Under Department of Defense Instruction 6130.03, “Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction in the Military Services” dated July 2, 2012, candidates for military service should not have “[c]urrent or history of psychosexual conditions, including but not limited to transsexualism, exhibitionism, transvestism, voyeurism, and other paraphilias” which is noted as “not a contradiction of the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell'” since homosexuality was removed from the list of psychosexual conditions in DSM in 1973.^[28]

In 2013, Captain Sage Fox, who had enlisted in the Army 1993 and taken time off after transitioning to the Reserves in 2012 to undergo sex reassignment surgery, was ordered to resume active duty, despite policies blocking the service of transgender personnel.^[29][30] After a review, the military concluded that it could not legally discharge her, so Fox was asked to return and serve again as a woman.^[30] This made her the first openly transgender person serving in the military. She served for 2 weeks and then she had orders to be placed on the inactive reserve which she believed was due to her gender identity.^[30] She was not granted disability but her medical records did not indicate her unfit to serve. In 2016, Obama repealed the transgender ban in the military and Sage Fox was working with the medical board and was expected to be reenlisted.^[29]

On March 13, 2014, an advisory panel organized by the Palm Center, a research institute based at San Francisco State University, released a report that found no compelling medical reason for placing limitations on military service by transgender individuals. It said DoD rules that prevented enlistment or continued service by transgender individuals were based on outmoded and untenable ideas about their psychological and physical fitness, and it dismissed concerns about the costs of medical care. It said the DoD’s policies could be changed by an executive order. The panel was headed by former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders and Rear Adm. Alan Steinman, a former chief health and safety director for the Coast Guard.^[31] It concluded:^[32]

We determined not only that there is no compelling medical reason for the ban, but also that the ban itself is an expensive, damaging and unfair barrier to health care access for the approximately 15,450 transgender personnel who serve currently in the active, Guard and reserve components. Medical regulations requiring the discharge of transgender personnel are inconsistent with how the military regulates all other medical and psychological conditions, and transgender-related conditions appear to be the only gender-related conditions that require discharge irrespective of fitness for duty.

At the time, service personnel were still being dismissed for being transgender despite their satisfactory job performance. The dismissal policy was based on outdated medical diagnoses which suggested gender nonconformity was a mental illness.^[33] In May 2014, Secretary of Defense Hagel said his department’s policy with respect to transgender service should be reviewed “continually”.^[34] Later in May, the ban on Medicare coverage for gender reassignment surgery, which had been in place since 1981, was lifted in response to a lawsuit filed in 2013 on behalf of Denee Mallon, a 74-year-old transgender Army veteran.^[35] With the end of the ban on openly gay service members, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James stated the ban on transgender personnel “is likely to come under review in the next year or so” in a December interview.^[36]

Also in May 2014, the Williams Institute published a research brief estimating 15,500 transgender people were serving on active duty or in the Guard/Reserves, and an additional 134,300 transgender people were either veterans or retired from the Guard/Reserves. The brief was based on a six-month survey of over 6,000 transgender people in 2008–09 asking (in part) if they had ever served in the armed forces, or had been denied entry because they were transgender.^[37]

In February 2015, during his first trip as United States Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter was asked about the service of transgender troops, to which he replied:

… we want to make our conditions and experience of service as attractive as possible to our best people in our country. And I’m very open-minded about [it] – otherwise about what their personal lives and proclivities are, provided they can do what we need them to do for us. That’s the important criteria. Are they going to be excellent service members? And I don’t think anything but their suitability for service should preclude them.^[38]

Days later, the White House echoed Secretary Carter’s support of transgender service personnel.^[39]

In mid-March 2015, a doctor and major in the United States Army Medical Corps named Jamie Lee Henry became the first known active-duty Army officer to come out as transgender, and the first and only active-duty service member who has changed her name and gender within the United States military, to her knowledge and to the knowledge of other trans activists.^[40] In September 2022, Henry and her wife were indicted on conspiracy charges for allegedly attempting to transfer confidential military medical information to Russia.^[41]

