Chloe Cole Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Onder, Robert F. [R-MO-3]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 15, 2026
Bottom line
The bill creates a broad federal legal pathway for individuals and families to seek damages from medical providers involved in gender-affirming care for minors, potentially leading to significant liabilities for healthcare entities.
What it actually does
This bill creates a federal private right of action, allowing individuals who, as children, underwent specific medical or surgical interventions intended to delay puberty or change their body to no longer correspond to their sex (defined as 'covered interventions'), or their parents/guardians, to sue involved healthcare professionals, hospitals, or clinics. It establishes strict liability for interventions performed after enactment and allows for compensatory, non-economic, and punitive damages, with retroactive application for past interventions.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill protects children from irreversible medical procedures that they may later regret, ensuring accountability for medical professionals who perform interventions deemed harmful. They contend that minors lack the capacity to consent to such life-altering treatments and that this bill provides a necessary legal avenue for redress for those who 'detransition' or experience adverse effects.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that the bill interferes with established medical standards of care for gender dysphoria, restricts access to medically necessary care for transgender youth, and could expose healthcare providers to undue legal risk for providing evidence-based treatment. They might also contend that it undermines parental rights to make healthcare decisions for their children and could lead to a chilling effect on medical practice.
The bill text is relatively short and readable, but its legal and medical implications require careful consideration.
Section 1
Short Title - 'Chloe Cole Act of 2026'
This section establishes the official short title of the bill as the 'Chloe Cole Act of 2026,' making it easier to refer to and identify the legislation. The name references an individual who has publicly shared her experience with detransitioning.
Supporters argue
Supporters would argue that naming the bill after an individual who has publicly shared her experience with detransitioning highlights the personal impact of the issue the bill addresses and galvanizes support.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that naming the bill after a specific individual is an emotional appeal that distracts from the broader policy implications or that it sensationalizes a complex medical issue.
Tradeoffs
The tradeoff is between using a personal story to build support and maintaining a neutral, policy-focused legislative identity.
Section 2(1)
Definition of 'Child'
This provision defines 'child' as an individual under 18 years of age, establishing the age threshold for who is covered by the bill's protections and who can be subjected to the 'covered interventions' that trigger the private right of action.
Section 2(2)
Definition of 'Covered Interventions'
This section broadly defines 'covered interventions' to include medical and surgical treatments intended to delay or halt natural bodily development (like puberty blockers) or to change an individual's body to no longer correspond to their sex (like cross-sex hormones or certain surgeries). It explicitly lists puberty blockers, sex hormones (e.g., estrogen, testosterone, anti-androgens), and surgical procedures that alter physical appearance or sexual organs.
Section 2(2)(B)
Exclusions from 'Covered Interventions'
This subsection specifies several exclusions from the definition of 'covered interventions.' These include medically necessary procedures for verifiable disorders of sexual development (intersex conditions), treatments for infections, injuries, diseases, or disorders caused or exacerbated by prior interventions, and interventions for diagnosed and verifiable conditions of the body's organ systems (e.g., traumatic injuries, congenital anomalies, acute illnesses).
Section 2(5)
Definition of 'Participate'
This section broadly defines 'participate' to include various roles in a covered intervention, such as prescribing, administering, performing surgical procedures, authorizing/directing as a supervisor or institutional representative, and knowingly planning or coordinating the provision of such treatments. This ensures a wide range of individuals and entities involved in the process can be held liable.
Section 2(6)
Definition of 'Sex'
This section defines 'sex' as an 'immutable biological classification, determined at the moment of conception, as either male or female.' It further specifies 'female' as a person who naturally has or would have the reproductive system for producing ova, and 'male' as a person who naturally has or would have the reproductive system for producing sperm, accounting for congenital anomalies or disruptions.
Section 3(a)
Establishment of Private Right of Action
This provision creates a federal private right of action, allowing individuals who underwent a 'covered intervention' as a child, or their parents/legal guardians, to sue any healthcare professional, hospital, or clinic that participated in the intervention. Crucially, this cause of action applies regardless of whether the alleged covered intervention occurred before, on, or after the date of enactment, making it retroactive.
Section 3(b)
Available Damages
This section outlines the types of damages available in such civil actions: compensatory damages (including costs for 'undoing, correcting, or ameliorating' effects), non-economic damages for emotional distress and pain and suffering, and punitive damages if malicious, intentional, fraudulent, or reckless conduct is proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Section 3(c)
Strict Liability for Post-Enactment Interventions
This provision establishes strict liability for any healthcare professional, hospital, or clinic proven by clear and convincing evidence to have participated in a covered intervention on a child after the date of enactment. It also places the burden of proof on the defendant to show by clear and convincing evidence that an exception (e.g., for intersex conditions) applies.
Section 5
Extended Statute of Limitations
An action under this Act can be brought within 25 years from the individual's 18th birthday or within 4 years from the time the cost of a 'detransition treatment' is incurred, whichever is later.
Establishes federal jurisdiction for the private right of action by broadly linking covered interventions to interstate commerce, including travel, payments, communications, and the use of items that have traveled interstate.
Section 3(d)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to ensure constitutional grounding, but its broadness is politically consequential.
Case for: Proponents argue it's necessary to ensure the bill's constitutionality and provide a consistent federal remedy across states, preventing states from creating loopholes.
Case against: Opponents contend it's an overreach of federal power into state medical regulation, using a very expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause to federalize a traditionally state-level issue.
Estimated impact: Effectively federalizes all potential lawsuits under this Act, allowing them to be brought in federal court regardless of state laws on medical malpractice or gender-affirming care.
For pre-enactment interventions, it limits deference to prevailing standards of care if they contradict the Act's intent and the provider 'knew or should have known' the standards were in 'serious, scientific, and medical dispute.'
Section 4(c)
Why it matters:Potentially evasive, as it significantly impacts retroactive liability without being explicitly stated as a core policy change. It shifts the burden of proof and historical medical context.
Case for: Proponents argue it ensures accountability for past practices that they believe were medically questionable even at the time, preventing providers from hiding behind potentially flawed historical standards.
Case against: Opponents argue it creates an impossible and unfair retroactive standard for healthcare providers, requiring them to have predicted future legislative changes and to have judged the 'dispute' level of their own field in hindsight.
Estimated impact: Greatly increases the vulnerability of healthcare providers to lawsuits for gender-affirming care provided to minors in the past, even if it was considered standard practice at the time.