Consumers' Research Launches Campaign Against Mount Sinai, Citing DEI Spending, Pediatric Gender Procedures, and Epstein Donations

What Consumers' Research Is Alleging

Consumers' Research, a Washington-based consumer protection nonprofit, launched a campaign targeting Mount Sinai Health System, one of New York City's largest hospital networks, according to The Center Square. The campaign includes a mobile billboard circling the Mount Sinai campus, a dedicated website, and digital advertising aimed at Capitol Hill audiences.

Will Hild, executive director of Consumers' Research, told The Center Square that "Mount Sinai is another example of a nonprofit hospital that has seemingly abandoned its core mission of patient care in favor of a radical political agenda."

The group's specific allegations include that Mount Sinai performed "over 130 sex change procedures on kids," provides "transgender resources for 8-year-olds," runs diversity, equity, and inclusion programs funded in part by taxpayer dollars, engages in climate activism, and accepted donations from convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein while giving him "special access to doctors and hospital resources."

Hild told The Center Square that "taxpayers and elected officials need to be aware that health systems are misusing their resources and these practices need to be examined by lawmakers."

What the Source Material Actually Establishes

This article's sole source is ZeroHedge, which republished a piece from The Center Square. Neither outlet independently verified Consumers' Research's underlying data. The specific figures—130-plus procedures, resources for 8-year-olds—come entirely from Consumers' Research's own campaign materials, not from audited hospital records, peer-reviewed studies, court documents, or regulatory filings.

The Epstein connection is the most serious claim. Whether Mount Sinai accepted Epstein donations is a matter that has been reported in other contexts: Epstein cultivated relationships with major academic medical institutions, including Harvard and MIT, before and after his 2008 conviction. If Mount Sinai received Epstein money, that would be verifiable through donor records or public reporting. Consumers' Research does not, in these source materials, cite a specific dollar figure, date, or document. That does not mean the claim is false. It means it is unverified here.

As of June 17, 2026, Mount Sinai's media relations office had not responded to The Center Square's request for comment. No regulatory investigation into Mount Sinai has been announced, and no charges have been filed.

The Strongest Case for Taking This Seriously

Skeptics of campaigns like this one often dismiss them as culture-war theater.

Nonprofit hospitals receive enormous federal benefits: Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, tax exemptions, and in some cases direct federal grants. The question of whether those resources are being directed toward clinical care or institutional advocacy is a legitimate accountability question regardless of where you sit politically. If a hospital system is spending nonprofit dollars on DEI bureaucracies, gender-transition procedures for minors without adequate informed-consent processes, or maintained relationships with a convicted sex trafficker, those are facts that matter to patients, parents, and taxpayers. Consumers' Research is asking the right question even if its campaign materials are advocacy, not journalism.

Pediatric gender medicine is also not a settled-science question. The UK's NHS significantly restricted puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors following the Cass Review published in 2024, citing insufficient evidence of long-term benefit and evidence of potential harm. Several U.S. states have restricted or banned such procedures for minors. A major American hospital performing more than 130 such procedures on children is a data point that warrants independent, documented scrutiny.

What's Missing From This Story

Consumers' Research is an advocacy organization, not a neutral watchdog. Its campaigns are designed for political effect. That doesn't make the underlying claims wrong, but it means the numbers and framing need independent verification that these sources do not provide.

Mount Sinai has not had a chance to respond on record. The hospital may have documentation showing the "130 procedures" figure is misleading, that the Epstein relationship was severed promptly, or that its DEI programs are funded through non-taxpayer revenue streams. Those responses, if they come, will matter.

The ZeroHedge/Center Square reporting also does not separate what Consumers' Research alleges from what has been established by independent reporting or public records.

What Comes Next

Consumers' Research told The Center Square its goal is legislative scrutiny. The group has run similar campaigns against other hospital systems. Whether any committee in Congress or the New York state legislature takes up oversight based on this campaign remains to be seen. The more concrete near-term test is whether Mount Sinai responds publicly and whether any journalist or regulatory body independently audits the specific numbers Consumers' Research is putting on billboards around the hospital's own campus.