Starting in March 2015, the Army, Air Force, and Navy issued directives protecting transgender soldiers from dismissal. The Army issued a directive that protected transgender soldiers from being dismissed by mid-level officers by requiring the decision for discharge to be made by the service’s top civilian for personnel matters.^[42] The Air Force stated that for enlisted airmen, there was no outright grounds for discharge for anyone with gender dysphoria or who identified as transgender, and that a person would only be subject to eviction from the Air Force if his or her condition interfered with their potential deployment or performance on active duty.^[43] Navy Secretary Ray Mabus signed a memorandum directed to the chief of Naval operations and commandant of the Marine Corps stating: “Effective immediately, separations initiated under the provisions of the reference for service members with a diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria, who identify themselves as transgender, or who have taken steps to externalize the condition, must be forwarded to the assistant secretary of the Navy (manpower and reserve affairs) for decision.”^[44]

In the wake of these directives, in July 2015, Secretary Carter ordered the creation of a Pentagon working group “to study over the next six months the policy and readiness implications of welcoming transgender persons to serve openly”.^[45] He also stated that all decisions to dismiss troops with gender dysphoria would be handled by the Pentagon’s acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Brad Carson.^[45] Carson would later resign his position in April 2016 following a February 2016 Senate confirmation hearing where he clashed publicly with Sens. Jim Inhofe [R-OK] and John McCain [R-AZ], but he delivered an implementation plan to allow open service by transgender people for Secretary Carter’s review as one of his final accomplishments as acting Undersecretary.^[46][47] Although the working group had a January 2016 deadline to finish evaluating the change, there still was no official policy in place by May 2016, and the Pentagon’s acting personnel chief stated it would take “months, but not large numbers of months” to finalize transgender military service policy details.^[48]

The American Medical Association approved a resolution opposing the ban on openly transgender troops in June 2015.^[49] “Transgender Members of the U.S. Military” were listed as one of the nine runners-up for Person of the Year by The Advocate in November 2015.^[50]

 […] Americans who want to serve and can meet our standards should be afforded the opportunity to compete to do so. After all, our all-volunteer force is built upon having the most qualified Americans. And the profession of arms is based on honor and trust.
 Army Chief of Staff General Milley recently reminded us of this, when he said, and I quote him, “The United States Army is open to all Americans who meet the standard, regardless of who they are. Embedded within our Constitution is that very principle, that all Americans are free and equal. And we as an Army are sworn to protect and defend that very principle. And we are sworn to even die for that principle. So if we in uniform are willing to die for that principle, then we in uniform should be willing to live by that principle.” That’s General Milley.

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness asked the RAND National Defense Research Institute to study the implications of transgender service members, including identifying the health care needs of transgender service members, the effect on troop readiness, and the experience of the foreign military forces which allow transgender members to serve openly. RAND estimated in a report published June 2016 that 2,450 active-duty and 1,510 reserve personnel were transgender. Based on the percentage of transgender people seeking gender transition-related medical treatment using private health insurance, RAND further estimated that 29 to 129 active-duty service members would seek transition-related health care benefits per year, increasing military health system costs by 0.13% of the $6 billion military health system annual budget, at a total annual estimated cost of $2.4 to $8.4 million. Readiness was estimated at a decrease of 0.0015% of total available labor-years due to recuperation, and unit cohesion was determined to be minimally affected. The RAND study focused on the service history of transgender personnel in Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom, concluding, “in no case was there any evidence of an effect on the operational effectiveness, operational readiness, or cohesion of the force.” RAND concluded that calling for “strong leadership support”, providing diversity-related “education and training to the entire force”, and developing and enforcing “a clear anti-harassment policy” were key best practices.^[52][53] The report had been completed in March 2016, and transgender advocates had accused Secretary Carter of delaying its release because it found there were few obstacles to allowing transgender troops to serve openly. A copy of the RAND report was leaked to and published by The New York Times in May 2016.^[46] The RAND cost estimate agreed with an earlier study by Aaron Belkin, who estimated the annual cost of transition-related care would be $5.6 million.^[54] On May 23, 2016, the Department of Defense observed the first LGBT Pride Month with openly transgender service members.^[55][56]

On June 30, 2016,^[57][58] Secretary Ash Carter made an official announcement and published Directive-Type Memo 16-005 (DTM 16-005), declaring:

