to examine protections involving parental authority, religious liberty, disability accommodations, and medical or religious exemptions where applicable under federal law. This could represent a broader philosophical shift in vaccine policy away from relying primarily on mandates and toward building public confidence through transparency, education, and informed consent.ANH’s advocacy has centered for decades on preserving patient choice, so this is a welcome change. Too often, state legislatures have moved to limit or eliminate exemptions to vaccines and thus restricting patient autonomy. We should all have a say over what medical procedures our children are exposed to, yet this foundational principle is too often abandoned when it comes to vaccines. The real test, however, comes next. Within 90 days, the HHS Task Force on Safer Childhood Vaccines must develop plans addressing vaccine timing and sequencing, aluminum alternatives, continuous risk-benefit evaluation, improved safety monitoring, and greater transparency. Families should not have to choose between unquestioning acceptance of every vaccine recommendation and rejecting vaccination altogether. There is room for a more evidence-based discussion about which vaccines are appropriate, for whom, at what age, in what sequence, and supported by what evidence. This executive order may finally move that conversation forward. Please share this article widely with your networks.The post Childhood Vaccine Schedule Gets a Major Reset first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

FDA’s proposed GRAS reform could deliver long-overdue transparency to what’s in America’s food supply—but unless the agency modernizes its approach to natural ingredients, consumers may pay the price in reduced innovation, choice, and access. Action Alert! Listen to the audio version of this article: THE TOPLINE FDA’s proposal would end undisclosed “self-GRAS” determinations by requiring companies to notify the agency and making GRAS notices and supporting information publicly available. Its exemption for traditional ingredients is tied to pre-1958 use and processing methods, potentially treating modern extracts, concentrates, fermented ingredients, and standardized botanicals much like genuinely novel chemicals. A better final rule would protect the streamlined pathway for existing ingredients, prevent companies from being penalized for FDA processing delays, and create lower-burden pathways for ingredients with a credible history of safe use. With GRAS reform being a headline priority for Secretary Kennedy shortly after he came into office, FDA has finally moved to reform a key pathway for how certain food ingredients come to the market known as the GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) system. That is overdue. But the agency’s proposed cure—delivered as a proposed rule on August 10—could punish the natural product sector. Simply put, these changes could make it harder to access a variety of functional foods, health foods, and ready-to-drink products that millions of consumers rely on. Reacting to the rule, ANH’s founder and Executive Director, Rob Verkerk, PhD, said: There are some positive elements in FDA’s proposal, particularly the attempt to bring legacy GRAS ingredients into a more transparent system without immediately forcing every long-established substance through a full new safety dossier. But FDA has missed the opportunity to create a genuinely risk-based, tiered system that distinguishes between novel substances and ingredients with decades of safe human use—and that leaves considerable legal and regulatory uncertainty while potentially asking an already resource-strapped agency to scientifically evaluate far more GRAS notices than it can realistically handle. FDA Ends Undisclosed Self-GRAS The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has unveiled a proposed rule that would require companies to notify the agency when they conclude that a substance is GRAS for a particular use in human or animal food. Under the current system, a company may reach an independent GRAS conclusion and place the substance into the food supply without notifying FDA. This practice is sometimes referred to as “self-GRAS.” (For more background, you can consult our previous coverage and our white paper.) The lack of transparency in the self-GRAS system has been its real weakness. It has allowed some companies—likely a small minority—to cut corners in the way they have self-affirmed the safety of ingredients in the knowledge there is no agency or independent scrutiny, leaving consumers, independent scientists, and even FDA without a complete picture of substances entering the food supply.  In our 2025 white paper, ANH has called for disclosure and accountability while warning that reform must preserve access to safe, beneficial natural ingredients. It makes little sense to subject a familiar nutrient with a long history of safe human consumption to the same default regulatory burden as a genuinely novel, new-to-nature chemical with no comparable history of exposure. A Welcome Off-Ramp for Ingredients Already in Use There is some good news. FDA did not propose forcing every currently marketed self-GRAS ingredient through a mandatory GRAS application program. Instead, self-GRAS ingredients already on the market before a final rule takes effect could use a time-limited streamlined submission. Speaking to this, ANH General Counsel Jonathan Emord said: While the rule does not mirror the recommendations we made to FDA in our white paper, it does take into account many of the factors we recommended. In particular, rather than mandate that all self-GRAS determinations be rendered void subject to the filing of new GRAS applications with FDA, the agency has instituted a GRAS notice requirement. Under this requirement, any party that wishes to introduce a food additive must send a GRAS notice to FDA. FDA will then either approve the notice or reject it. If the latter, then the party has to file a