Shortly after taking the oath of office on January 20, 2025, President-elect Donald Trump issued two Executive Orders: One halted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within the federal government, and another mandated the use of “sex,” rather than “gender,” in official federal documents while simultaneously terminating federal funding for gender-affirming care. In the days that followed, institutions across the country began dismantling their DEI programs to align with these new directives, and the health care sector was not exempt. A following federal memo and directive required CDC scientists to pause or withdraw any publications containing “forbidden terms,” including references to “gender,” “transgender,” “pregnant person,” “LGBT,” “transsexual,” and “non-binary.”

The CDC allocates a substantial portion of its $11 billion budget to initiatives addressing social determinants of health, maternal and infant health, and the prevention of HIV and cancer. These programs and more stand to be significantly affected by these new regulations. The abrupt removal of gender-related content from the CDC’s website exemplifies the broader consequences of these policies. Although some webpages were later restored, the initial action established a concerning precedent: Scientific information linked to DEI principles can be censored, undermining the integrity of medical research and eroding public trust in health care institutions.

The ramifications of these directives are particularly troubling given that DEI is inextricably woven into the practice of medicine. To be a health care provider is to care for patients from diverse backgrounds with an understanding that equitable treatment is paramount. Medical accuracy necessitates the use of precise terminology when addressing patients. Just as we distinguish between “diverticulosis” and “diverticulitis” to ensure appropriate treatment, we must acknowledge individuals’ unique identities to provide respectful and effective care.

Medical students represent the future of health care and play a pivotal role in shaping its evolution. The elimination of inclusive terminology from medical education risks reversing decades of progress in patient-centered care and training the next generation to not be familiar with modern medicine. The chilling effect of these policies is already evident. During my pediatric clerkship, I have encountered adolescents expressing concerns related to gender identity. Despite my prior commitment to these discussions, I found myself hesitating to engage, fearing professional repercussions. A similar trend has emerged following the criminalization of abortion in certain states, where physicians increasingly refrain from performing necessary procedures to avoid legal jeopardy.

Beyond its impact on medical education, these policies impose additional barriers to health care access for marginalized populations. As a future physician, I am deeply concerned about the implications for my patients, particularly in rural communities, where disparities in health care access are already profound. These policies threaten to further restrict the provision of comprehensive care, ultimately diminishing our capacity to serve vulnerable populations effectively.

Supporters of these policies argue that they restore focus to the fundamental mission of health care, contending that DEI initiatives detract from clinical excellence. However, this perspective is fundamentally flawed and overlooks the realities of modern medical practice.

The assertion that “medicine should be apolitical” is historically and factually inaccurate. Medicine has always been influenced by political decisions, from public health initiatives to health care legislation. As medical students who have engaged in advocacy at both state and national levels, we have witnessed firsthand the profound impact of political policies on patient care. The targeted scrutiny of DEI in medicine is itself a political act that obstructs evidence-based practice.

Critics also argue that “DEI terminology is unscientific and confusing.” Yet, medical language evolves alongside scientific understanding. Homosexuality was classified as a psychiatric disorder in the DSM until 1973, a classification now recognized as both scientifically and ethically indefensible. Similarly, inclusive and precise terminology is not only scientifically valid, but also essential for delivering high-quality, patient-centered care.

Finally, some contend that “patients do not care about these terms.” This claim is demonstrably false. In my experience on a child psychiatry ward, I encountered numerous patients struggling with body image and gender dysphoria. Many of these individuals had faced significant discrimination, which directly contributed to their mental and physical health challenges. The first step in providing compassionate and effective care to these patients is acknowledging their identities with appropriate language. Terminology is not a trivial concern; it is a fundamental aspect of respectful, evidence-based medical practice.

Health care professionals must actively advocate for inclusive, evidence-based practices. It is our ethical obligation to protect the rights and dignity of our patients. Silence in the face of these regressive policies amounts to complicity.

Medical students hold a unique position in addressing these issues because they represent both the future of medicine and the bridge between evolving medical knowledge and established clinical practice. Their training is actively shaped by policies governing medical education, and they are uniquely positioned to witness the real-time consequences of these shifts, both in the classroom and during clinical rotations.

How can we help? Medical students are often at the forefront of advocacy, engaging in organized efforts through institutions like the AMA, AAMC, and specialty organizations. Their status as trainees allows them to question, challenge, and help reform outdated policies without the same institutional constraints that attending physicians or faculty may face.

Additionally, medical students have direct access to academic research and are learning medicine in an era when inclusivity has been increasingly emphasized as a best practice. By pushing back against regressive policies, they can contribute to preserving the integrity of medical education and ensuring that future physicians are equipped to provide competent, equitable care. We can help with pushes on smaller levels, such as in institutions and courses in our medical education.

Medical students can also contribute meaningfully to patient care by empowering individuals to become active stewards of their own health, including how they are addressed. Patients must recognize their right to be treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve. This helps uphold the highest standards in both medical research and clinical care.

The policies enacted by the current administration pose a grave threat to the progress achieved in medical inclusivity and evidence-based care. If these measures go unchallenged, the consequences will be profound, not only for current patients but for the future of medical education and practice. As members of the health care community, we must unequivocally reject these regressive policies and reaffirm our commitment to compassionate, science-driven medical care for all individuals, irrespective of gender identity or background.

Shashank Madhu is a medical student.