• Effective immediately:^[59][4]
  • [N]o otherwise qualified Service member may be involuntarily separated, discharged or denied reenlistment or continuation of service, solely on the basis of their gender identity.
  • It is the Department’s position, consistent with the U.S. Attorney General’s opinion, that discrimination based on gender identity is a form of sex discrimination.
• By October 1, 2016:^[59][4]
  • A training handbook will be developed and published for transgender Service members, commanders, the force, and medical professionals. In addition, guidance will be published for medical care and treatment of transgender Service members.
  • Transgender Service members will be allowed to transition gender while serving in accordance with Department of Defense Instruction 1300.28 (also published on June 30).^[60]
  • “The Military Health System will be required to provide transgender Service members with all medically necessary care related to gender transition, based on the guidance that is issued.”
• By November 1, 2016:^[4]
  • Implementing guidance and a training and education plan will be issued by each branch of the military, including a scheduled completion date.
• By July 1, 2017:^[59][4]
  • Training of the force regarding transgender Service members shall be completed.
  • The process of accession (entrance to military service, through enlistment, Service Academies, ROTC, or any similar program) will be opened to transgender individuals, provided they meet the same physical and mental fitness standards as any other applicant.
  • The initial accession policy requires “an individual to have completed any medical treatment that their doctor has determined is necessary in connection with their gender transition, and to have been stable in their preferred gender for 18 months, as certified by their doctor, before they can enter the military”.

The Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 1300.28, “In-service transition for transgender service members”, published on June 30, 2016, provided administrative and medical guidance for currently-serving military personnel seeking gender transition.^[61] On September 20, 2016, a commander’s training handbook was published by the Department of Defense, along with a medical protocol and guidance to change a service member’s gender, entitled “Transgender Service in the U.S. Military”.^[62] On October 3, 2016, non-active duty service members became eligible for the Military Health System to provide behavioral health care and hormone treatments, but not sex reassignment surgery.^[57]

On October 26, 10 soldiers in the United States Army became the first to openly petition for a sex change.^[63] Also on October 26, the Department of Defense ruled that any form of discrimination against transgender youth was incompatible with an Executive Order issued by then U.S. President Bill Clinton in the year 2000 which directed federal agencies that conduct educational activities to comply with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and issued a memorandum ordering military youth schools to immediately comply with the 2000 Executive Order.^[64]

On October 16, 2016, the United States Air Force published its official guidance policy for transgender individuals.^[65] The policy announced their support of transgender airmen and that any bias against them would not be tolerated. This allowed transgender individuals to openly serve in the Air Force, along with outlawing any discharge or denying reenlistment based solely on gender identity.^[66] The policy also provided medical protocol and assistance for any service member that wished to change their identity.^[66]

The United States Army also followed suit and issued its guidance policy for transgender individuals on November 1.^[67]

On November 7, 2016, the Navy released its official guidance policy for transgender individuals.^[68] The policy allowed any individual regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation to become a sailor if they can meet Navy standards.^[69] Current Navy sailors can transition genders with a diagnosis from a military medical provider stating that the transition is medically necessary for the individual.^[69] Policy was adjusted to increase facility privacy and urinalysis protocol. The protocol for physical readiness was unchanged.^[69]

On November 10, 2016, 55 sailors in the United States Navy and 48 airpersons in the United States Air Force publicly petitioned for their respective gender confirmation surgeries.^[70][71] On November 29, 2016, the United States Department of Defense Directive 1350.2, the United States Department of Defense Military Equal Opportunity Program, was updated to include gender identity.^[72]

From January 20, 2017, to July 25, 2017, the Trump administration’s policy was to maintain the existing policy allowing transgender individuals to serve openly in the military while delaying the implementation of enlistment policies for further review. On February 25, 2017, the Military Times learned that some time after Trump was sworn into the presidency, Defense Department schools stopped enforcing an October 26, 2016 Department of Defense ruling which had found that any form of discrimination against transgender youth was incompatible with an Executive Order 13160 of June 23, 2000 issued by U.S. President Bill Clinton in 2000 (which itself directed federal agencies that conduct educational activities to comply with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972) and issued a memorandum ordering military schools to immediately comply with the Clinton-era order.^[73][74]

In April 2017, President Trump nominated Army veteran and Tennessee State Senator Mark Green as his second choice for Secretary of the Army. Green was criticized for prior remarks he had made before the Chattanooga Tea Party in September 2016, including his assertion, “if you poll the psychiatrists, they’re going to tell you that transgender is a disease.”^[75] Green withdrew his nomination in May amid strong opposition to his nomination from LGBT advocates, among others,^[76] including Daniel Feehan, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness under the Obama administration, who said Green’s prior statements were of “great concern towards military readiness” and could immediately impact unit cohesion.^[77] On May 16, 2017, a letter that was signed by dozens of right-leaning groups pushed for banning transgender individuals from the United States military.^[78]

