A group of 19 Democrat-led states and Washington, D.C., filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over a declaration that aims to restrict gender transition treatment for minors.

The lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; its secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.; and its inspector general comes after the declaration issued last week described treatments such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy and gender surgeries as unsafe and ineffective for children experiencing gender dysphoria.

The declaration also warned doctors they could be excluded from federal health programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, if they provide these treatments to minors.

The move seeks to build on President Donald Trump’s executive order in January calling on HHS to protect children from ‘chemical and surgical mutilation.’

‘We are taking six decisive actions guided by gold standard science and the week one executive order from President Trump to protect children from chemical and surgical mutilation,’ Kennedy said during a press conference last week.

HHS has also proposed new rules designed to further block gender transition treatment for minors, although the lawsuit does not address the rules, which have yet to be finalized.

The states’ lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Eugene, Oregon, argues that the declaration is inaccurate and unlawful and urges the court to prevent it from being enforced.

‘Secretary Kennedy cannot unilaterally change medical standards by posting a document online, and no one should lose access to medically necessary health care because their federal government tried to interfere in decisions that belong in doctors’ offices,’ New York Attorney General Letitia James, who led the lawsuit, said in a statement.

The lawsuit claims the declaration attempts to pressure providers into ending gender transition treatment for young people and circumvent legal requirements for policy changes. The complaint said federal law requires the public be given notice and an opportunity to comment before substantively amending health policy and that neither of these were done before the declaration was released.

The declaration based its conclusions on a peer-reviewed report that the department conducted earlier this year that called for more reliance on behavioral therapy rather than broad gender transition treatment for minors with gender dysphoria.

The report raised questions about standards for the treatment of transgender children issued by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and brought concerns that youths may be too young to give consent to life-changing treatments that could result in future infertility.

Major medical groups and physicians who treat transgender children have criticized the report as inaccurate.

HHS also announced last week two proposed federal rules — one to cut off federal Medicaid and Medicare funding from hospitals that offer gender transition treatment to children and another to block federal Medicaid money from being used for these procedures.

The proposals have not yet been made final and are not legally binding because they must go through a lengthy rulemaking process and public comment before they can be enforced.

Several major medical providers have already pulled back on gender transition treatment for youths since Trump returned to office, even those in Democrat-led states where the procedures are legal under state law.

Medicaid programs in just under half of states currently cover gender transition treatment. At least 27 states have adopted laws restricting or banning the treatment, and the Supreme Court’s decision this year upholding Tennessee’s ban likely means other state laws will remain in place.

Democrat attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, Washington state and Washington, D.C., as well as Pennsylvania’s Democrat governor, joined James in the lawsuit.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

A Christmas Eve jazz concert at the Kennedy Center was canceled just days after the White House announced that President Donald Trump’s name would be added to the iconic performing arts institution in Washington, D.C.

The show’s host, musician Chuck Redd, who has led the holiday ‘Jazz Jams’ at the Kennedy Center since 2006, said he called off his performance after Trump’s name was added to the facility.

‘When I saw the name change on the Kennedy Center website and then hours later on the building, I chose to cancel our concert,’ Redd told the Associated Press.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the Kennedy Center for comment. The Kennedy Center’s website lists the show as canceled.

The Kennedy Center’s board voted unanimously on Dec. 18 to rename the institution the ‘Trump-Kennedy Center,’ prompting swift backlash from members of the Kennedy family who said the decision undermined the legacy of President John F. Kennedy.

Maria Shriver, Kennedy’s niece, criticized the decision, calling it ‘beyond comprehension.’

Last week, workers added Trump’s name to the outside of the center, and the website’s header was changed to ‘The Trump Kennedy Center.’

Another Kennedy niece, Kerry Kennedy, vowed to remove Trump’s name from the building after he leaves office.

President Lyndon Johnson signed a bill in 1964 that designated the center as a living memorial to Kennedy following his assassination in 1963. The law prohibits the board of trustees from making the center into a memorial to anyone else or from putting another person’s name on the building’s exterior, the AP reported.

Trump was elected chairman of the Kennedy Center board in February, after removing 18 trustees appointed by former President Joe Biden.

Since Trump returned to office on Jan. 20, several artists have canceled performances at the Kennedy Center, including Lin-Manuel Miranda, who called off a production of ‘Hamilton.’

Redd has toured worldwide and performed with numerous musicians, including Dizzy Gillespie, according to his website bio.

