This Pride Month, LGBTQ+ young people are navigating something no generation before them has faced quite this way: a political environment that is actively hostile to their identities, a mental health system too strained to meet demand, and a growing vacuum being filled by AI chatbots. The nonprofit organization, The Trevor Project, recently released its 2025 national survey on the mental health of LGBTQ+ young people, and the results were concerning for mental health providers and parents alike.
The survey found that more than one-third (36%) of young LGBTQ+ people seriously considered suicide within the past year. Ninety percent of respondents said that a record number of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and negative rhetoric have added significant stress to an already marginalized group. Among LGBTQ+ youth ages 13–24, anxiety symptoms rose from 57% to 68%, and suicidal ideation increased from 41% to 47% between 2023 and 2025. The two main factors cited during this time were the aforementioned political climate and lack of familial support.
The American Civil Liberties Union found that already in the first half of 2026, there have been more than 500 anti-LGBTQ+ laws filed across the country. Research consistently demonstrates that access to mental health care and just one accepting adult in a young person’s life can be lifesaving.
When help isn’t there
Of the more than 1,700 young people who were surveyed, 44% responded that they wanted mental health care support, but couldn’t access it. Top barriers to care included cost, fear of not being taken seriously, and fear of being hospitalized against their will.
While all medical fields are experiencing a historic clinical shortage in the U.S., the shortage of youth and teen mental health providers often further exacerbates this ongoing problem. Seventy percent of U.S. counties do not have a single child psychiatrist, and accessing mental health support through insurance is often difficult. Many patients are left paying out of pocket, widening the mental health access gap.
When funding for government resources is reduced, or programs are cut altogether, like in the case of the crisis and suicide hotline for LGBTQ+ youth, which was dismantled in 2025, other community organizations are left to fill those gaps, yet the chasm continues to grow. For many teens, the primary access point to care is schools and community centers. Aside from community support, the other main pathway to care is the emergency department.
For many young people, their first entry point into the mental health care system is through high-acuity services in the emergency department. If we can reach them earlier, research consistently shows that we can make a meaningful difference in their lives.
There is some good news in the report: survey respondents who turned to a mental health professional doubled from 32% to 64%, further demonstrating that many teens and young people would seek professional support if they could access it.
Affirmation as an early intervention
While access to professional healthcare and mental health support remains a critical issue we must address systematically, there are early interventions that are not clinical but are efficacious for many. This starts with community support and affirmation as one of the most important aspects. For example, there’s a social component that could be considered an early intervention.
When young people feel validated and supported by their community – whether it’s their friends, schools, extended family, or like-minded people – that is a pre-clinical intervention. This can include social events, school clubs, or community-focused initiatives. For teens and young people, in particular, they’re looking for a safe and accepting space, which can come in many forms.
Beyond that, access to sub-clinical support is also an effective resource. This could be a guidance counselor, teacher, or coach. State-funded initiatives that offer free coaching – no insurance, referrals, or immigration status required – have already demonstrated meaningful reach at scale. In California alone, more than 350,000 children and families have accessed this kind of support. These models deserve replication, not defunding.
Closing the gap (so AI doesn’t)
Research clearly and consistently demonstrates how important closing the care gap is for youth mental health, but there’s another emerging concern that threatens to close the gap if the medical community does not – artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots. The very access chasm we’re discussing means teens are seeking out support in other ways, and many are turning to AI chatbots powered by large language models (LLMs) like OpenAI’s ChatGPT or Anthropic’s Claude.
Not only are they getting the validation and support they might not otherwise get, but they’re getting it immediately, in just a few clicks and keystrokes. A recent study published in JAMA Pediatrics found that one in five adolescents and young adults use AI chatbots for mental health advice. Of the more than 1,000 young people included in the study, whose responses were weighted to represent an estimated 42.8 million youths, more than 63% of those who are using AI for mental health support are not disclosing it to family and friends. More than 91% found the guidance somewhat or very helpful – a finding that may sound reassuring, but isn’t. High perceived helpfulness is not the same as clinical benefit, and that distinction matters enormously when we’re talking about adolescents in distress.
The problem isn’t just that AI chatbots lack clinical training – it’s how they’re built. The dominant training method for modern AI assistants rewards responses that users rate positively in the moment, not responses that are most truthful or therapeutically appropriate. This produces what researchers call sycophancy: the system learns to validate rather than challenge. A sycophantic therapist would be a bad therapist. But for a teenager who rarely feels heard at home or school, a tool that always agrees can feel like exactly what they needed – even when it’s the opposite. And crucially, it can delay or replace the real care they deserve.
We’ve already seen the long-term consequences and dangers of social media on young people and teens. If we don’t close the care gap – particularly for young people who identify as LGBTQ+ – we will likely face the same public health crisis as more and more young people turn to AI for support.
The data tells us what works. One affirming adult can be lifesaving. Community support, sub-clinical coaching, and early access to professional care all move the needle. As clinicians, we can act now: ask our teen patients how they’re using AI for emotional support, just as we ask about social media and sleep. Educate the families we serve about the difference between AI as a productivity tool and AI as an emotional surrogate. And advocate loudly for the funding and policy choices that keep the care gap from being filled by something that can’t actually close it.