On June 2, 2017, the Department of Defense observed the first LGBT Pride Month since the repeal of the ban on open military service by transgender service members in the U.S. military.^[79] On June 28, 2017, during the House Armed Services Committee’s markup of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018, Representative Vicky Hartzler introduced an amendment that sought to reinstate a ban on transgender individuals serving openly in the military. The amendment proposed two primary measures: prohibiting transgender individuals from serving in the military and directing the Secretary of Defense to honorably discharge currently serving transgender service members.^[80] Hartzler justified the proposal by citing concerns over military readiness and associated costs. The amendment was ultimately withdrawn the same day due to opposition from committee members and advocacy groups.^[81]

On June 30, 2017, the Department of Defense, under Secretary of Defense James Mattis, issued a memorandum titled “Accession of Transgender Individuals into the Military Services – Interim Guidance”, which announced a six-month delay in the implementation of a policy that would allow transgender individuals to enlist in the military. The policy, originally set to take effect on July 1, 2017, followed a one-year review period initiated on July 1, 2016, as part of the Obama administration’s directive to assess the integration of transgender service members into the military.^[82][83] The decision delayed the enlistment policy to January 1, 2018, to allow additional time for the Pentagon to study its implications on military readiness, cohesion, and budgetary considerations, rejecting requests from the Army and Air Force for a two-year delay.^[83] President Trump was reportedly frustrated by what he perceived as unnecessary hesitation and indecisiveness on the part of the Pentagon.^[84] In essence, while the Pentagon was operating within its authority to delay implementation for review, Trump might have been annoyed because he expected them to take a firmer stance, which they could not legally do without his directive. This frustration likely influenced his decision to bypass the review process entirely and announce via Twitter on July 26, 2017, that transgender individuals would no longer be allowed to serve in the military in any capacity.^[85]

On July 10, 2017, the Trump administration hosted a gathering of religious leaders at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building for a six-hour session. The event included briefings from White House staff and appearances by high-ranking officials, including Vice President Mike Pence. Russell Moore, a religious adviser to President Trump, noted that discussion also touched on the issue of transgender military service. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, advocated for a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, though some participants expressed disagreement.^[86]

On July 13, 2017, Rep. Hartzler introduced House Amendment 183, an amendment to ban on funding gender reassignment surgeries and medical treatments for transgender military personnel in the NDAA,^[87] which was voted down 209–214 when 24 Republicans joined 190 Democrats in opposing the proposal.^[84][88] Before the vote, Secretary Mattis called Hartzler to ask her to withdraw the amendment.^[89] After the amendment was defeated, Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ) stated “it seems to me, and all due respect to everyone, that if someone wants to come to the military, potentially risk their life to save the country, that they should probably decide whether they’re a man or woman before they do that.” Attempts by Franks and others to insert a provision banning the funding in the rules governing a Pentagon spending package failed following pressure for attempting to circumvent regular order. Republican House leaders then sought direct intervention from the White House. Chief strategist Steve Bannon encouraged President Trump to deal with the matter now and played a role in pushing Trump to move ahead with banning transgender individuals from the military, despite the ongoing Pentagon review.^[84][90]

Following the failed vote, House conservatives sought to include the same prohibition in the Make America Secure Appropriations Act, 2018. They pushed for the provision to be added through a procedural maneuver, bypassing a direct vote. However, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and GOP leadership declined to support the move, fearing it would circumvent regular order and alienate moderate Republicans.^[84]

This section contains an excessive amount of intricate detail. Please help improve it by spinning off or relocating relevant information and removing excessive detail that goes against Wikipedia’s inclusion policy. (September 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

On July 26, 2017, President Donald Trump tweeted:^[91][92]

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you.

His tweet had no legal effect on transgender service in the U.S. military as it was a policy pronouncement and not an executive order or an presidential memorandum. The tweet did, however, cause the United States Department of Defense to cease Obama-era policy reviews on how to implement and monitor the integration of transgender service members and shifted to policy review on how to implement the purposed transgender military ban. It also created confusion and uncertainty. The announcement was a surprise to many, as Trump did not campaign in 2016 on banning transgender individuals from serving and enlisting in the U.S. military.