GRAS application and obtain formal approval from FDA. This notification system is far less draconian and will present far fewer market disruptions than the mandatory GRAS application system many feared would be adopted.” That is a partial win. It avoids the regulatory tsunami that could have followed if every existing independent GRAS conclusion had immediately required full review. It also gives FDA the information needed to build a more complete public inventory. …With an Important Caveat The proposed rule creates unnecessary legal uncertainty for companies that make these streamlined GRAS submissions. While FDA gives industry one year to make the filings, it sets no corresponding deadline for the agency to process or post them on its public list—yet the exemption from the full GRAS-notice requirement seems to depend on the submission being included on that list. FDA itself acknowledges that availability of the public list is necessary for industry to know whether the exemption applies. This problem is compounded where multiple companies market the same ingredient. FDA contemplates that once a streamlined submission is posted, any person may rely on that listing for the same substance and conditions of use, potentially avoiding duplicative filings. But until FDA actually posts the submission, other companies have no clear basis for relying on it. Faced with the same one-year deadline, multiple suppliers may therefore submit substantially identical notifications simply to protect themselves, generating needless paperwork for industry and precisely the administrative burden FDA says the streamlined pathway is intended to reduce. A company could submit all required information fully and on time yet remain in regulatory limbo for months, or longer, simply because FDA has not acted. The clearest interim solution will be for companies to cooperate on submissions, dividing labor on individual submissions between them, through trade associations and ANH’s own Corporate Leadership Circle. The final rule should make the exemption effective upon FDA’s receipt of a complete, timely submission, require the agency to post complete submissions within a short, defined period, and provide a searchable mechanism allowing companies to identify and rely on pending submissions covering the same substance and conditions of use. The Natural Ingredient Exemption Is Frozen in 1958 The proposal’s treatment of traditional ingredients leaves much to be desired. FDA would preserve a narrow exception for a food ingredient of natural biological origin that was widely consumed in the United States for nutrient purposes before January 1, 1958, without known detrimental effects or safety hazards, and only when processed using methods conventional before that date. That standard does not reflect how natural ingredients are responsibly made today. Modern extraction, isolation, concentration, fermentation, and standardization can improve consistency and quality without necessarily changing an ingredient’s chemical identity or materially increasing exposure. Yet a long-used botanical supplied as a standardized extract, isolate, or fermented preparation will likely fall outside FDA’s narrow exception. Take something like sulforaphane, a plant compound found at low levels in cruciferous vegetables like broccoli, cabbage, and kale. If a company were to isolate or concentrate sulforaphane from broccoli sprouts for use in food, the long history of eating broccoli and its young sprouts would not necessarily satisfy FDA’s exemption: consumers were not widely consuming isolated sulforaphane before 1958, and the modern extraction or concentration process itself may not have been conventional at that time. The result is that an ingredient derived from a familiar, long-consumed food could be pushed into the same mandatory notification framework as a genuinely novel substance simply because modern technology allows it to be delivered in a more standardized or concentrated form. This is exactly how the EU’s novel food program works and it has caused many challenges for modern botanicals caught in the crosshairs of over-zealous EU regulators. ANH proposed a more rational safe harbor: ingredients with at least 30 years of credible safe food use would enter a low-burden first tier, while modern preparations of traditional ingredients could qualify when they do not change chemical identity or materially alter the relevant exposure profile. FDA largely declined that risk-based approach. The FDA could also supply a non-exhaustive list of “grandfathered” ingredients under this clause so companies don’t need to guess which ingredients satisfy these criteria. Not Premarket Approval, but Still a Commercial Gatekeeper For new ingredients that do not qualify for an exemption, companies would have to assemble and submit a full GRAS notice. FDA proposes up to 45 days to decide whether to file it, followed by a 180-day evaluation period and as many as two 90-day extensions. That could mean 360 days of FDA evaluation after filing. Strictly speaking, a company would not have to wait for FDA’s final response before marketing. Once FDA files the notice, the notification requirement is treated as satisfied. An eventual “insufficient basis” letter would not erase compliance with the filing requirement, but FDA says it could inform post-market action. That distinction matters, but it does not eliminate the commercial risk. Investors, distributors, retailers, insurers, and larger brand customers may hesitate to support an ingredient while FDA review remains unresolved. But the burden is not speculative: FDA estimates 180 hours to prepare a full notice and concludes that the proposal would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In practice, a system can remain technically non-premarket while still becoming a de facto commercial gatekeeper. Large companies can spread compliance costs across bigger portfolios. A small botanical, nutraceutical, functional food, or ingredient company has far less room