Media Caught Gaslighting: Trump’s ‘Transgender Mice’ Claim Was True

Wren Crowe

1 week ago

President Donald Trump sparked significant debate during his March 2025 joint address to Congress when he claimed the government had spent $8 million “making mice transgender.” This assertion quickly became a flashpoint for controversy, with media outlets, fact-checkers, and the White House engaging in a contentious dispute over the accuracy of the statement. The ensuing discourse has raised important questions about scientific terminology, research funding characterization, and how media coverage shapes public understanding of complex issues. This report examines the competing narratives surrounding this controversy, the actual research being referenced, and the accusations of “gaslighting” that have emerged in its wake.

Trump’s Claim and Initial Reactions

During his address to Congress on March 4, 2025, President Trump highlighted what he described as wasteful government spending discovered by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Among the examples he cited was “$8 million for making mice transgender,” emphatically adding, “This is real”1 4. The claim immediately generated reactions across the political spectrum, with supporters viewing it as evidence of government waste and critics questioning its accuracy5 7.

The statement was part of a broader critique of spending under the previous Biden administration, alongside other examples like “$8 million to promote LGBT+ in the little-known African nation of Lesotho” and “$60 million for the empowerment of indigenous people and Afro-Colombians in Central America”7. The transgender mice claim, however, received particular attention and scrutiny from media outlets and late-night comedians, including Jimmy Kimmel, who devoted significant portions of his show to refuting the assertion5 7.

Following the speech, various fact-checking organizations, including CNN, initially labeled Trump’s claim as “false,” triggering a swift and combative response from the White House3 6. This exchange set the stage for what would become a heated dispute over scientific terminology, research purposes, and media representation.

In response to media fact-checks, the Trump administration released a statement titled “Yes, Biden Spent Millions on Transgender Animal Experiments”1 3 6. The press release directly challenged CNN’s assessment, referring to them as “Fake News losers” who “immediately tried to fact-check it,” while asserting that “President Trump was right (as usual)”3 6.

The White House document listed six NIH-funded studies that collectively totaled approximately $8.29 million2. These studies included research on:

A $455,000 project titled “A Mouse Model to Test the Effects of Gender-affirming Hormone Therapy on HIV Vaccine-induced Immune Responses”
A $2.5 million study on “Reproductive Consequences of Steroid Hormone Administration”
A $299,900 research project on “Gender-Affirming Testosterone Therapy on Breast Cancer Risk and Treatment Outcomes”
A $735,100 study on “Microbiome mediated effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy in mice”2

The administration’s defense appeared to be based on the premise that these studies involved administering cross-sex hormones to mice for research purposes, which they characterized as “transgender experiments on mice”1. This characterization would become a central point of contention in the ensuing debate.

Several media outlets, including Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show, suggested that Trump had confused “transgender mice” with “transgenic mice”

A significant aspect of the controversy centered on whether President Trump conflated or misused scientific terminology. Several media outlets, including Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show, suggested that Trump had confused “transgender mice” with “transgenic mice”5 7. As Kimmel explained on his program: “The government spent money on transgenic mice, which are genetically modified mice they use in lab tests to study disease. It has nothing to do with transgender, other than the ‘trans’ in transgenic”7.

This interpretation was echoed by others who defined transgenic organisms as those “whose genome has been modified by the introduction of one or more foreign DNA from another species through artificial means,” as referenced by the National Human Genome Research Institute3. Under this definition, transgenic mice are commonly used in medical research and have nothing to do with gender identity or transition.

However, other sources contested this interpretation, arguing that the studies in question did indeed involve administering hormones to mice that could be characterized as related to gender transition in humans1 2 6. PinkNews reported that one study, which received $477,121 between 2021 and 2022, was set aside “for research into how feminising hormones can affect the immune system, which involved tests on monkeys”6. This suggests some of the research did involve administering cross-sex hormones to animals, though for specific scientific purposes rather than simply “making mice transgender.”

Jeremy Faust, an emergency medicine physician and professor at Harvard Medical School, explained that such research involves injecting “a male mouse with hormones to induce more feminine traits” or vice versa, with the goal of “understanding the biophysical impacts” of hormones

A closer examination of the studies cited in the White House press release reveals they were primarily focused on understanding health effects of hormone treatments that might be relevant to transgender individuals receiving gender-affirming care2 3 6.

For instance, the Duke University project that received $455,000 was aimed at “developing an HIV vaccine that maximizes efficacy while minimizing adverse effects.” The grant money would be used to investigate “the immunological responses of transgender individuals, a group at significantly higher risk for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections”3. The research used mice to model these effects.