According to Politico and a senior administration official, President Trump had always planned to ban transgender individuals from the military and prohibit the Pentagon funding gender reassignment surgeries, but the fight over prohibiting Pentagon funding gender reassignment surgeries had hastened Trump’s decision. According to numerous congressional and White House sources, the tweet was a last-ditch attempt to save a $1.6 billion (~$1.96 billion in 2024) border wall funding provision in the Make America Secure Appropriations Act, 2018.^[84][94][95]

Trump was criticized for making statements that contradicted the conclusions of the 2016 RAND study.^[52][96] Political commentator Richard Kim observed President Trump’s tweets were “a sop to the far-right evangelical faction” in the House of Representatives led by Hartzler, who had threatened the funding for President Trump’s planned United States-Mexico border wall if the military continued to spend health care funds for medical treatment of gender dysphoria.^[97]

Due to the haste of the announcement, White House officials were unable to answer questions on how the proposed ban would be implemented, or what would happen to those personnel who were openly transgender.^[98] Secretary Mattis was only notified about the announcement on July 25.^[99] Similarly, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Joseph Dunford noted his surprise at the announcement, saying, “When asked, I will state I was not consulted” in emails dated July 27, 2017 leaked to BuzzFeed News in February 2018.^[100] The New York Times noted that the move also marked “a stark turnabout for Mr. Trump, who billed himself during the campaign as an ally of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people”.^[98] After the president’s tweets, Hartzler stated in an interview, “this was the right call by our commander in chief, to make sure every defense dollar goes toward meeting the threats that we are facing in the world … [T]he entire policy … is a detriment to our readiness.”^[84]

The announced reinstatement of the ban was followed by protests in New York City, Washington DC, and San Francisco on July 26, 2017,^[101] and a rally was held in front of the White House on July 29. As Trump had not yet outlined specific policy changes, Chairman Dunford announced on July 27, 2017, “there will be no modifications to the current policy until the president’s direction has been received by the secretary of defense and the secretary has issued implementation guidance.”^[102] Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced an amendment to NDAA on July 27, 2017, which would prohibit the involuntary discharge, cessation of health care benefits, or changes in responsibility or position (other than promotion, routine reassignment, or deployment) of transgender troops until sixty days after Congress received the results of the six-month study proposed by Secretary Mattis.^[103]

Despite the controversy, the Make America Secure Appropriations Act, 2018 passed the House on July 27, 2017.^[84]

On August 1, 2017, the Palm Center released a letter signed by 56 retired generals and admirals, opposing the proposed ban on transgender military service members. The letter stated that if implemented, the ban “would cause significant disruptions, deprive the military of mission-critical talent and compromise the integrity of transgender troops who would be forced to live a lie, as well as non-transgender peers who would be forced to choose between reporting their comrades or disobeying policy”.^[104] The commandant of the United States Coast Guard, Admiral Paul F. Zukunft, made a personal commitment to “not turn my back … not break faith” with transgender service members in the Coast Guard on August 1, 2017.^[105] At the time, it was noted the Coast Guard was part of the Department of Homeland Security, not the Department of Defense, and it was not clear how the proposed ban on transgender service members would affect the Coast Guard.^[106]

In my judgment, the previous Administration failed to identify a sufficient basis to conclude that terminating the Departments’ longstanding policy and practice [prohibiting openly transgender individuals from serving in the United States military] would not hinder military effectiveness and lethality, disrupt unit cohesion, or tax military resources, and there remain meaningful concerns that further study is needed to ensure that continued implementation of last year’s policy change would not have those negative effects.

In late August, a memorandum was being prepared which would require Secretary Mattis to enforce the ban on transgender personnel within six months. Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, criticized the forthcoming memo for imposing a double standard on transgender troops, calling it “a recipe for disruption, distraction, and waste”.^[108] On August 25, 2017, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum identifying the guidelines for renewing the ban.^[109] In the memo, President Trump stated the ban on transgender personnel in the military will remain effective until “the Secretary of Defense, after consulting with the Secretary of Homeland Security, provides a recommendation to the contrary that I find convincing”, ignoring the conclusions of the 2016 RAND study, and further called for a “halt [to] all use of DoD or DHS resources to fund sex reassignment surgical procedures for military personnel”, effective March 23, 2018. The memo further required the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security to submit an implementation plan by February 21, 2018.^[107] Senator Tammy Duckworth [D-IL] and Representative Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] released separate statements condemning the memorandum; Pelosi stated the memo directed “the Pentagon to hurt and humiliate” transgender service personnel and questioned whether “prejudice, not the national defense” was motivating the action.^[110]

If you are willing to risk your life for our country and you can do the job, you should be able to serve–no matter your gender identity or sexual orientation. Anything else is not just discriminatory, it is disruptive to our military and it is counterproductive to our national security. If the President enacts this ban, which would harm our military readiness, the Democratic and Republican Members of Congress who oppose this discrimination must enact legislation that prevents it from taking effect.

