Michigan renewed the medical license of Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, the physician charged in America’s first federal FGM prosecution, through 2029 in seven minutes, with no human review, no screening of her complaint history, and no reference to the federal case or the cutting allegations anywhere in the renewal record.

Records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that Nagarwala submitted her renewal application on April 14, 2026 at 12:53 PM. By 1:00 PM, the system had emailed her a confirmation.

The production contained only what Nagarwala submitted and the automated system emails. Nothing in the record indicates anyone at the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs looked at Nagarwala’s file before extending her license by three years.

Her license number (4301071795) now shows an expiration date of June 19, 2029 in the state’s public licensing database. When this publication first reported on Nagarwala’s license status in January 2026, the same database showed an expiration of June 19, 2026. Her previous medical license is archived here and the new medical license is archived here.

LARA has at least four complaint files on this physician:

• The original civil investigation (43-XX-146153), which the agency closed in September 2018 with the disposition “No Action Taken” two months before the federal charges were even dismissed.

• The criminal monitoring file (146169), opened to track the federal prosecution.

• A 2019 complaint from a physician who called Nagarwala’s practice of genital cutting on children without anesthesia “torture,” which LARA dismissed by citing the monitoring file rather than the closed investigation.

• A 2025 patient complaint filed against Nagarwala by a patient she treated at GCH Westland Emergency Room.

LARA renewed Nagarwala’s license anyway.

The renewal application asks two good moral character questions. Both ask only about convictions not previously reported to the department. Since the federal case against Nagarwala was dismissed on constitutional grounds, Nagarwala was not required to disclose her history with FGM or the previous federal case against her.

The form does not ask about criminal charges, indictments, arrests, or investigations, open or closed, by this department. The sanctions question asks only whether another state or country has imposed sanctions. Michigan’s own history with the licensee is structurally invisible on its own renewal form.

A patient complaint filed in 2025 alleged Nagarwala improperly administered a drug injection at GCH Westland Emergency Room. Her controlled substance license was also renewed.

The renewal took place during a period when LARA’s own communications director had personally responded to this publication’s questions about whether the agency made false statements to Medscape about the status of the investigations, breaking a months-long pattern of silence across multiple published articles. The agency’s Director of Legal Affairs had been CC’d on correspondence from a Board of Medicine reviewer who treated the inquiry as a legal exposure question. FOIA requests targeting internal communications about the case were active and pending response.

None of that stopped the renewal.

Nagarwala was charged in April 2017 with performing genital cutting on young girls at a Livonia clinic, in what federal prosecutors called the first FGM case in U.S. history. The FBI identified nine victims between the ages of seven and thirteen from Michigan, Minnesota, and Illinois. Prosecutors estimated as many as 100 girls may have been cut over a twelve-year period. The federal case ended in November 2018 after U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman ruled the federal FGM statute unconstitutional. No party in the case disputed that the procedures occurred.

Michigan’s Board of Medicine authorized an investigation days after the federal arrest. Internal emails show LARA staff requested a summary suspension and administrative complaint. Neither was executed. Michigan never held hearings on her license. The state closed its investigation with “No Action Taken,” and the closure memo, authored by Assistant Attorney General Bridget K. Smith and addressed to then-Bureau of Professional Licensing Director Cheryl Wykoff Pezon, remains withheld in full under attorney-client privilege.

Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, who owned the Livonia clinic where prosecutors alleged the procedures took place, also holds an active, unrestricted medical license (No. 4301067384). His clinic is still open and his license does not expire until March 2027. As previously reported, LARA never assigned an investigator to his case and certified that “a traditional investigation was not conducted.”

No medical organization contacted for this investigation was willing to say that a physician who performed genital cutting on children should lose their medical license.

Subscribe now

Share

This is an ongoing investigation. If you’d like to support this work, you can contribute here: Expose Medical Board for Licensing an FGM Doctor.

State licensing records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request show the complaint was filed on May 17, 2025, through Michigan’s MiPLUS system. The patient reported that Nagarwala administered a 30-milligram ketorolac injection following a car accident involving a concussion. The incident occurred on April 28, 2025. The complaint lists Nagarwala’s business address as GCH Westland Emergency Room, 6245 Inkster Road, Garden City, MI 48135.

Garden City Hospital, asked to comment, provided a statement through a spokesperson describing Nagarwala as “an independent physician” who “is not employed by Garden City Hospital.” The hospital did not address whether she holds active privileges at the facility.

The statement characterized the federal prosecution as a case that was “dismissed by the courts.” The federal FGM charges were dismissed after the presiding judge ruled the statute unconstitutional, finding that Congress lacked authority under the Commerce Clause to criminalize the practice. The ruling addressed the law, not Nagarwala’s conduct.

The hospital said it maintains “rigorous screening and credentialing processes” including verification of “licensure, background, certifications, training, professional qualifications, and other relevant information,” but declined to say whether it was aware of Nagarwala’s federal prosecution when she was credentialed. Notably absent in their statement was a direct answer to my question “Does Garden City Hospital's credentialing process include an internet search of a physician's name?” or what its position is on credentialing physicians who have been prosecuted for performing genital cutting on children.

“As a matter of policy, Garden City Hospital does not comment on individual credentialing matters or personnel-related issues,” the statement said.

Nagarwala, contacted for comment, initially responded to ask about the identity of the patient who filed the complaint. “This is the first I have heard about this,” she wrote. She has not yet responded to follow-up questions or to an invitation to share her perspective in a recorded longform interview.

The complaint itself appears insignificant. Though Ketorolac risks worsening an undetected intracranial bleed, it is still a common pain medication administered in emergency rooms. What is significant is that a patient walked into a suburban Detroit emergency room, was treated by a doctor who had been charged with performing genital cutting on children, and had no way of knowing.

This is not the first complaint on Dr. Nagarwala’s license. In June 2019, a board-certified anesthesiologist filed a complaint calling Dr. Nagarwala’s cutting of young girls “torture.” LARA dismissed the complaint by claiming they had already conducted an investigation they had not. Now there is a second complaint, filed by a patient who apparently did not know her history at all.

Emergency rooms are not like other medical settings. You do not choose your doctor. You are brought in by ambulance or you walk in from the waiting room, and you see whoever is on shift. Patients rely on the system — the licensing board, the hospital credentialing process, the state — to protect them.

Nothing on Nagarwala’s public license record would make a patient aware of her history, despite there being two complaints on her file. No action has been taken on the complaints against her. No medical organization will say that doctors who perform FGM should not be licensed.

The patient who filed this complaint had no way of knowing who their doctor was. Neither would you.

Subscribe now

Share

This is an ongoing investigation. If you’d like to support this work, you can contribute here: Expose Medical Board for Licensing an FGM Doctor

Michigan’s Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) took “no position” on a bill to permanently revoke the medical licenses of doctors convicted of female genital mutilation, while its own medical board was investigating two physicians charged with that conduct.