Jeremy Faust, an emergency medicine physician and professor at Harvard Medical School, explained that such research involves injecting “a male mouse with hormones to induce more feminine traits” or vice versa, with the goal of “understanding the biophysical impacts” of hormones3. Faust emphasized this aligns with “the actual goal of conducting experiments on mice: to investigate the effectiveness and risks associated with substances that humans utilize for medical purposes”3.

Other projects included a $2.5 million fertility study and a $300,000 analysis of breast cancer risks for transgender men that used mice in clinical tests6. One study that received $1.2 million specifically used “transgenic” mice rather than administering hormones to induce transgender-like characteristics6.

These nuances suggest that while mice were indeed being administered hormones that could alter their physical characteristics and biological processes, the purpose was to study health effects relevant to human medical care rather than to change the mice’s gender identity, as the phrase “making mice transgender” might imply.

The accusation of “gaslighting” in the context of this controversy stems from the perception that some media outlets were attempting to reframe Trump’s statement as entirely false by focusing on technical terminology or research intent, rather than acknowledging the core fact that government funds were used for studies involving cross-sex hormone administration to mice

The controversy surrounding Trump’s claim exemplifies how different media outlets can frame the same basic facts in dramatically different ways1 3 5 6 7 8. Some outlets emphasized technical accuracy in their coverage, noting that while Trump’s wording might have been imprecise, there were indeed studies involving hormone administration to mice8. Others focused on what they perceived as mischaracterization of the purpose and nature of the research3 5 7.

The accusation of “gaslighting” in the context of this controversy stems from the perception that some media outlets were attempting to reframe Trump’s statement as entirely false by focusing on technical terminology or research intent, rather than acknowledging the core fact that government funds were used for studies involving cross-sex hormone administration to mice8.

Yahoo News reported that after the White House criticism, CNN revised its fact-check of Trump’s remarks, “acknowledging that ‘an earlier version of this item inaccurately labeled Trump’s claim as false'”8. This revision has been cited by some as evidence that initial media reactions were overly dismissive or misleading.

The White Coat Waste Project, a non-profit organization advocating against animal testing, has reportedly documented “over $250 million has been spent on transgender-related animal experiments,” suggesting a broader pattern of such research beyond the specific examples cited by Trump8.

Navigating Scientific Accuracy and Political Communication

This controversy highlights the challenges of communicating complex scientific research in political contexts. The studies in question were designed to understand how hormone treatments affect various biological systems, with implications for human health care, particularly for transgender individuals2 3 6. However, describing such research as simply “making mice transgender” arguably oversimplifies both the methods and goals of the studies.

At the same time, insisting on precise scientific terminology in political speech may set an unrealistic standard. Political figures routinely simplify complex topics when communicating with general audiences, and determining when such simplification becomes misleading is often subjective and influenced by partisan perspectives.

The Mother Jones article acknowledges this tension somewhat humorously: “Are the mice transgender? No. Can we characterize them as ‘transgender experiments on mice’? Sure. Why not”1. This suggests that while technically inaccurate in some respects, Trump’s characterization might be considered a layperson’s interpretation of research that does involve administering cross-sex hormones to mice.

The ensuing debate about terminology and characterization reveals how technical distinctions can become politically charged, with accusations of “gaslighting” arising when media coverage is perceived as emphasizing semantic distinctions to dismiss substantive claims

The controversy over President Trump’s “transgender mice” claim illustrates the complex interplay between scientific accuracy, political communication, and media coverage. While the research he referenced did involve administering cross-sex hormones to mice, the studies were designed to understand health effects relevant to human medical care rather than simply “making mice transgender” as an end goal.

The ensuing debate about terminology and characterization reveals how technical distinctions can become politically charged, with accusations of “gaslighting” arising when media coverage is perceived as emphasizing semantic distinctions to dismiss substantive claims. Different outlets framed the same basic facts in dramatically different ways, reflecting the polarized nature of contemporary political discourse.

This case study demonstrates the importance of precision in discussing scientific research and government spending, while also highlighting the challenges of translating complex scientific concepts into accessible political language. As the controversy continues to evolve, it serves as a reminder of how seemingly straightforward factual claims can generate complex disputes about accuracy, context, and representation in our increasingly fragmented media landscape.

Trump’s Claim and Initial Reactions

Navigating Scientific Accuracy and Political Communication

Citations: