> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.fdaweb.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Ex-FDA Leaders Accuse Trump Admin of Distorting Contraceptive Science
- URL: https://www.fdaweb.com/ex-fda-leaders-accuse-trump-admin-of-distorting-contraceptive-science/
- Published: 2026-03-02T12:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-14T13:34:36.000Z
- Author: David McFarland
- Tags: FDA Policy/General, #legacy-id-D5160744

Three former senior FDA officials have told a federal appeals court that the Trump administration mischaracterized the science on contraceptive safety when it expanded religious and moral exemptions to the Affordable Care Act’s birth control coverage mandate. In an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, former FDA commissioner **Margaret Hamburg**, former acting commissioner **Stephen Ostroff**, and former associate commissioner **Peter G. Lurie** argue that the administration “manufactured” uncertainty about the safety and effectiveness of FDA-approved contraceptives.

The [brief](https://www.cspi.org/press-release/trump-administration-distorting-science-safety-fda-approved-contraception-former-fda?ref=fdaweb.com), submitted in support of legal challenges brought by Pennsylvania and New Jersey, contends that the final rules expanding exemptions for employers who object to providing no-cost contraceptive coverage ignored FDA’s longstanding regulatory determinations and distorted data on risks and benefits. The states have argued that the rules violate the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide a reasoned explanation for the policy change.

The dispute traces back to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employer-sponsored health plans cover certain preventive services, including FDA-approved contraceptives, without cost-sharing. Religious groups including Little Sisters of the Poor objected to the mandate, prompting regulatory changes under the Trump administration to broaden exemptions.

In their filing, the former FDA officials emphasize that contraceptives were approved only after extensive premarket clinical trials and remain subject to post-market surveillance. They argue that the administration’s final rules cherry-picked data on contraception and pregnancy risks, conflated hormonal and non-hormonal products, and discounted FDA-approved labeling describing known side effects.

“Defendants have failed to provide a sufficiently reasoned explanation for asserting purported ‘uncertainty’ as to the safety, effectiveness and benefits of Covered Contraceptives,” the former officials wrote, adding that the FDA’s continued approval of the products affirms that they are safe and effective when used as directed.

Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said it is unreasonable for the government to cast doubt on an entire class of products with decades of safety data. “FDA requires years of clinical trials demonstrating safety and efficacy before drugs or medical devices reach the public,” Lurie said in a statement. “It’s unreasonable for the government to now cast doubt on an entire category of medicine that has a well-documented history of preventing unintended pregnancy and providing clear health benefits and that it had itself approved.”

The Third Circuit’s decision could have significant implications for employer-based contraceptive coverage nationwide.