LARA’s enrolled bill analysis of Senate Bill 410, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, records the agency’s official stance: “ADMINISTRATION POSITION: No position.” The bill amended the Public Health Code to require permanent revocation of a health professional’s license upon conviction for FGM. It passed the Michigan House 105-2 and the Senate 38-0. Governor Snyder signed it into law.

Two months before the analysis was completed, LARA’s Board of Medicine authorized investigations into both physicians. On April 18, 2017, board reviewers approved an investigation into Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, one of the physicians federally indicted for performing FGM on minor girls. On April 21, Kim Gaedeke, then the Director of LARA’s Bureau of Professional Licensing, directed staff to open a file on Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, who owned the clinic where prosecutors alleged the procedures took place, and associate it with the already-opened Nagarwala matter. In Attar’s file, board reviewer Dr. Peter Graham recommended summary suspension.

LARA’s own analysis identified the case by name. Its PROBLEM/BACKGROUND section states: “Two Detroit-area doctors, and a third person, have recently been charged under the Federal FGM statute, related to the performing of FGM on two girls from Minnesota at a medical clinic in Livonia.”

The agency was not weighing an abstract policy question. It was taking no position on a bill about conduct it was actively investigating in two named physicians whose case it cited by name in the same document.

The “no position” was not a default. Internal LARA emails show it was a deliberate decision communicated to other state agencies. On June 13, 2017, nine days before the analysis was finalized, Marnie Wills, LARA’s Deputy Director for Policy and Legislative Affairs, emailed colleagues: “I let her know we will have no position but appreciate the head’s up that they will support I have no concerns with them supporting.”

Wills had communicated this to Debi Cain of the Michigan Domestic and Sexual Violence Prevention and Treatment Board. That board supported SB 410. So did the Michigan Catholic Conference. The bill analysis lists no arguments against it. The “Con” section is blank.

A separate Bureau Bill Response in the same FOIA production, an earlier, undated document prepared while SB 410 was still being drafted, explains the posture. BPL wrote: “Historically, it is not within the Bureau’s place to agree or disagree with any suggested sanctions, just so long as they are written properly and clearly in the statute for BPL to enforce.”

Wills had also written to Senator Colbeck’s legislative director during the drafting process: “Generally, the concept isn’t anything we would have a problem with, but we don’t take positions until we see final versions of the bill.”

In that same Bureau Bill Response, BPL noted that existing law already provided a path to revocation. A felony conviction, BPL wrote, “would be a violation of MCL 333.16221(b)(v),” and “permanent revocation would already be an option for a Board’s Disciplinary Subcommittee under MCL 333.16226(1).” BPL was telling the legislature it already had the authority to permanently revoke a doctor’s license for an FGM felony while both FGM investigations were still open on its own docket.

As previously reported, both investigations were later closed with no disciplinary action, the Nagarwala investigation on September 25, 2018 and the Attar closure recommended four months before federal charges were even dismissed. BPL used neither the authority it told the legislature it already had, nor the new authority SB 410 provided.

Neither physician was convicted — the federal case was dismissed on constitutional grounds — so neither conviction-triggered revocation route was triggered. But LARA also did not discipline either physician through any other means. Dr. Nagarwala and Dr. Attar both hold active, unrestricted Michigan medical licenses.

LARA did not respond to a request for comment.

Subscribe now

Share

This is an ongoing investigation. If you’d like to support this work, you can contribute here: Expose Medical Board for Licensing an FGM Doctor

I sent medical organizations across the country the same question: Should a physician who has performed genital cutting on children retain an active, unrestricted medical license?

Not one said no.

For context: Dr. Jumana Nagarwala and Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, federally indicted in 2017 for performing genital cutting on minor girls, hold active, unrestricted Michigan medical licenses. Michigan’s licensing agency closed its investigations into both physicians with no disciplinary action.

On May 27, I sent each organization a set of questions regarding the licensing of FGM doctors.

Three organizations responded:

• The Federation of State Medical Boards declined to condemn genital cutting on children and refused to comment on the case.

• The American Medical Association condemned FGM in the abstract but declined to say whether these physicians should lose their licenses. They also deferred to an organization that refused to condemn genital cutting on children or licensing FGM doctors.

• The Oakland County Medical Society acknowledged receipt but did not answer the questions.

None said that female genital cutting on children should cost a physician their medical license.

The following organizations did not respond:

• American College of Physicians

• American Academy of Pediatrics

• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

• American College of Emergency Physicians

• Michigan State Medical Society

• Wayne County Medical Society

• Michigan College of Emergency Physicians

• Michigan Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics

Female genital cutting on children is a federal crime under the STOP FGM Act of 2020 and is illegal in most states, including Michigan.

If any of the organizations contacted for this article respond or send comment, I will update it with their statements.

Subscribe now

Share

This is an ongoing investigation. If you’d like to support this work, you can contribute here: Expose Medical Board for Licensing an FGM Doctor

When I asked the American Medical Association (AMA) whether physicians who performed genital cutting on children should retain active medical licenses, they referred me to the Federation of State Medical Boards.

As I reported on June 1, FSMB declined to condemn genital cutting on children.

On May 27, I sent the AMA seven questions about the licensing outcome for Dr. Jumana Nagarwala and Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, federally indicted in 2017 for performing genital cutting on minor girls. Both hold active, unrestricted Michigan medical licenses. Michigan’s licensing agency closed its investigations into both physicians with no disciplinary action.

R.J. Mills of AMA Media & Editorial responded the next day. He answered none of the seven questions. He said the AMA “does not have an authorized role in the regulatory process run by the State of Michigan” and referred me to FSMB as “the national voice of the state-run regulatory system for medicine.”

Mills opened his response with: “While I am not an AMA spokesperson, I can provide the following background information to help inform your reporting.” He was writing from the AMA’s own Media & Editorial department.

His response included one substantive statement: “The AMA condemns the practice of female genital mutilation and opposes this form of child abuse by any physician in the United States.”

The organization the AMA endorsed as the authority on physician licensing will not say whether genital cutting on children should cost a doctor their license.

On June 1, I followed up with the AMA. I removed all questions about Michigan’s regulatory process and asked only about AMA policy: Does the AMA agree with FSMB’s decision not to condemn genital cutting on children? Should a physician who has performed genital cutting on children retain a license? Does the AMA Code of Medical Ethics address this? Do physicians have an ethical obligation to report colleagues?

I asked whether the AMA has an on-the-record position on these questions.

As of June 6, the AMA has not responded.

Female genital cutting on children is a federal crime under the STOP FGM Act of 2020 and is illegal in most states, including Michigan.

Screenshots of our emails can be found below:

Subscribe now

Share

This is an ongoing investigation. If you’d like to support this work, you can contribute here: Expose Medical Board for Licensing an FGM Doctor

When the Federation of State Medical Boards was asked whether a physician who performs female genital cutting on children should retain a medical license, they declined to answer.

