The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is under fire as House Oversight Chair Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) launches an investigation into allegations that the agency has discriminated against supporters of Donald Trump. Whistleblower reports suggest that anti-Trump bias has been rampant within FEMA for years, raising serious concerns about fairness in disaster relief efforts.

“[O]n the condition of anonymity, a FEMA official stated that the practice of avoiding ‘white or conservative-dominated’ areas is an ‘open secret at the agency that has been going on for years,’” Comer wrote in a letter to FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell.

The investigation was sparked after FEMA terminated one of its hurricane response supervisors, who reportedly instructed workers to avoid “Trump houses.” The employee has publicly claimed she was following orders and adhering to a longstanding agency culture.

Comer, along with over two dozen Republican lawmakers, has demanded FEMA provide internal policies, spending data, and incident reports. Their request is bolstered by additional whistleblower accounts.

“Additionally, another whistleblower contacted the Committee during the hearing,” the lawmakers’ letter stated. “This individual informed the Committee that a FEMA contractor warned a disabled veteran’s family in Georgia to remove Trump campaign materials from their home because FEMA supervisors viewed Trump supporters as domestic terrorists.”

Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) further criticized FEMA during a recent hearing, citing complaints from 35 of his constituents who alleged similar discrimination. The lawmakers also questioned FEMA’s recent emphasis on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which the agency named its top strategic goal in its latest report.

FEMA has also faced criticism over its spending priorities. “In the fiscal year of 2023, FEMA spent nearly a billion dollars, $789 million, to shelter illegals in the United States,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said at the hearing. “This past year it was $641 million, and this money is largely distributed through NGOs…and this was to house illegal aliens. Not Americans, who by the way all that money, that comes from Americans bank accounts when they write their checks to pay their taxes.”

Administrator Criswell responded by pledging to request an Inspector General investigation into the discrimination claims. While she does not believe the fired employee’s actions reflect a systemic problem, Criswell admitted FEMA has revisited homes that were allegedly skipped and vowed to prevent future incidents.

“The Committee is in the process of investigating these claims,” the Oversight letter stated. “If they are true, they would corroborate concerns that political discrimination extends beyond [the fired FEMA employee]. Furthermore, they suggest an apparent culture, whether sanctioned or not, within FEMA to politically discriminate against disaster survivors, specifically those who support President-elect Donald Trump.”

As the investigation unfolds, lawmakers are pressing for accountability and a reassessment of FEMA’s operational priorities. Whether the claims point to isolated incidents or a larger cultural issue remains to be seen.

A $10 million study on the mental health effects of puberty blockers in transgender youth has become a focal point in the ongoing debate over gender-affirming care in the United States. Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, a prominent advocate for transgender rights and the study’s lead researcher, has chosen to withhold the results, citing concerns that the findings could be used against gender-affirming care for children. This decision has sparked criticism from both fellow researchers and opponents of puberty blockers, who argue that withholding the study is contrary to scientific standards.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded study, which began in 2015, tracked 95 children, with an average starting age of 11, as they received puberty blockers—medications designed to delay the onset of physical changes during puberty. After two years, the study found that the mental health of the children had not improved as a result of the treatment. Olson-Kennedy explained in an interview with The New York Times that the participants’ mental health was relatively stable before and after treatment, attributing the lack of significant change to the children being “in really good shape” mentally from the outset.

However, this finding contradicts earlier data gathered by the study, which indicated that roughly 25% of participants experienced symptoms of depression or suicidal thoughts before starting treatment. The decision not to publish has raised questions about scientific transparency and integrity, particularly in a field where public opinion is sharply divided and access to reliable data is critical.

Critics argue that withholding research results due to concerns over their potential misuse sets a dangerous precedent. Amy Tishelman, a clinical and research psychologist who was involved in the study, told The New York Times that while she understands the fear of data being “weaponized,” the results should be made public. “No change isn’t necessarily a negative finding—there could be a preventative aspect to it,” she said, emphasizing the need for further investigation.

Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist and expert on transgender youth, expressed her dismay, calling the decision “shocking” and “disturbing.” She argued that it is the responsibility of researchers to share their findings, regardless of the potential backlash, noting that “it’s not her prerogative to decide based on the results that she will or won’t publish them.”

Olson-Kennedy’s decision is rooted in concerns about how the study’s results could be used in legal battles against gender-affirming care for minors. She noted that critics might leverage the findings in court cases to challenge the use of puberty blockers, especially as more than 20 states have passed bans or restrictions on such treatments in recent years. Olson-Kennedy emphasized the need for a careful and thorough analysis before releasing the study, saying, “It has to be exactly on point, clear and concise. And that takes time.”

This delay has drawn criticism from those who believe that research should be released without bias, with the aim of fostering informed debate. Opponents of withholding the data argue that the results could contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the effects of puberty blockers and help inform future medical decisions.

The controversy around the study comes amid a broader international reevaluation of puberty blockers and gender-affirming care. England’s National Health Service (NHS) recently limited the use of puberty blockers for minors, following a review that found the evidence for their benefits was limited. Similarly, Finland’s leading pediatric gender medicine expert, Dr. Riittakerttu Kaltiala, has advised caution, stating that a majority of gender-questioning children eventually come to accept their bodies without the need for medical intervention.

In contrast, the 2011 Dutch study, which has served as a cornerstone for advocating puberty blockers, found that the treatment led to improved mental health and reduced emotional distress in transgender youth. The differing outcomes between the Dutch research and Olson-Kennedy’s study underscore the complexities of this evolving field.

With the scientific and medical community divided over the best approach to treating gender dysphoria in children, many stress the need for open access to research findings. Transparency in studies like Olson-Kennedy’s is seen as crucial for developing an evidence-based understanding of how best to support transgender youth. “We’re craving information about these medical treatments for gender-questioning youth,” Anderson said, adding that releasing such data helps ensure that the care provided is rooted in the best available science.

While Olson-Kennedy’s concerns about the potential misuse of the study’s findings are understandable, critics argue that the decision to withhold the data undermines the values of scientific integrity and public trust. As debates about gender-affirming care continue to unfold across the country, the need for clarity, honesty, and evidence has never been more pressing.