Two weeks before sending his directive to the Pentagon, Trump said, “I think I’m doing the military a great favor” by banning trans military members.^[99][112] Representative Donald McEachin (D-VA) was the lead author of a letter to Secretary Mattis on October 10, 2017, requesting records of discussions or correspondence between the White House and the Pentagon that would document or justify that Trump was “doing the military a great favor”, including any substantiation of requests for a ban on transgender soldiers originating from senior military or Department of Defense personnel. The letter, which questioned “whether the president, his national security team, and military leaders are actively coordinating policy with one another, or whether the president’s transgender ban announcement reflected a breakdown in communication”, was co-signed by 114 other Democratic Representatives.^[113]

On August 29, 2017, Secretary Mattis announced that currently serving transgender troops would be allowed to remain in the armed services, pending further study. Mattis stated he would set up a panel of experts from the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security to provide recommendations on implementing the President’s policy direction.^[114] Secretary Mattis formalized the interim policy in an interim guidance issued on September 18, 2017. The interim guidance, which expires no later than February 21, 2018, essentially freezes the policies that were in place before the Presidential Memorandum of August 25. Accession of transgender individuals is still banned per the procedures dated April 28, 2010. Transgender soldiers will not be denied reenlistment, and may not be involuntarily discharged solely on the basis of their gender identity. Medical treatment will continue for service members with a gender dysphoria diagnosis, with the exception that no new sex reassignment surgeries will be permitted after March 22, 2018, unless necessary to protect the health of an individual who has already begun treatment.^[115] Mattis named the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Patrick M. Shanahan, and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Paul Selva, to head the advisory panel of experts tasked with providing recommendations.^[116][117]

Despite the Interim Guidance, the Presidential Memorandum has attracted significant legal and legislative opposition:

• Jane Doe v. Trump, a lawsuit filed by GLAD and NCLR on August 9, 2017. A preliminary injunction against the Presidential Memorandum was granted in part on October 30, 2017,^[118] but the court vacated this injunction on January 4, 2019.^[119] (Injunctions granted by other courts remained in effect.)
• Stone v. Trump, a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Maryland on August 28, 2017. Judge Marvin J. Garbis granted a preliminary injunction against the Presidential Memorandum in full on November 21, 2017.^[120]
• Karnoski v. Trump, a lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal on August 28, 2017.^[121] A preliminary injunction against the Presidential Memorandum was granted in full on December 11, 2017.^[122]
• Stockman v. Trump, a lawsuit filed by Equality California on September 5, 2017.^[123] A preliminary injunction against the Presidential Memorandum was granted in full on December 22, 2017.^[124]
• S. 1820 (September 15, 2017) and H.R. 4041 (October 12, 2017), bipartisan bills in the Senate and House, respectively, to prohibit the involuntary separation or denial of re-enlistment of military personnel solely on the basis of gender identity.

In November 2017, the Defense Health Agency for the first time approved payment for sex reassignment surgery for an active-duty U.S. military service member. The patient, an infantry soldier who identifies as a woman, had already begun a course of treatment for gender reassignment. The procedure, which the treating doctor deemed medically necessary, was performed on November 14, 2017, at a non-military hospital, since military hospitals lacked the requisite surgical expertise.^[125]