FSMB is the national non-profit organization that represents every state medical board in the United States. It describes itself as working to ensure that state licensing boards “protect the public.”

In response to questions I sent asking whether physicians who perform female genital cutting on children should retain active medical licenses, Joe Knickrehm, FSMB’s Chief Public Affairs Officer, responded:

“The Federation of State Medical Boards does not license or discipline individual physicians and is not involved in any decisions about investigations or cases. We therefore cannot comment on the circumstances involving any particular physician or on actions taken by one of our member boards.”

Of the questions I had sent, several concerned FSMB policy, not specific physicians or cases. I sent a follow-up, asking only about FSMB’s own policy positions, and removing all questions pertaining to specific cases. FSMB did not respond.

For context: Dr. Jumana Nagarwala and Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, doctors that were federally indicted in 2017 for performing genital cutting on minor girls, hold active, unrestricted Michigan medical licenses today. Michigan's licensing agency, LARA, closed its investigations into both physicians with no disciplinary action.

Female genital cutting on children is a federal crime under the STOP FGM Act of 2020 and is illegal in most states, including Michigan.

Screenshots of our emails can be found below:

Subscribe now

Share

This is an ongoing investigation. If you’d like to support this work, you can contribute here: Expose Medical Board for Licensing an FGM Doctor

Michigan’s medical board lied to the press about investigating FGM doctors.

On December 10, 2018, Medscape reported that “as of December 7,” the licenses of Dr. Jumana Nagarwala and Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, two physicians charged in 2017 with federal counts related to female genital cutting, were “active but under investigation,” and that the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) “could not comment further on active investigations.”

Based on the agency’s own records, which I obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, that was a lie.

FOIA records I obtained show the Michigan Attorney General’s office recommended closing the Attar investigation (file 43-XX-146259) on July 27, 2018. LARA confirmed under FOIA that “a traditional investigation was not conducted” on Attar at all.

LARA closed the Nagarwala investigation (file 43-XX-146153) on September 25, 2018, with a disposition of “No Action Taken.” LARA never held a single hearing on either physician’s license.

When the spokesperson told Medscape that LARA “could not comment further on active investigations,” there were no active investigations to comment on.

When they claimed both physicians’ licenses were “under investigation,” Dr. Nagarwala's investigation had been closed months earlier with no action taken, and no investigation into Dr. Attar was ever conducted at all.

The Medscape article ran three weeks after U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman ruled the 1996 federal FGM statute unconstitutional, dismissing key charges against both physicians. LARA had closed its investigations before that ruling.

The closure memos for Nagarwala and Attar have been withheld in full by both LARA and the Attorney General's office under attorney-client privilege. Both agencies denied appeals to release them.

Both physicians retain active, unrestricted Michigan medical licenses. Attar’s clinic has reopened at a new location and is accepting new patients, including children.

The Medscape story containing LARA’s false claims, “Surgeon: Physicians in Genital Cutting Case Should Lose Licenses,” written by Marcia Frellick and published December 10, 2018, is archived here.

On May 19, Emily Fitzgerald of LARA's Office of Communications replied to my request for comment, acknowledging receipt and stating that she was "working to get you a response” but “it is unlikely we will be able to issue a response within 24 hours of receiving this request, but I will try to get one to you as soon as possible.”

In order to allow LARA time to respond, I delayed my original publication date of this story a full week. On May 25, I sent a follow-up email, asking when I might expect a comment, because I could not delay indefinitely. As of publication, I still have not received comment. I will update this article to include LARA's statement if and when one is received.

Subscribe now

Share

This is an ongoing investigation. If you’d like to support this work, you can contribute here: Expose Medical Board for Licensing an FGM Doctor

The state of Michigan never assigned an investigator into the medical license of a doctor who ran an FGM clinic.

Asked through the Freedom of Information Act to identify the investigator assigned to Dr. Attar’s file, the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs responded: “A traditional investigation was not conducted under 43-XX-146259.” In other words, the requested information does not exist because no investigator was ever assigned.

Michigan’s Board of Medicine authorized the investigation on April 21, 2017. Board reviewer Dr. Peter Graham wrote: “I approve investigation. Please also refer to Director Gaedeke for summary suspension, which I approve.” Board reviewer Dr. James Sondheimer, a professor of medicine at Wayne State University, wrote: “Agree with proceeding with investigation. Res ipsa loquitur.” The Latin means the facts speak for themselves.

Despite the Board of Medicine authorizing an investigation and calling for suspension, the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, the state agency responsible for carrying out the Board’s directives, never assigned an investigator to the case.

As I have previously reported, Dr. Attar still holds an active, unrestricted Michigan medical license (No. 4301067384) with no record of discipline. Federal prosecutors alleged that Attar allowed Dr. Jumana Nagarwala to perform FGM on young girls at his Livonia clinic after hours for over a decade, with his wife Farida assisting during the procedures. Prosecutors estimated that as many as 100 girls were cut at the clinic over twelve years. His clinic has since reopened at a new location in Farmington Hills and is accepting new patients.

LARA did assign an investigator to the companion file on Dr. Nagarwala (43-XX-146153). State records identify Jennifer Pappas as the regulation agent on that case. Pappas attempted to interview a key medical witness but was blocked by the federal prosecutor. That investigation was also closed with no action taken.

Dr. Attar’s file was opened, authorized for investigation and summary suspension by the Board of Medicine, and closed. Between opening and closing, nothing happened. The file is a record of inaction.

The only document that would explain why is the closure memo authored by Assistant Attorney General Bridget K. Smith, dated July 27, 2018. It is redacted in full.

The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs and the Michigan Attorney General’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Subscribe now

Share

This is an ongoing investigation. If you’d like to support this work, you can contribute here: Expose Medical Board for Licensing an FGM Doctor

On July 27, 2018, Michigan’s Assistant Attorney General Bridget K. Smith recommended closing the state’s licensing investigation into Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, the owner of the clinic at the center of America’s first federal FGM prosecution. The federal FGM charges were not dismissed until November 20, 2018, four months later.

Smith sent her recommendation in a memo titled “Request to Close File” addressed to Cheryl Wykoff Pezon, then Director of the Bureau of Professional Licensing at LARA. LARA received the memo on August 7, 2018, as recorded by a received stamp on the document.

Like the closure memo for Dr. Nagarwala, the physician accused of performing the procedures at Attar's clinic, the substantive content of the Attar memo is redacted in full. The state has never explained why it closed either investigation.

As I have previously reported, Dr. Attar still holds an active, unrestricted Michigan medical license (No. 4301067384) with no record of discipline. Federal prosecutors alleged that Attar allowed Dr. Jumana Nagarwala to perform FGM on young girls at his Livonia clinic after hours for over a decade, with his wife Farida assisting during the procedures. Prosecutors estimated that as many as 100 girls may have been cut at the clinic over a twelve-year period. His clinic has since reopened at a new location in Farmington Hills and is accepting new patients, including children.

Michigan’s Board of Medicine unanimously authorized the investigation into Dr. Attar on April 21, 2017. Board reviewer Dr. Peter Graham wrote: “I approve investigation. Please also refer to Director Gaedeke for summary suspension, which I approve.” Board reviewer Dr. James Sondheimer, a professor of medicine at Wayne State University, wrote: “Agree with proceeding with investigation. Res ipsa loquitur,” a legal term meaning “the facts speak for themselves.”

Despite the Board's authorization, no disciplinary action was taken. The only document that would explain this decision, the closure memo from AAG Smith, is redacted in full.

Documents obtained from the Attorney General’s office show that Smith authored both the Attar and Nagarwala closure memos on the same date, July 27, 2018, and sent them to the same recipient. A response from LARA’s Cynthia Rowe to Smith, dated August 14, 2018, is also withheld under attorney-client privilege.

Both closure memos were sent while the federal case was still active. Trial had been scheduled for January 2019. The state did not wait for the federal case to conclude. As we reported previously, Michigan closed the Nagarwala investigation on September 25, 2018, two months before the federal dismissal. The AG recommended closing the Attar investigation even earlier, on July 27, four months before the federal case ended.

Due to Bridget K. Smith’s recommendation and the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs’ acceptance of it, the doctor who owned a clinic prosecuted for FGM still holds his medical license and would have retained it even if convicted.

Those involved have hidden their reason for protecting FGM doctors’ medical licenses from the public.

The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs and the Michigan Attorney General’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Subscribe now

Share

This is an ongoing investigation. If you’d like to support this work, you can contribute here: Expose Medical Board for Licensing an FGM Doctor

Michigan closed its licensing investigation into Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, the physician at the center of America’s first federal FGM prosecution, on September 25, 2018, two months before the federal court dismissed charges against her on November 20, 2018.

This means that an FGM doctor retaining her medical license had nothing to do with losing the federal case. The investigation into the medical license ended while the federal case was still set to go to trial.

State licensing records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that the only licensing investigation Michigan ever opened into Dr. Nagarwala was closed with the disposition “No Action Taken.” The closure date of September 25, 2018 is recorded in a LICENSE 2000 COMPLAINT HISTORY printout from Michigan’s Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (complaint file 43-XX-146153).

The closure was initiated by Assistant Attorney General Bridget K. Smith of the AG’s Licensing and Regulation Division. On July 27, 2018, Smith sent a memo titled “Request to Close File” to Cheryl Wykoff Pezon, then Director of the Bureau of Professional Licensing at LARA. The memo’s content is redacted in full.

Neither Michigan’s Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs nor the Michigan Attorney General’s office has disclosed why they recommended closing the investigation. Both agencies have withheld the memo under attorney-client privilege.

As I previously reported, Michigan never held administrative hearings on Dr. Nagarwala’s license. Dr. Nagarwala still holds an active, unrestricted Michigan medical license (No. 4301071795) with no record of discipline. She was federally charged in April 2017 with performing female genital mutilation on young girls in what prosecutors called the first federal FGM case in U.S. history. The federal charges were dismissed in November 2018 after a judge ruled the 1996 federal FGM ban was unconstitutional. No party in the case disputed that procedures were performed on the girls.

Michigan’s Board of Medicine unanimously authorized the investigation on April 18, 2017, days after the federal indictment. Multiple reviewers signed Board Review Sheets directing the Bureau of Professional Licensing to investigate under MCL 333.16231(2). One reviewer wrote that the charges “warrant suspension and investigation.”

Despite the Board’s authorization, the investigation produced no disciplinary action. The only document that would explain why, the closure memo authored by AAG Bridget K. Smith, is redacted in full.

If Michigan had closed its investigation after the federal case collapsed, the state could argue it was deferring to federal proceedings and lost its basis for action when the charges were dismissed. But Michigan closed first. The state abandoned its own investigation while the federal case was still active.

At the time the medical licensing case was closed, the government had just obtained a Third Superseding Indictment thirteen days earlier, defendants had not yet been arraigned on it, and trial remained on the court's calendar.

Documents obtained from the Michigan Attorney General’s office confirm that both the AG and LARA hold copies of the closure memo, and both refuse to release it. The AG’s privilege log identifies it as Document 72: “Request to Close File,” July 27, 2018, from AAG Bridget Smith to Cheryl Pezon. A draft version is listed as Document 78, also withheld. LARA has separately confirmed that “no other closure letter exists” beyond this memo.

Michigan closed an investigation into female genital cutting on children while those responsible were still being prosecuted and will not explain why.

The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs and the Michigan Attorney General’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Subscribe now

Share

This is an ongoing investigation. If you’d like to support this work, you can contribute here: Expose Medical Board for Licensing an FGM Doctor

Next week, I will be publishing more on the FGM-licensing investigation.

To recap: In previous articles, I discovered that the two doctors at the center of the first federal FGM-case still have their medical licenses, their clinic open, and were never even subjected to hearings.

My last article was three months ago. During that time, I have been filing freedom of information act requests and investigating. Though there were a dozen different articles I could write, publishing them early might have jeopardized other information I was seeking and would have raised questions I still didn’t have the answers to. I chose to delay publication of a partial story in the hopes that later I would be able to publish a more complete story.

To give you an idea what the process of getting this information has been like, here are the actual notices I received for one set of documents. I filed the request on January 11, 2026. On February 2, they told me it would cost $783.85 total for the documents. I paid one day later, on February 3, 2026. Then:

• February 2, 2026 — “After receipt of the deposit or full payment, the Department will commence processing the request. The Department will complete the process within an estimated 21 business days.”

• March 5, 2026 — “The Department requires up to 21 more business days, through April 3, 2026, to complete the processing of the request.”

• April 3, 2026 — “The Department requires up to 15 more business days, through April 24, 2026, to complete the processing.”

• April 24, 2026 — “The Department requires up to five more business days, through May 1, 2026, to complete the processing.”

So I paid in one day. They took three months. That was just one request.

Documents received are frequently and inconsistently redacted. I have been appealing most decisions. They have rejected all appeals, including the $12,792.93 fee they wanted to search “FGM” and other terms in across their emails.

That said, I have found ways to uncover the information required to piece together a picture of what happened and why the two doctors who were federally charged with FGM still have their medical licenses.

Because of the amount of information I have collected, it will take multiple articles to share it all. Rather than publish one unreadable book-long story, I’ll be sharing it headline by headline over the coming weeks.

Thank you for those who have supported my investigation. We raised enough to cover expenses. That said, if I want to file legal challenges or take further action, we will need more. You can support my work on GoFundMe here.

Support on GoFundMe

P.S. I am launching a new substack for fiction, essays, and video. The fantasy novel I have been working on nearly three years will be previewed there. Since the audience for my fiction work and journalism are different, I’m keeping them separate under separate accounts. However, if you’d like to read my fiction work, subscribe here. There will be no talk of social issues there, but a lot of entertaining stories.