Fox News Digital has reached out to Redd for comment.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

As President Donald Trump rolls out his TrumpRx proposal to cut prescription drug prices, economists are raising questions about what happens when prices are capped and whether short-term savings for consumers come at the expense of future medical breakthroughs.

On Friday, Trump announced deals with nine pharmaceutical companies to lower prices on certain medications for Americans, along with $150 billion in promised new investments in domestic manufacturing and pharmaceutical research.

The announcement builds on the administration’s Trump Rx initiative, a government-run portal designed to steer consumers toward lower-cost prescription drugs offered directly by manufacturers. The program is central to Trump’s effort to tie U.S. drug prices to those paid in other wealthy countries, a policy known as ‘most favored nation’ pricing.

But economists caution that price-lowering agreements don’t eliminate costs and often shift them elsewhere, particularly into reduced drug development, delayed innovation, or higher prices in other parts of the market.

Michael Baker, director of healthcare policy at the American Action Forum, said government price setting shifts costs rather than eliminating them.

‘At the most basic level, government price setting only limits what patients pay for a drug — usually reflected in an out-of-pocket or co-insurance payment,’ Baker said. ‘This does nothing to address the overall cost of the drug, which someone still has to pay, nor does it lower the cost associated with development.’

As a result, Baker said, patients ultimately bear those costs through tighter coverage rules, fewer treatment options or reduced future innovation.

‘Patients will experience far less of the crown jewel of the U.S. healthcare system that they are currently accustomed to receiving,’ he added.

Economists say the effects of permanent price caps would also be felt upstream, in research and development.

‘We know for sure that if drug prices are capped permanently below the levels the firm would have set, that will lead to lower incentives for R&D to discover new drugs and bring them to market,’ explained Mark V. Pauly, professor of healthcare management at The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

Pauly added that the impact is expected to be negative, but its scale — including how many drugs might never be developed and their potential value — remains highly uncertain.

‘I do not know the answer, but I know for sure no one else does either,’ he added.

Others argue the administration’s approach avoids the most damaging forms of price control.

Ed Haislmaier, an expert in healthcare policy and markets at The Heritage Foundation, said recent agreements appear to involve companies trading lower prices for benefits such as expanded market access or relief from other costs, including tariffs.

‘In such cases, companies are likely calculating that revenue losses from lower prices will be offset by revenue gains from more sales,’ Haislmaier told Fox News Digital.

‘The kind of government price controls that are most damaging to innovation are ones that limit the initial price a company can charge for a new product. That is the situation in some countries, but fortunately not yet the in the United States,’ he added.

Ryan Long, Paragon’s director of congressional relations and a senior research fellow, suggested that pricing pressure abroad could force foreign governments to shoulder a greater share of drug development costs.

Long said this strategy would lead ‘to lower prices for American consumers without sacrificing U.S. leadership in biopharmaceutical innovation that leads to new treatments and cures.’

As the year closes, Republicans are looking to the past for another dance with a partisan exercise that tested the party’s unity and delivered President Donald Trump his crowning legislative achievement of the year.

Budget reconciliation is how congressional Republicans rammed through Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ earlier this year. But it’s a time-consuming, labor-intensive process that laid bare intra-party divisions and nearly exploded before liftoff.

Still, some Republicans want to take another stab at reconciliation, which allows a party in power to advance legislation with just a simple majority in the Senate as long as it adheres to strict, budgetary parameters.

‘We can do two more reconciliation bills without a single Democratic vote,’ Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told Fox News Digital. ‘Doesn’t mean we wouldn’t welcome Democratic votes, but we can do them without a single Democratic vote.’

Turning once again to reconciliation would help Senate Republicans, in particular, address one of Trump’s desires to kill the 60-vote filibuster threshold in the upper chamber without changing the precedent that Democrats, for years, have threatened to do.

But they need a plan, first.

That would come from Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the de facto maestro of the reconciliation process. His committee was responsible for drafting the budget resolution that unlocked the process in the upper chamber earlier this year, and he is reportedly eying drafting another resolution in the new year.

‘It would be political malpractice not to do another reconciliation,’ Graham told Semafor.

But many Republicans acknowledged just how difficult reconciliation is, especially after the latest exercise that dominated much of Congress’ attention for the first half of the year.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told Fox News Digital that ‘it’s always hard, but it’s an option, and one that we’re not ruling in or ruling out.’

‘I would say you have to have a reason to do it, you know,’ Thune said. ‘I mean, you don’t just do reconciliation for the heck of it. You got to have a, you know, a specific purpose. And so we’ll see. I mean, that purpose may, you know, may start getting some traction.’