for delay, legal uncertainty, or a costly second submission. What This Could Mean for Consumers and Practitioners This all may sound very technical, but the practical effect on consumers will be real assuming the new rules go into law unchanged. If smaller suppliers decide that a new botanical extract, phytonutrient, fermentation-derived ingredient, or other natural compound is too expensive or uncertain to bring through the GRAS process, consumers may see fewer functional foods and beverages containing those ingredients, less competition, and potentially higher prices. Practitioners who rely on food-based approaches to help patients improve nutrition and metabolic health could likewise have fewer innovative products to recommend. There is also a subtler effect: innovation may migrate toward companies with the deepest pockets rather than toward the ingredients with the greatest potential benefit. ANH has warned that onerous evidence requirements can favor large corporations and create barriers for smaller natural-health innovators. That means the practical question is not simply whether an ingredient is legally permitted. It is whether anyone can afford to develop it, persuade retailers to carry it, and keep it on the market while regulatory uncertainty is unresolved. Transparency Is the Clear Win The proposal would make filed GRAS notices, FDA response letters, and non-exempt supporting information available through a public inventory. That advances a core ANH recommendation. New-found sunlight will be able to expose weak safety rationales, help responsible companies distinguish themselves, and give consumers and independent experts a clearer view of what is entering the food supply. But transparency should be paired with proportionality. A long-used nutrient or botanical should not face the same default burden as a genuinely novel substance with no meaningful history of human exposure. Next Steps ANH will press FDA to keep the streamlined pathway for existing uses, modernize the outdated common-use exception, and adopt tiered evidence requirements that focus agency resources on substances presenting genuine safety concerns. Reform should also preserve the public inventory and meaningful disclosure. ANH-USA will be submitting detailed comments prior to the close of the deadline for public comments on December 9, 2026. We must urge FDA to protect transparency without turning a food-safety reform into a barrier that entrenches large companies, sidelines responsible natural-product innovators, and shrinks consumer choice. Real reform should target risk, reward a credible history of safe use, and keep safe natural ingredients accessible. Action Alert! Post a comment to the FDA’s docket below to call for rational reforms to the GRAS system. The post FDA Gets GRAS Transparency Right, but Risks Natural Innovation first appeared on Alliance for Natural Health USA - Protecting Natural Health.

Federal food-safety officials say iceberg lettuce linked through epidemiological and traceback evidence to a major Cyclospora outbreak has been removed from the U.S. market. Acting Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Kyle Diamantas is urging Americans to remain confident in fresh produce, while the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention continue investigating an outbreak that has sickened nearly 2,000 people. Diamantas said Tuesday that Americans should feel confident eating fresh produce, including leafy greens. He said the FDA believes all iceberg lettuce associated with the Cyclospora outbreak was effectively removed from the market following a July 17 recall. Taylor Farms de Mexico, based in Guanajuato, Mexico, voluntarily removed all iceberg lettuce sourced from central Mexico from the U.S. market on July 17. The recalled lettuce had been distributed to food-service customers in 27 states between June 29 and July 16. The recall also included certain Marketside iceberg salad and shredded lettuce products sold at select Walmart stores. The outbreak investigation identified illnesses in nine states among people who reported exposure to Taco Bell. As of the FDA’s July 24 update, 1,947 people infected with Cyclospora and reporting Taco Bell exposure had been identified. At least 98 people were hospitalized, and no deaths were reported. The FDA initially reported that a lettuce sample supplied by Taylor Farms de Mexico had tested positive for Cyclospora. After laboratory experts reviewed the results, however, the agency determined the finding was a false positive. As of July 19, the FDA said it had no confirmed positive product samples for Cyclospora. That finding did not end the investigation or reverse the recall. The FDA said its epidemiological evidence and traceback investigation continued to converge on shredded iceberg lettuce supplied by Taylor Farms and sourced from growers in central Mexico. Diamantas said Tuesday that the agency remained “very confident” the iceberg lettuce from central Mexico was responsible for the outbreak. Cyclospora is a microscopic parasite that can cause an intestinal illness known as cyclosporiasis. Common symptoms include frequent diarrhea, loss of appetite, stomach cramps, nausea, fatigue and weight loss. Untreated cases can result in dehydration and other complications, according to the FDA. The FDA has also finalized updated guidance for companies that manufacture and process ready-to-eat fresh-cut produce. Recommendations include stronger sanitation controls, supplier verification, refrigeration, safe water practices and other measures designed to reduce biological contamination. The recommendations are guidance rather than legally binding requirements. Cyclospora presents a particular challenge because antimicrobial treatments used in wash water may not adequately control the parasite. The FDA said additional research into how Cyclospora contaminates fresh produce remains underway. The post FDA Says Lettuce Linked to Cyclospora Outbreak Is Off Market appeared first on American Faith.