A President Trump-ordered report on the scientific basis for providing “gender-affirming care” to kids — which found almost no medical evidence to support hormone therapy and other treatments for minors who identify as transgender — was published in its final version Wednesday after passing scientific peer review.

The report was reviewed by 10 different experts and research groups — and none identified major faults in the findings that US doctors should pause giving common gender dysphoria treatments until more is known about the long-term effects on patients, the lead author told The Post.

“They were given the chance to show mistakes, show errors. And they were not able to identify any,” said Dr. Leor Sapir, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and one of the project researchers.

“They had some minor comments here and there, but nothing that gets to the main findings about evidence and ethics,” he said.

“And that includes the former president of the Endocrine Society, the very organization that has been one of the chief proponents of these interventions,” Sapir added.

The report was first released in May after Trump issued Executive Order 14187 after taking office.

The order claimed that US doctors were “maiming” teens with gender-affirming treatment that “must end,” and ordered the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to compile an assessment of the standards of care of minors who identify as transgender.

The subsequent report found that many of the studies that proponents of gender-affirming care use to back their treatments were of “very low quality,” and that little is really known about the long-term psychological and quality-of-life effects of treatment, along with how often patients regret undertaking them.

The report also noted the UK has banned the use of puberty blockers and other treatments for minors altogether.

Instead, the report said, doctors should focus on psychotherapy until more is known about the effects of gender-affirming care treatments for children.

The report was widely denounced by trans advocates when it was released in May — with many complaining that the authors’ names had been withheld and that it was biased by the Trump administration’s open hostility toward the trans community.

US Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. even touted the report within weeks of its release, sending a letter from the HHS telling doctors across the US to follow its findings before it had been peer-reviewed.

But Sapir noted that the report’s nine authors and their research process were “completely independent of HHS” — and that most are Democrats.

Including Sapir, they were Dr. Alex Byrne, a philosophy and linguistics professor at MIT; Evgenia Abbruzzese, a health care researcher at the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine; Dr. Farr Curlin, a professor at the Duke University School of Medicine; and Dr. Moti Gorin, who teaches philosophy at Colorado State University.

The others were Dr. Kristopher Kaliebe, a psychiatrist who teaches at the University of Southern Florida Morsani College of Medicine; Dr. Michael Laidlaw, a private practicing endocrinologist; Dr. Kathleen McDeavitt, a psychiatrist teaching at the Baylor College of Medicine; and Dr. Yuan Zhang, a researcher at the health care policy group Evidence Bridge.

“We are very politically and ideologically a diverse group,” he said. “Most of the authors are liberals, Democrats. They wouldn’t vote for Trump if he forced them to. This is a bipartisan initiative.”

He added that keeping names anonymous was also standard practice in peer review processes, so that responses are not colored by preconceived notions of authors.

And when the report was submitted to three organizations for the peer review process, only one responded — the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which took issue with the report’s decision to not include any trans people among its researchers.

But the APA did not substantively criticize the actual evidence analysis findings, saying mostly that the report failed to clearly explain its methodology.

The authors responded by saying they elected to leave trans people out of the research to avoid biasing the scientific process of the research, and that it deliberately chose researchers from a wide array of political backgrounds to balance that out. It also noted that other peer reviewers complimented the clarity of its research process.

Seven other experts from across the medical field participated in the peer review, too, and also found no fundamental problems.

They included Dr. Richard Santen, a University of Virginia professor emeritus of endocrinology and metabolism who used to be president of the Endocrine Society. Santen called the HHS review “scientifically sound.”

Others readers were Dr. Johan Bester, an associate dean at St. Louis University School of Medicine who called the reports main findings “correct”; Karleen Gribble, a professor at the School of Nursing and Midwifery; and Dr. Lane Strathearn, a professor of pediatrics, neuroscience and other fields at the University of Iowa, who called the report “a valuable and much needed contribution to this important field of practice.”

And none of their critiques matched the outcry from some quarters that the report faced when it was first released in May.

“They can condemn the report all they want, but they were not able to identify a single mistake. Not one,” Sapir said.

While what the Trump administration will do with the report remains to be seen, Sapir said he hopes that the medical community will take a step back from the culture war debate over gender-affirming care and look at the science.

“Let’s reassess. At minimum, let’s allow for open debate. Let’s listen to dissenting perspectives. Let’s do rigorous analysis,” he said.