US circumcision rate hits record low as foreskin restoration movement grows

A Johns Hopkins Medicine-based analysis released earlier this month and cited by the Daily Mail shows that 49.3% of newborn boys in the United States are circumcised, the lowest level since the practice peaked about seven decades ago. The shift comes as a broader debate over infant genital cutting and rising interest in restoration among adult men converge in a health landscape shaped by evolving cultural and ethical perspectives.

Circumcision became routine in the United States in the early 20th century, with hospital procedures becoming nearly ubiquitous by the 1950s and 1960s. By that era, roughly 80% to 90% of male infants were circumcised in many regions. The practice remained common through the late 20th century, often performed without extensive parental discussion, with informed consent becoming more formalized in the 1980s and 1990s. In recent years, however, shifting attitudes toward bodily autonomy and medical benefits have contributed to a notable decline in newborn circumcision rates. The new data reflect a longer-term trend that observers say is unlikely to reverse quickly, even as some families continue to weigh cultural, religious, and medical considerations.

As preferences shift away from routine infant circumcision, a parallel movement has emerged among adult men seeking to restore foreskin tissue that was removed in infancy. The so-called intactivist movement, which argues against genital cutting on infants, has gained visibility online and in public demonstrations, and some participants describe ongoing efforts to recreate a coverage similar to a foreskin using non-surgical methods. Ron Low, a longtime intactivist who became known for designing tugging devices, has gone on to perform a one-man show about “what’s awesome about foreskins,” highlighting how the movement has aligned with broader conversations about consent, sexuality, and bodily integrity.

Official spokespeople for Johns Hopkins Medicine did not make reporters available for interview about the findings. Still, medical experts contacted for background describe foreskin restoration as a complex and controversial field. The most common non-surgical method is a family of techniques collectively known as tugging, which involves stretching the remaining shaft skin to create a hood-like cover over the glans. Devices range from manual methods to weighted, sleep-friendly apparatuses sold online at prices spanning roughly $20 to $2,000. Proponents argue the approach can improve sensation or appearance, but clinicians caution that there are no large, peer-reviewed studies proving efficacy, and outcomes likely vary based on how circumcision was performed, penile size, and whether a man is a “show-er” or a “grower.”

Two Johns Hopkins urology specialists contacted for this report declined to comment on the efficacy of tugging specifically, emphasizing that outcomes depend on many variables and that reliable data are limited. They also warned of potential risks, including tissue and nerve damage from repetitive tugging. Still, the public-facing side of the movement has grown, with demonstrations, advocacy, and personal stories highlighting both psychological and physical dimensions of the issue. The broader medical community remains cautious, noting that most men who were circumcised as infants would likely not regain native foreskin tissue, and that non-surgical restoration cannot restore muscles and cells lost to the procedure or fully recreate the original sensory experience.

Beyond tugging, a handful of hospitals and clinics are reportedly experimenting with formal foreskin reconstruction surgeries. These procedures are rare and expensive, often not covered by insurance, and results remain inconclusive. Some men report improved comfort or body image, while others see limited gains and ongoing sensitivity questions. Juan Vasquez, a 36-year-old Chicago-area audiologist, describes years of manual tugging and device-assisted attempts to reverse the physical effects of circumcision, and he credits his involvement with therapy for addressing the psychological impact of having been circumcised without consent. Vasquez emphasizes the personal nature of the decision and the need for careful consideration given the uncertainties.

Industry participants describe a long horizon for restoration efforts. Chuck Torres, a Rhode Island resident who developed a device called the Duel Tension Restorer (DTR) and has sold it for more than two decades, says some clients are mothers who regret having their sons circumcised. He notes that while he hopes restoration can provide some of what was lost, he recognizes that the full benefits may not be achievable for everyone. Low himself has described the experience of using his own tugger product for several years and likening its effects to a “foreskin-like” sensation. He believes that public shifting attitudes toward circumcision have helped support his work and that of other restoration advocates, including his later artistic endeavors, such as a Fringe Festival show that turns his experiences into performance.

The restoration conversation has attracted both supporters and critics. Some participants report improved confidence and comfort after years of commitment, while others describe hostility or misunderstanding from peers who view the practice as misguided or self-harmful. Medical observers caution that tugging is time-intensive and demands discipline, and they worry that enthusiasts may overstate potential benefits or underestimate risks. The field’s lack of robust evidence has led some clinicians to distance themselves from endorsing any particular restoration approach.

In a broader health context, the decline in infant circumcision rates in the United States intersects with ongoing debates over patient autonomy, cultural and religious practices, and the medical merits of routine newborn procedures. While proponents of circumcision have historically linked benefits to infection prevention and hygiene, recent analyses emphasize that the decision remains complex, with outcomes—especially for later-life restoration—varying widely across individuals. For families and adults weighing options, medical guidance remains essential, and individuals should consider both physical and psychological factors, as well as the limits of current evidence in restoration technologies and reconstructive options.