1792 Insights
The 1792 Exchange is committed to delivering sharp, data-driven analysis of corporate America’s political entanglements. Discover what investors, executives, and concerned citizens should know regarding why businesses should return to neutral, mission-focused operations.
Delayed Study From Pro-Gender Ideology Researcher Finds Puberty Blockers Don’t Help Kids
A major taxpayer-funded study initiated in 2015 to observe the effects of puberty blockers and opposite-sex hormone therapies was finally released. The results are anything but shocking. While the authors were hoping to demonstrate that these unsupported therapies would prove beneficial, the study confirmed what every other credible study has shown: These drugs do not deliver the promised positive health outcomes for minors. The long-delayed findings from the NIH-funded Trans Youth Care study led by Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy have now been reported. It is notable that the final report was released only after the Oversight Project sued. Without these efforts, this data might still be buried. The study followed roughly 95 youth ages 8 to 16 on puberty blockers and tracked depression symptoms, emotional functioning, and parent-reported behavioral measures over a 24-month period. The results showed no significant improvement. Nada. Mental health metrics remained essentially “stable,” which was a kinder way of saying that the serious mental health conditions of the patients before receiving these controversial treatments remained serious afterward. There was no evidence of the positive clinical gains that had been repeatedly asserted to justify these interventions on developing children. These children not only had to continue suffering from their unfortunate mental health issues; now these …
What Your Company’s Pride Sponsorship Supports
Many Americans are asking why corporations continue to fund LGBTQ Pride events that include programming or vendors that most can agree are seen as inappropriate for children. At certain events, attendees may encounter nightclubs, alcohol brands, cannabis dispensaries, or drag performances that often contain sexually suggestive elements. Many families would not ordinarily choose to expose their children to these types of environments, leading some to question why such programming is viewed differently when presented under the banner of LGBTQ+ Pride or “inclusion.” Before sponsoring socially contentious events, companies should carefully consider how they want their brands to be perceived by consumers, shareholders, employees, and the broader public. While stakeholders may hold differing opinions on many social issues, protecting the well-being of children remains a widely shared concern. Corporate sponsorships communicate a company’s values and priorities, making it important to evaluate whether those partnerships support its long-term business objectives and appeal to a broad customer base rather than a narrow segment of the market. NYC Pride is sponsored by Target, which publicly committed in 2025 to stop sponsoring nonbusiness causes. The event includes Youth Pride, a program specifically designed for LGBTQIA+ youth, their families, and allies, with the stated goal of “empower[ing] …
Companies Reviewing GLP-1 Coverage Should Also Review Transgender Healthcare Coverage
According to reports earlier this month, Starbucks is ending GLP-1 coverage for its employees. Under its new healthcare plan, Starbucks will no longer cover prescription drugs used for weight loss, but it will continue to cover comprehensive transgender healthcare interventions, including reconstructive surgical procedures and puberty blockers, for covered dependents. Employers are pulling back on GLP-1 coverage largely for the same reason they are reconsidering other benefits: to adjust to rising healthcare costs. RxBenefits reports that GLP-1 drugs cost roughly $1,000–$1,500 per month, while SHRM estimates employers often shoulder 70–100% of prescription drug costs. With GLP-1s now accounting for around 20% of prescription drug spending and the number of users accelerating, employers face a limited set of choices: tighten eligibility requirements, shift more of the cost to employees or customers, or eliminate coverage altogether. If companies can reasonably reconsider GLP-1 coverage because of cost, uncertain return on investment, and broader questions over what an employer-sponsored health plan should cover, why should other expensive medical benefits, such as transgender medical interventions, be exempt from similar scrutiny? According to February 2026 data from the Human Rights Campaign, more than 550 major companies, including Starbucks, offer comprehensive transgender healthcare benefits to employees and covered dependents. While …
Gender Surgery for Minors Faces a Legal Reckoning
Last year, a federal court in Washington State ruled that Premera Blue Cross unlawfully discriminated when it refused to cover elective double mastectomies for two young girls. The decision read like a harsh warning to every employer: exclude gender-transition procedures for children from your health plan and risk an Affordable Care Act discrimination claim. But the story doesn’t end there. In July 2026, the United States filed a brief urging the Ninth Circuit to reject that court’s misguided reasoning. In a 39-page brief supporting Premera’s appeal, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division argues that declining to fund these elective sex-denying surgeries for minors is not sex discrimination. “Far from being discrimination on the basis of sex,” the brief states, “this sensible policy is rooted in biological reality, developmental psychology, and medical diagnosis.” The brief anchors its argument in the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, arguing that “regulating medical procedures on the basis of diagnosis does not automatically amount to discrimination on the basis of sex.” Premera covers a mastectomy for a teenage boy with gynecomastia and for a girl with breast cancer but declines to cover the same surgery when it is performed on healthy adolescents—boys and girls alike. The distinction, the brief argues, is …
Schwab and Walmart get it right on not covering “gender transitions” for minors
Consider the millions of working parents who show up every day at their jobs, work hard to support their families and pay into their company’s healthcare plans. They trust that their premiums will fund genuine medical care, not repeat one of medicine’s darkest mistakes. In our not-so-distant past, frontal lobotomies were performed to “treat” psychiatric conditions — despite limited evidence of effectiveness. The operations had devastating long-term effects and no proven medical benefit. It was not long before the world realized what a serious mistake was being committed and put a stop to this abusive “treatment.” Today’s unproven “gender-affirming” interventions on minors use surgery, hormones and puberty blockers to address a mental health condition with similarly irreversible consequences: permanent sterilization, the removal of healthy organs and lifelong physical and emotional damage. No responsible modern healthcare plan would cover frontal lobotomies, yet many quietly fund these experimental sex-denying procedures on children. Let us not repeat that shameful history on our gender-dysphoric youths. This is not healthcare. These are not medically necessary procedures. These are not minor adjustments or reversible treatments. They are costly, permanently damaging experiments on our children, who lack the maturity and legal capacity to count the cost of …
550+ Companies Covering Sex-Denying Procedures for Minor Dependents
According to February 2026 data from the Human Rights Campaign, 550+ companies provide health insurance coverage for transgender medical interventions, including puberty blockers, hormones, and surgical procedures, to covered minor dependents through their employee health plans. HRC reports this information after a corporate representative uses an online HRC portal to upload, or affirm a previously uploaded copy of, the company’s Summary Plan Description (SPD) or Summary of Material Modification (SMM) that explicitly shows coverage for transition-related care. The representative must also upload a copy of the company’s applicable clinical guidelines (medical policy). These companies range from major financial institutions and law firms to retailers, insurers, and tech giants. Shareholders, customers, parents, and employees deserve to know where their companies stand. 1792 Exchange calls on every company on this list to adopt clear protections for minor dependents in their healthcare plans and get back to business. A&O Shearman Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation Billtrust Box Inc. Griffith Foods Group Hanover Insurance Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey HSBC Holdings Linklaters Mayer Brown MERGE Moderna Neuberger Berman Group NTT DATA Services NTT Global Data Centers Americas PGA TOUR Publicis Health Publicis Media Sony Interactive Entertainment Sony Music Sony Pictures Steptoe Sutherland Global …