The US government’s drive to eradicate wording relating to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) as well as ‘gender ideology’ from healthcare research has been called ‘digital genocide’ in an anonymous article published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ).
In the post, the anonymous author alleges that federal researchers have been handed a list of words and terms that could potentially lead to a research grant being pulled should they be included. These words include advocacy, bias, gender or inclusion among others.
At the same time, the author claims that US healthcare agencies have been informed by the US Department for Health and Human Services (HHS) to remove references to vulnerable groups and retract or pause the publication of any research manuscript being considered by any medical or scientific journal that contains the banned words.
It comes after President Donald Trump issued a flurry of executive orders on his first day in office, including ‘Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government’ and ‘Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing’. Additionally, he also signed an order pulling the US from the World Health Organization (WHO).
In the 12 February opinion piece, the author said: “I am a researcher within the federal system, and I hope that you will forgive me and understand why I am publishing this piece anonymously.
“The Center for Disease Control (CDC) and other federal organisations with health datasets have been told to remove data that relates to “gender ideology” even if it is not the same as the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) that is now considered so damaging.
“Removing these demographic data that track populations at risk will mean that community leaders and programme managers will no longer have evidence for decision making or resource allocation for those who need healthcare the most.
“This is digital genocide: populations of vulnerable people are being deleted.”
The post goes on to elaborate that data pertaining to transgender men and women as well as seemingly unrelated data about maternal mortality is at risk, potentially unwinding decades of research.
The BMJ article comes only a day after a temporary restraining order was issued against the HHS by the District Court for the District of Columbia demanding that previous pages and guidance published by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and CDC containing the offending language be reinstated pending further litigation after a lawsuit was filed against the federal government by the advocacy group, Doctors for America.
A boxed-out statement placed above the reinstated articles reads: “Per a court order, HHS is required to restore this website as of 11:59 PM on February 11, 2025. Any information on this page promoting gender ideology is extremely inaccurate and disconnected from the immutable biological reality that there are two sexes, male and female. The Trump Administration rejects gender ideology and condemns the harm it causes to children, by promoting their chemical and surgical mutilation, and to women, by depriving them of their dignity, safety, well-being, and opportunities.
“This page does not reflect biological reality and therefore the Administration and this Department reject it.”
On social media reaction to the publication has been notably minimal in the US, however, the BMJ article elaborates that reactions in the US to the news may have to be muted among researchers amid fears of being targeted by the administration amid a massive wave of job-cuts throughout the federal health services.
The news has however been met with universal condemnation from European professionals. Taking to LinkedIn, Marcel Kerkhoven, community care doctor for German firm, Inmens Zorgconcepten, said: “The shockwave that will undoubtedly run through the lives of Americans is unimaginable. Research and science are being pushed aside and knowledge about entire populations is being lost with the stroke of a pen.”
The BMJ author added: “The very fact that I am having to publish this anonymously in a country that has the right to free speech written into our Constitution is an indictment of what is happening. Like all federal employees in the US, I took an oath to the Constitution, not to a president or political party. I should be able to speak out without fear, but the judicial system is slow to react, appears overwhelmed with more important complaints than from one scientist, and perhaps has been compromised.”