Subscribe to Fiction Substack

The clinic where federal prosecutors say up to 100 girls had female genital cutting performed on them is still open at a new location under a nearly identical name. It is run by the same doctor, has the same phone number, and is currently accepting new patients.

In April 2017, Burhani Medical Clinic in Livonia, Michigan was raided by the FBI as a part of the first federal prosecution of female genital mutilation in United States history.1 Federal prosecutors alleged that Dr. Jumana Nagarwala had performed FGM on young girls at the clinic after hours, with the clinic’s owner, Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, allowing her to use the facility and his wife, Farida Attar, assisting during procedures.2 Prosecutors estimated that as many as 100 girls may have been cut at the clinic over a 12-year period.3

As we previously reported, both Dr. Nagarwala and Dr. Attar still hold active, unrestricted Michigan medical licenses with no public record of discipline.45 In addition to allowing both doctors to continue practicing medicine, the state of Michigan has allowed the clinic itself to reopen at a new location under a nearly identical name, where it is currently accepting new patients.6

Dr. Attar now operates a medical practice called Burhani Medical Center at 32910 W 13 Mile Road in Farmington Hills, Michigan.7 The practice uses the same phone number as the former Livonia clinic, (734) 427-9200, and is listed across major healthcare directories including Healthgrades,8 WebMD,9 and the U.S. News doctor database.10 Dr. Attar’s website, doctorattar.com, promotes the Burhani Medical Center as a family medicine practice and states that it is accepting new patients.11

The Burhani Medical Center website lists Sports Physicals among its services and promotes care for patients of “every age group.”12 The practice displays logos indicating it accepts Medicare, Medicaid, and major commercial insurers including Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, and United Healthcare.13 This means a physician federally charged with facilitating genital cutting on minor girls is actively marketing pediatric services and receiving reimbursement from taxpayer-funded insurance programs.

Public records show a link between the two practices. Michigan LARA corporate filings show that Attar, M.D., P.C., the professional corporation that operated under the assumed name “Burhani Medical Clinic” at the Livonia address, was dissolved in May 2021.14 This dissolution came shortly before the final remaining charges against the Attars were dismissed in September 2021.15

The original Burhani Medical Clinic in Livonia was not a licensed health facility under Michigan law. In Michigan, private physician offices are exempt from the state facility licensing that applies to hospitals, surgical centers, and nursing homes.16 This means there was no facility license to revoke, no facility-level inspection triggered by the federal charges, and no regulatory mechanism to prevent the same practice from reopening at a new address under a nearly identical name. The only regulatory oversight over the practice ran through the individual physicians’ medical licenses. As we have previously reported, both physicians’ medical licenses are active, unrestricted Michigan medical licenses with no public record of discipline.

When I called the clinic on February 5, 2026, a staff member answered the phone and confirmed the practice is open. Dr. Attar did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Subscribe now

Share

This is an ongoing investigation. I’m seeking to raise funds to cover significan FOIA costs and continue this work. If you’d like to support this investigation, you can contribute here:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/expose-medical-board-for-licensing-an-fgm-doctor

The second doctor from America’s first FGM case, Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, still has an active unrestricted Michigan medical license (No. 4301067384).1

Dr. Fakhruddin Attar ran his clinic in Livonia, Michigan raided by FBI in April 2017 in what would become the first federal prosecution of female genital mutilation in United States history.2 According to federal prosecutors, Attar had been allowing Dr. Jumana Nagarwala to perform FGM on young girls for over a decade, with his wife Farida assisting in the examination room.3

As I reported in January, the doctor who performed FGM, Dr. Nagarwala, still holds an active Michigan medical license (No. 4301071795) with no record of discipline.45 The second doctor charged in America’s first FGM case, Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, also has an active unrestricted Michigan medical license (No. 4301067384) with no record of discipline.6

Although the federal case against both Dr. Attar and Dr. Nagarwala collapsed on legal technicalities, state medical boards could still remove both doctors’ medical licenses. Doctors can lose their licenses for inadequate recordkeeping, failing to complete continuing education hours, billing errors, breaches of patient confidentiality, and non-criminal behavior far less severe than performing FGM on minors. Instead, the Michigan medical board allowed both doctors to keep their medical licenses with no restrictions or discipline.

To understand what that means, consider what federal court documents say happened at Dr. Attar’s clinic:

Federal prosecutors allege that Dr. Fakhruddin Attar’s conspiracy ran from 2005 to 2017 and may have involved as many as 100 victims.78

The FBI’s investigation identified nine victims between the ages of 7 and 13 from Michigan, Minnesota, and Illinois.9 When the FBI interviewed those girls, one said she’d been told they were going to the doctor because “our tummies hurt.” She described being placed on an examining table with her knees near her chest and her legs spread apart. She said the doctor “pinched” her on the place where she “goes pee,” and she was given a pad to wear in her underwear. She was told not to talk about it.10

The second girl said she “got a shot” and that it hurt so badly she screamed. She drew an “X” on her picture of the examining room to show where there was blood on the table. She identified Farida Attar as one of the women who held her hands during the procedure. Her parents told her it was a secret. After it was over, she could barely walk. She said she felt pain all the way down to her ankle.1112

Court-ordered medical examinations confirmed the injuries. One girl’s labia minora had been “altered or removed” and her clitoral hood was “abnormal in appearance,” with scar tissue and healing lacerations.13 The other had an incision to her clitoral hood and a small tear to her labia minora.14 One Michigan girl in the broader case was given ground-up Valium mixed into liquid Tylenol during the procedure.15

When agents interviewed Attar on April 10, 2017, he acknowledged that Nagarwala treated girls ages 6 to 9 at his clinic, that she only came after hours on Fridays and Saturdays, that she performed the procedures for free with no paperwork, and that she did so five or six times per year. He described the visits as treatment for “problems with their genitals, including treatment of genital rashes.” He said his wife was present during the procedures “to comfort them and hold their hands.”1617

No party in the case disputed that procedures were performed on girls at Attar's clinic. Instead, the defense was able to prevail on legal technicalities by arguing that the 1996 federal FGM ban was unconstitutional.1819 Michigan passed its own state law banning FGM in 201720 and Congress passed the STOP FGM Act, a new federal ban, in 2020,21 but because the alleged procedures predated the new law, no state charges could be filed retroactively.

However, even though legal prosecution failed, the doctors could still lose their medical licenses. The state medical board could conduct its own separate hearings. Michigan's own Public Health Code empowers the Board of Medicine to discipline physicians for "negligence or failure to exercise due care."22 Undocumented procedures performed on minors’ genitals after hours, with no medical records, no informed consent, and no billing would appear to satisfy every threshold for professional discipline that exists. Yet today, Dr. Fakhruddin Attar’s Michigan medical license remains active, unrestricted, and carries no record of any disciplinary action.