Kennedy floated using reconciliation to tackle affordability issues, but some see the painstaking process as an avenue to grapple with another issue that has dominated Congress for several months: healthcare.

Lawmakers left Washington, D.C., without a fix to expiring Obamacare subsidies, effectively setting up a drastic hike in out-of-pocket healthcare costs for millions of Americans. There are bipartisan negotiations in the works to deal with the issue when lawmakers return, but Republicans have a gnawing appetite to drastically change the program.

Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., told Fox News Digital that Republicans ‘have to do something’ on healthcare.

‘Reconciliation is one pathway to do something, but it also limits what we can do,’ Banks said. ‘So we need bipartisan support to pass something that will help everybody.’

And Sen. Jim Justice, R-W.Va., who has been critical of Republicans’ inability to get a healthcare solution across the line, told Fox News Digital that reconciliation ‘may be an answer.’

‘The healthcare situation is really, it’s a big deal,’ Justice said. ‘It’s more than difficult, you know? And so we need to, we need to try to fix it. That’s for sure.’

Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest is very much like a circus, and I mean that in the best possible way. A circus can travel anywhere, put up its tents and put on a show.

The scale of last weekend’s event in Phoenix was nothing short of monumental, with 31,000 in attendance. That isn’t so far off of the estimated 50,000 souls who went to the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee.

To put it bluntly, TPUSA, along with other organizations, are capable of producing a much-needed midterm convention and a city like Phoenix, which hosted the conservative confab admirably, is exactly where it should be held.

As I’ve written in this column before, a midterm GOP conventionmidterm GOP convention, though a tad unconventional as a concept, is exactly what Republicans need to put Trump and his policy wins front and center before the electorate.

John and Lucy, a couple in their 40s who I met at the event, told me it was their first AmFest.

‘The energy is amazing,’ Lucy said. ‘I didn’t know what to expect, but I didn’t expect this.’

John concurred, saying, ‘This is like a rock concert, fireworks and loud music, I think it gets everyone pumped up.’

The atmosphere at AmFest was a whizzing and whirring technicolor explosion of light and sound, all resounding toward the goal of forwarding the conservative movement.

There is little doubt that 10 minutes at a pulsating and intense live event like Amfest – or a Trump rally – is worth 10 days of on-screen ads. It hits attendees in each of their five senses, and 50,000 may not sound like much, but that’s a veritable army to send back home in an off-year election.

One eager young conservative I met, Matt, who is studying finance in grad school and sports what might now be called the TPUSA mustache, told me, ‘I’d totally go to a midterm convention. Hell, I’d just go for the parties.’

That may sound a bit shallow to some, but it also sounds like exactly the kind of positive energy that a winning political movement needs.

When it comes to the question of where to hold a midterm convention, Phoenix can teach would-be convention planners a lot about the key question of location, location, location.

In places like New York City or Chicago, AmFest would have brought out hundreds of protesters, including many of the dangerous Antifa variety. Even vastly smaller events like a recent Mom’s For Liberty conference in Philadelphia attracted angry mobs.

In Phoenix, I never saw more than a dozen or so, and they were far more silly than menacing.

It’s worth noting that the local news channels did choose to focus almost as much attention on this bedraggled band of apparently unemployed naysayers as they did the tens of thousands inside the event.

Funny that.

But around the clean and very pretty downtown of soft light and perfect temperatures, one felt little to no resentment or pushback at the sudden flood of red MAGA hats and sparkly Trump outerwear. Everything was cool.

I asked one of my Uber drivers, a longtime Phoenix resident, why he thought the city was so welcoming in this way.

‘Nobody is uptight about politics. Everyone has weird ideas, we have weird politicians,’ he told me, laughing at his own joke for moment before adding, ‘It’s always been like this.’

Phoenix is not the only prime location for a midterm convention. Oklahoma City is another, as is Nashville. These are thriving places with better than average governance that truly do highlight the accomplishments of the Trump administration.

JD VanceJD Vance told the crowd at AmFest, ‘Why do we penalize corporations that ship American jobs overseas? Because we believe in the inherent dignity of human work and every person who works a good job in this country.’

The best place to sell that very popular message is in the smaller American cities where the jobs are being created, not one of the great metropolises still clinging to the dream that one day everyone can just work for the government.

As of now, the GOP has somewhere just north of seven months to put together a midterm convention, but the good news is that it is also flush with campaign cash. And the conservative movement has organizations like TPUSA that are capable of coming together to pull it off.

If Republicans want to hold onto Congress and give Trump a runway for his final two years, then their first priority for the coming fall should be to bring the circus back to town.