Dr. Attar did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Despite acknowledging receipt of multiple requests for comment for previous stories, the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs and the Michigan Bureau of Professional Licensing did not respond. Instead, the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs is asking for $12,792.93 for public records that would explain their actions.23 To support this investigation, we have started a GoFundMe here.

Subscribe now

Share

This is an ongoing investigation. I’m seeking to raise funds to cover FOIA costs and continue this work. If you’d like to support this investigation, you can contribute here: Expose Medical Board for Licensing an FGM Doctor

The Michigan medical licensing board that licensed Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, a Detroit physician federally charged in 2017 with performing female genital mutilation on young girls, wants $12,792.93 for emails that would explain why they are continuing to license FGM-practicing doctors.

As I’ve previously reported, Dr. Nagarwala still holds an active Michigan medical license despite federal prosecution, and state records show Michigan never held administrative hearings on her license. The medical board closed its investigation without public explanation.

To find out why, I filed multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests asking for internal emails about how Michigan handled the FGM investigation. These FOIA requests seek the internal communications that would reveal how that decision was made. The requests were made only for electronic records, after LARA claimed that searching records prior to 2020 would require “manual review of thousands of paper files.”

The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) responded by sending an invoice for $12,792.93 to retrieve the emails. LARA’s fee estimates break down to $2,508 for one request, $2,093 for another, and $8,190 for a third. The largest invoice claims it would take 405 combined hours of labor to search their emails for basic keywords like “FGM” and “female genital cutting.”

According to LARA’s written response to my questions, although they confirmed they could search every email box at once with enterprise-wide keyword searches, their preferred method is “contacting every staff member with the terms to search,” each employee “performing the searches and providing results,” and the liaison “following up with any staff who do not respond timely.” One invoice explicitly calculates: “153 employees × 12 keywords × 5 minutes.”

When I asked why they don’t just search all inboxes at once, the same LARA representative gave multiple contradictory answers. One email claimed enterprise-wide search would involve “a similarly priced fee estimate” but could “take much longer.” Another cited the “heightened cost” of enterprise-wide search as the reason for using manual methods instead. In other words, according to LARA, keyword search would cost the same but take longer, unless it takes the same amount of time but costs more.

When I asked whether their email records are maintained in an electronic system that supports keyword searching, LARA’s FOIA liaison responded: “Not sure what they mean by this. Is Outlook an ‘electronic system?’” The liaison also admitted they would have “no idea of the volume” of responsive records until each employee performed their individual searches—meaning the fee estimate isn’t based on any actual assessment of how many records exist.

Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act requires agencies to use “the most economical means available” when fulfilling requests. Having 153 employees individually search their own inboxes, compile results, and forward them to a coordinator, rather than running a single enterprise search, is the least economical way to approach the problem.

Entering “FGM” into a search bar is not a $12,792.93 task that requires 153 people and over 400 hours of labor. Instead, this appears to be willful incompetence to avoid accountability. These are public documents that the state must provide me by law. They can’t legally say no directly, so instead it appears they are making the process of providing the documents as convoluted and expensive as possible, which is also against the law, but harder to prove.

The difference between their handling of reasonable questions from the public and female genital cutting could not be more stark. The Michigan medical licensing board closed an investigation into FGM for free, without a single hearing. Now, they want $12,793 to explain their actions to the public. The board has also not responded to multiple requests for comment, which is free.

I’ve filed a formal appeal challenging these fees. LARA has 10 business days to respond. However, if this appeal does not prevail, the only way to discover the full story behind why Michigan is licensing FGM-practicing doctors would be either to pay the fee or file a lawsuit. Since both would require funding, I have started a GoFundMe to support this investigation. Please contribute here:

GoFundMe: Expose Medical Board for Licensing an FGM Doctor

This is an ongoing investigation. I’m seeking to raise funds to cover FOIA costs and continue this work. If you’d like to support this investigation, you can contribute here:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/expose-medical-board-for-licensing-an-fgm-doctor

Subscribe now

Share

Freedom of Information Act (FIOA) records show Michigan never held administrative hearings regarding Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, the Detroit physician federally charged in 2017 with performing female genital mutilation on young girls in what prosecutors called the first FGM case in U.S. history.

Records from the Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules (MOAHR) show zero proceedings related to Dr. Nagarwala despite her role in the landmark FGM case. Dr. Nagarwala still holds an active, unrestricted Michigan medical license (License No. 4301071795), valid through 2026.

MOAHR handles cases where physicians challenge disciplinary action. No records means that either Michigan never initiated proceedings against her or she did not contest action taken against her. Given that her license shows no restrictions, suspensions, or disciplinary notations, it is likely that the Michigan licensing board never took formal action against a doctor who performed female genital cutting on minors.

The FOIA records requested cover 2010 to present, including the 2017-2018 period when Dr. Nagarwala was under federal indictment and the federal FGM ban was still law. The federal law wasn't ruled unconstitutional until 2018. This means there is no evidence Michigan's licensing board took any disciplinary action against a physician facing federal charges for performing female genital cutting on minors, even while federal law prohibited the practice.

While federal law fell on constitutional grounds, state medical boards retain full authority to discipline physicians whose conduct violates medical standards. Medical boards routinely suspend or revoke licenses for issues far less severe than performing female genital cutting on minors. Their inaction raises questions as to whether or not the state medical board condones physicians practicing female genital cutting.

This sustained non-enforcement aligns with a 2010 American Academy of Pediatrics proposal to allow physicians to perform a “ritual nick” on girls’ genitals, similar to what Dr. Nagarwala practiced. They withdrew the policy only after public outcry. However, selective non-enforcement allows medical authorities to support female genital cutting, without explicit policy changes that would risk public backlash. Michigan’s inaction, even during a federal case, shows which strategy is more effective. Until now, no one noticed.

The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs has not responded to multiple requests for comment.

Share

This is an ongoing investigation. I’ve filed additional FOIA requests to determine how widespread this issue may be. Subscribe to receive updates as records are released.

Subscribe now

In 2017, federal prosecutors charged Detroit emergency physician Dr. Jumana Nagarwala with performing female genital mutilation on young girls, some of whom had been driven across state lines from Minnesota to a Michigan clinic,1 in the first federal FGM prosecution in United States history.2 A year later, a federal judge threw out the core FGM charges, ruling that Congress had exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause when it first criminalized FGM in 1996.3

The case was such a failure that it ended the 1996 federal FGM ban.4 Not only did the doctor evade legal consequences, she still practices medicine today. Public records indicate Dr. Jumana Nagarwala still holds an active Michigan medical license (License No. 4301071795), valid through 2026, with no public record of discipline or suspension.5

Why does the doctor are the center of the landmark case that legalized female genital cutting in the United States still have her medical license?

There is no question that Dr. Jumana Nagarwala practiced female genital cutting. Rather than dispute the allegations, Dr. Nagarwala defense argued federal law was unconstitutional.6 Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor who represented Jeffrey Epstein,7 consulted for the defense team and was prepared to argue that the Dawoodi Bohra community should be allowed to practice female genital cutting because the type they practice, what the World Health Organization classifies as Type I FGM,8 is merely a “symbolic pin prick” that is less harmful than male circumcision and part of their “religious freedom.”91011

Medical organization have already issued statements supporting legalizing female genital cutting. In 2010, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a policy statement proposing that U.S. physicians be allowed to perform a “ritual nick” on girls’ genitals.12 The statement was withdrawn only after public backlash.13 The “ritual nick” described in that policy statement is similar to the kind practiced by the Dawoodi Bohra and Dr. Jumana Nagarwala.

For years, Intactivists and other against circumcision have warned that American medicine would attempt to normalize female genital cutting with the same methods they use to defend male genital cutting. The fact that Dr. Jumana Nagarwala still has her medical license suggests that medical organizations are integrating female genital cutting into the medical community and engaged in a soft-legalization of FGM through non-enforcement.

Despite acknowledging receipt of multiple requests for comment, The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs and the Michigan Bureau of Professional Licensing did not respond.

Share

Subscribe now

I need your help: I’m seeking rare, hard-to-find intactivist materials—PDFs of books, articles, or resources that are print-only or not online—to build a specialized AI knowledge base for accurate academic citations.

Why I need this: AI can access all public online content, but offline or obscure items like full books, out-of-print pamphlets, or rare historical journals will add depth and accuracy not available in other AI models.

How to contribute: If you have a digital library (or know someone who does), share PDFs or scans. Hit reply to this email or use WeTranfer.com to send your files directly to the email you got this article from.

For authors and creators: If you contribute your original work, you have my word that I won’t share or distribute it publicly. It will only be for use in my AI training and knowledge base.

Deadline: I will begin building the knowledge base in one week. Reach out immediately if you have something.

Share

Subscribe now

For years, Jewish organizations and media outlets have targeted Intactivists with false claims of antisemitism. News documentaries and articles describe the movement as “alt right”1 and “a breeding ground for antisemitism, Islamophobia, misogyny, and misinformation.”2 These accusations were not presented by news organizations as opinion, but fact, and used to dismiss human rights and children’s activists.

Beyond being false, these claims share another problem: the activist who made those claims that the media elevated as their expert on antisemitism and Intactivism is involved in the Palestinian movement. That activist, Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon, directed a feature-length documentary on the Israel-Palestine issue, the same way I made a documentary about the issue of circumcision.3 After the October 7th attacks in Israel, he posted an article describing claims of antisemitism in the Palestinian movement as slander.4

The Palestinian movement has been described by many of the same Jewish and media organizations that have attacked the Inactivist movement as the primary source of rising antisemitism in the world. Yet, the individual elevated by the media as an authority on antisemitism and the Intactivist movement was demanding the Intactivist movement model themselves after the Palestinian movement and adopt “woke” social justice politics. The past ten years of attacks against Intactivism made the the Palestinian movement central to their accusations.

Media attacks on the Intactivist movement prioritized those who were most prominent: myself, Georganne Chapin, and Eric Clopper. Despite there being an activist with a comparable social media following, who self-identified with far-right labels and published a book on the Intactivist movement,5 media articles claiming to fight the “alt right” or “antisemitism” avoided mentioning him, instead focusing on the leadership of the movement. This pattern suggests that destroying the movement, not fighting “extremism,” was the real opposition goal.

When I filed a defamation lawsuit against those making accusations, instead of attempting to prove them as factual, the defendants claimed they were merely making “statements of opinion.” Though this legal strategy helped them avoid accountability, it carries implications for media organizations who have a professional and ethical standard to distinguish between opinion and news. Media organizations that presented attacks on the movement as fact were lying and engaged in political activism, not journalism.

Attacks on the movement crossed the line of public debate into harassment. Jewish activists working against the movement contacted people in my personal and professional life, attempted to turn them against me, and spent years trying to socially isolate me. Those contacted were told not alert me to their behind the scenes campaign or seek to hear my side of the story.

To this day, no Jewish person has ever directly asked me to change my views. Instead, Jewish people have run secret campaigns against me, contacted people in my personal and professional life, and written more hit pieces on me than I’ve written articles about the Jewish issues. Many involved in hate campaigns against myself and the Intactivist movement had my personal contact information and could have contacted me directly. That they felt the need to hide their actions shows they knew they were doing something wrong.

What is odd about these attacks is that if Jewish organizations had sat down with myself and other leaders of the movement to dialogue, although there might have some statements they considered “over the line” that we found legitimate, I would have been willing to avoid those statements if it allowed both sides to engage peacefully. Instead, they made diplomacy impossible.

When I attempted to address their demand that the movement become more like the social justice and Palestinian movement by writing Children’s Justice, their attacks escalated. Missing from their hit pieces was that the intellectual foundations of the book were what they were pressuring the movement to adopt. Children’s Justice took their ideas seriously and intellectually engaged with them. The book was an olive branch and an attempt to give them was they said they wanted. Their response suggests their demands were never sincere, but merely a tool to stop criticism of circumcision.

In police work, demanding someone take an action and then prosecuting them for it is known as entrapment. In their attempts to police the movement, Jewish organizations and their media allies employed a similar tactic. They applied political pressure for the movement to adopt social justice and Palestinian movement politics and then attacked those who gave them what they asked for. Their reaction made it clear that there was no safe choice but to fight back. I responded: This is what your ordered. Eat it.

When those who claim to fight antisemitism elevate and collaborate with same people they describe as responsible for a rise in antisemitism and a threat to the safety of Jewish people, while attacking those who engage in good-faith criticism of circumcision, it reveals their priorities. Some Palestinian groups might kill Jewish people, but in death, they are still Jewish. Ending circumcision, in their view, ends Jewish identity. Jewish identity is a higher value to them than Jewish people. Their actions show that they would rather have their people dead than intact.

Through their hypocrisy and bad-faith attacks, Jewish organizations have fostered the radicalization they claim to oppose. When I talk to younger activists now, they engage with more extreme ideas, because they’ve watched how I and others who acted in good-faith were treated and concluded that moderation and compliance carries a higher cost than open conflict. If any criticism of circumcision is treated as antisemitism, then there is no political reason for activists to avoid “crossing the line,” because the movement is already treated as if it has crossed it. Despite being moderate, movement has paid the price for “extremism.”

Opposition groups have removed any incentive for the movement to moderate its speech, behavior, or associations to avoid pejorative labels. I’m certain that they’ll attempt to frame the consequences of their actions as “proof” that the movement has “always” been some caricature they constructed. Instead, the behavior of myself and other activists going forward can only be understood if we acknowledge how opposition groups changed the cost for such actions and created a precedent that collaborating with extremist figures and movements is acceptable. If opposition groups treat their own lines as meaningless, then others are free to do the same.

Share

Subscribe now

From DeepNewz:

Elon Musk has made headlines by mocking the U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) circumcision policy, which has been funded by taxpayer dollars. Musk stated that USAID was offering free circumcisions globally while charging U.S. taxpayers high prices. He claimed he would compete for this business. Over the past decade, USAID has spent millions on circumcision programs abroad, particularly in Africa, under the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which aims to combat HIV. Critics have highlighted that these programs reportedly reduce the likelihood of HIV transmission by nearly two-thirds. Musk's comments have sparked debate about the effectiveness and funding of such health interventions, with some defending the program as a cost-effective measure against HIV transmission, while others question the allocation of taxpayer funds for these services.

My response: Cut government waste, not children.

Prior to his name change, I publicly supported the decision to end these programs. Many of us were messaging him, saying that DOGE should defund circumcision. It looks like he got the message. Musk changed his name on X to “Harry Bōlz” to joke about ending those programs.

Now, I’ve written an open response to Elon Musk regarding the issue of circumcision, which you can view on his platform X here:

https://x.com/bdmarotta/status/1889751748564099452

I appreciate @elonmusk bringing attention to the issue of circumcision through Harry Bōlz, but one aspect of taxpayer-funded foreign circumcision programs lost amidst the jokes is the scale of fraud and harm.

The scam run was simple: Often, the person writing pro-circumcision policy also runs a company that manufactures circumcision devices, which they award a multi-million dollar contract at the taxpayers’ expense. Years later, after they’d taken taxpayer money, many of these programs were quietly shut down due to the staggering rates of harm inflicted on children.

The true cost of these programs was paid by unconsenting children. PEPFAR’s infant circumcision program had to be shut down due to its high botch rate. American-funded circumcisers were using the Mogen clamp, a circumcision device known to cause botches after the manufacturer was sued out of business after it removed the glans of a child. PEPFAR did not release data on what they considered a high enough botch rate to end the program. By now, they say they have done 35 million circumcisions and spent between 500 million and 1.5 billion American dollars.

These authors knew their devices would sexually harm children. In the case of the ShangRing, another device known to cause botches, PEPFAR wrote that the only way to find out if the device was safe was to test it on “sufficient volumes” of “immature genitalia.” In other words, medical trials on unconsenting children. Because these campaigns occur overseas, the perpetrators never face legal justice or medical malpractice lawsuits they would in America.

The fraud here isn’t merely monetary. These programs subjected millions of infants to botched surgeries, lifelong disfigurement, and loss of sexual function. This was a violation of basic human rights, inflicting irreversible harm on children who cannot consent. When a single infant is violated, it’s called sexual abuse. When millions are, we call it a public health initiative.

I am glad these programs are over. However, since the American government funded this, we have a moral obligation to repair the damage done. There are still millions of children who have lifelong sexual harm because of these programs, including botches that even those who led the programs acknowledge as harmful. There are still between 500 million and 1.5 billion taxpayer dollars in the pockets of those who harmed these children. We must pursue justice.

First, we must hold those responsible accountable. Every individual and organization that profited from these programs must face legal action and punitive damages intended to recover the taxpayer money wasted on these programs. This exploitation will end only if those who engaged in harm can no longer profit from it.

Second, we must heal those who have been harmed. At present, there is no way to restore the tissue and sexual function lost to circumcision. However, recent advances in regenerative medicine and limb regeneration make it possible to restore what was lost for the first time in human history. I have spoken with multiple researchers who have laid out a clear path to full foreskin regeneration using existing science.

One researcher I spoke with suggested it would take 100 million dollars to bring full limb regeneration to market. Given that at least five times that was spent harming children, if we recoup even a fifth of that money through legal damages, we have the funding to heal every person harmed by these programs. Instead of the taxpayers having to clean up another government mess, the perpetrators themselves would pay for the harm they caused.

That said, since Elon is a fan of Milton Friedman, let me propose a free-market solution: A preliminary survey showed that 9.1% of circumcised men would pay over $20,000 for full foreskin regeneration. Extrapolating from this, the potential U.S. market is $224 billion, with a trillion-dollar global market. If you reach even one percent of the US market, you would make 2 billion on a 100 million dollar investment or a 2000% return on investment. The first person to solve limb regeneration will make billions. Multiple teams have plans to get there. They just lack funding.

I want this issue solved. I want children to be safe. I want men to be healed. How we get there is up to you, whether through legal justice and public good or private profit and the next billion-dollar company. Both solutions lead to the same goal. No matter what solution you pick, we have a moral responsibility to act. The U.S. government funded this harm. Now, we must make it right.

Elon Musk has made decisions based on feedback he received on X. This is a unique opportunity to share this message and create once-in-a-lifetime change. Please share this message on X as much as possible.

Subscribe now

Share

The word “gaze” in social justice refers to a way of looking or perceiving that is influenced by socialization, culture, and power dynamics. For example, “the male gaze” refers to the way that men depict or perceive women as sexual objects for male gratification. In The Birth of the Clinic, Michel Foucault uses the phrase “the medical gaze” to refer to the way the medical system views people as individual body parts rather than a whole person. There are many other examples of this use of the word “gaze” in critical social justice, such as the “white gaze,” “colonial gaze,” “female gaze,” etc.

These uses of the word gaze often refer to the way a particular group is socialized into perceiving another group. For example, the “male gaze” does not just refer to the male perspective, but how that perspective specifically views women and the impact being perceived that way has on women. Even if a particular man does not view women through the “male gaze,” the concept still exists as a social construct and it is legitimate to refer to this gaze by the group socialized into, the perspective this gaze assumes, and the group whose power structure the gaze reinforces.

Often, the group best suited to understand a gaze is not the person gazing, but the object of their gaze. Many women intuitively understand the male gaze because they are viewed by it and regularly interact with it, while not perceiving the world from the perspective of that gaze. For many men, “the male gaze” is just their perspective. Since it is behind their eyes, it is not visible to them.

It takes an incredible amount of awareness for a person to separate their perspective of the world from how the world actually is. Even writing about the male gaze now, I notice the inclination to write “women are attractive” rather than “I find women attractive.” The first phrase removes me as the one making that judgment and presents attractiveness as an inherent quality of women. The second recognizes that judgment is a part of my perspective, that might not be shared by those who are not attracted to women. Though anyone can find women attractive, a woman reading the statement “women are attractive” would likely guess the writer was writing from a heterosexual male perspective.

Someone who is repeatedly perceived through a “gaze” will come to recognize it. A woman repeatedly objectified will recognize “the male gaze.” An Asian person repeatedly referred to as “exotic” will recognize “the Orientalist gaze” or “colonial gaze.” Some might not have the academic language to express these concepts, but they intuitively understand the experience and power dynamics these gazes refer to and their understanding is greater than those who gaze upon them.

Read more