The accession of transgender individuals was scheduled to be allowed by July 1, 2017, per DTM 16-005,^[4] but military leaders asked for a one to two-year delay on accessions, stating more time was needed to review entrance standards and to ensure the success of transgender individuals.^[126] In response, Secretary Mattis issued a six-month delay on accessions.^[127] With Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s decision on October 30, 2017, to enjoin the Presidential Memorandum of August 25, the accession policy reverts to the six-month delay, and the accession of transgender individuals into military service is set to begin on January 1, 2018.^[128][118] Because Secretary Mattis had previously delayed accession by six months in June, the United States Department of Justice Civil Division filed a motion for clarification asking if Secretary Mattis had independent authority to modify DTM 16-005.^[129] In a November 27, 2017 order, Judge Kollar-Kotelly stated “Any action by any of the Defendants that changes this status quo is preliminarily enjoined.”^[130]: 2 As a named defendant, Secretary Mattis does not have authority to change the preliminary injunction order of October 30, which reverts policy to the status quo prior to the Presidential Memorandum of August 25, and accessions are set to start on January 1, 2018.^[131] On December 11, Judge Kollar-Kotelly denied the motion for partial stay, noting it took three weeks for USDOJ to file the first appeal, and that she “would have expected Defendants to act with more alacrity” if the January 1, 2018 deadline for accession was unmanageable.^[132]

USDOJ filed for emergency stays with the D.C. Circuit (on December 11, for Doe),^[133] the Fourth Circuit (on December 14, for Stone),^[134] and the Ninth Circuit (on December 15, for Karnoski),^[135] seeking to either allow Secretary Mattis to institute a second delay on accession, or narrowing the scope of the injunction to allow accession of only those individuals ruled to have standing. On December 21, 2017, a panel of three judges on the Fourth Circuit denied USDOJ’s emergency motion for a stay on Judge Garbis’s order.^[136] The next day, a panel of three judges on the D.C. Circuit also denied the USDOJ emergency stay motion on Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s order.^[137] On December 29, USDOJ filed to withdraw their appeal from the Ninth Circuit,^[138] which was granted.

Beginning on January 1, 2018, transgender individuals were allowed to join the U.S. military if a licensed medical provider certified that the applicant completed all medical treatment associated with gender transition, has been stable in the preferred gender for 18 months, and if the applicant has completed sex reassignment or genital reconstruction surgery, that 18 months have elapsed since the most recent surgery, no functional limitations or complications persist, and no additional surgeries are required.^[139] In February 2018, the Pentagon confirmed that, for the first time, a transgender recruit had signed a contract to enter the U.S. military, joining an estimated 4,000 already serving.^[140]

The Presidential Memorandum of August 25, 2017 required Defense Secretary Mattis to provide his recommendations to the President no later than February 21, 2018, but the meeting was postponed. On February 22, The Washington Post reported that Mattis was set to recommend that transgender sailors and soldiers be allowed to continue serving in the military, according to anonymous officials familiar with Mattis’s plans.^[141] Also on February 22, in Karnoski v. Trump, a motion was filed to compel disclosure as prior documents filed by USDOJ stated the “‘new policy’ on transgender service” would be released on February 21.^[142]: 3

• “Transgender persons with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria are disqualified from military service, except under the following limited circumstances:”

The memorandum providing the recommendations from Mattis, dated February 22, 2018, was released March 23 alongside the supporting report in a document filed for Karnoski v. Trump.^[143] Mattis explained he had formed “a Panel of Experts comprised of senior uniformed and civilian Defense Department and U.S. Coast Guard leaders” to “provide its best military advice, based on increasing the lethality and readiness of America’s armed forces”, which authored the report attached to the Mattis memorandum.^[143] The Panel was convened on September 14, 2017, and met 13 times over a span of 90 days. The names of those on the Panel were not released, but membership was stated by role to include “the Under Secretaries of the Military Departments (or officials performing their duties), the Armed Services’ Vice Chiefs (including the Vice Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard), and the Senior Enlisted Advisors”. Meetings were led “by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness or an official performing those duties”.^{[144]: 17–18} That leadership post was held by Anthony Kurta during the majority of the Panel’s tenure until Robert Wilkie was sworn in during November 2017.^[145]

Anonymous sources stated that Vice President Mike Pence, Ryan T. Anderson, a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation and author of When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment, and Tony Perkins, leader of the Family Research Council, led the creation of the report.^[146] In summary, Mattis recommended:

• “Transgender persons with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria are disqualified from military service, except under the following limited circumstances:
  1. 36 consecutive months of stability “in their biological sex prior to accession”
  2. For currently serving personnel who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria after accession, “if they do not require a change of gender and remain deployable” they may continue to serve.
  3. For currently serving personnel who were diagnosed with gender dysphoria under the previous policy (outlined by Ash Carter) and prior to the effective date of the new policy, they may continue to serve “in their preferred gender and receive medically necessary treatment for gender dysphoria”
• “Transgender persons who require or have undergone gender transition are disqualified from military service.”
• “Transgender persons without a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria, who are otherwise qualified for service, may serve, like all other Service members, in their biological sex.”

The Mattis memorandum criticized the prior RAND report, stating “It referred to limited and heavily caveated data to support its conclusions, glossed over the impacts of healthcare costs, readiness, and unit cohesion, and erroneously relied on the selective experiences of foreign militaries with different operational requirements than our own.”^[143] However, it was also reported that unlike Trump, Mattis preferred to keep transgender people in the military.^[147]

For decades, military standards relating to mental health, physical health, and the physiological differences between men and women operated to preclude from military service transgender persons who desired to live and work as the opposite gender.

The Department of Defense (DoD) report attached to the Mattis memorandum provides recommendations consistent with those summarized in the Mattis memorandum.^{[144]: 4–6} For the third “limited circumstance” allowing the retention of those who began openly serving as transgender people under the Carter policy, the report concludes with the threat: “should [the Department of Defense] decision to exempt those Service members be used by a court as a basis for invalidating the entire policy, this exemption instead is and should be deemed severable from the rest of the policy”,^[144]: 43 which would expel that grandfathered class of service members.^[148] One journalist called the report “an attempt to retroactively justify Trump’s ban [on transgender military service] by lending it a sheen of reason and legitimacy”.^[146]

The DoD report notes that DoDI 6130.03 provides “baseline accession medical standards” and touts that it “is reviewed every three to four years by the Accession Medical Standards Working Group” but later notes the “standards were consistent with DSM-III” (published in 1980) and “[d]ue to challenges associated with updating and publishing a new iteration of DoDI 6130.03, the DoDI’s terminology has not changed to reflect the changes in the DSM”.^{[144]: 8, 10} The DoD report was critical of the RAND report, saying that RAND had “failed to analyze the impact at the micro level of allowing gender transition by individuals with gender dysphoria”. Specifically, RAND “did not examine the potential impact on unit readiness, perceptions of fairness and equity, personnel safety, and reasonable expectations of privacy at the unit and sub-unit levels, all of which are critical to unit cohesion”, did not “meaningfully address the significant mental health problems that accompany gender dysphoria”, and did not address “the scope of the scientific uncertainty regarding whether gender transition treatment fully remedies those problems”.^[144]: 14

The DoD report selectively quotes the DSM-5 to define gender dysphoria as “a ‘marked incongruence between one’s experience/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least 6 months duration,’ that is manifested in various specified ways”,^{[144]: 20–21} which omits the second component of a gender dysphoria diagnosis. According to the American Psychiatric Association, “gender dysphoria diagnosis [in adolescents and adults] involves a difference between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, and significant distress or problems functioning. It lasts at least six months and is shown by at least two of the following [list of specific symptoms]”.^[149] According to the summary of DSM-5 paraphrased by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “Gender nonconformity itself [is] not considered to be a mental disorder”.^[150]

In fact, there is a global medical consensus that such care is reliable, safe, and effective. An expectation of certainty is an unrealistic and counterproductive standard of evidence for health policy–whether civilian or military–because even the most well-established medical treatments could not satisfy that standard. Indeed, setting certainty as a standard suggests an inability to refute the research. A wide body of reputable, peer-reviewed research has demonstrated to psychological and health experts that treatments for gender dysphoria are effective.

The DoD report goes on to cast doubt on the efficacy of treating gender dysphoria: “the available scientific evidence on the extent to which such treatments fully remedy all of the issues associated with gender dysphoria is unclear. Nor do any of these studies account for the added stress of military life, deployments, and combat.”^[144]: 24 It cites several references to support this conclusion: a study published in 2016 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (the “CMS” study),^[150] another published in 2011 studying the experience in Sweden (the “Swedish study”),^[152] one from Mayo Clinic researchers,^[153] and a study published in the Hayes Medical Technology Directory (the “Hayes Directory”).^[154]

The scope of the CMS study was limited to determining whether a national coverage decision could be made for gender reassignment surgery. CMS did not assess specific surgery types, nor did CMS “analyze the clinical evidence for counseling or hormone therapy treatments for gender dysphoria”.^[150] In an interview published in 2015, the lead author of the “Swedish study” stated “People who misuse the study always omit the fact that the study clearly states that it is not an evaluation of gender dysphoria treatment. If we look at the literature, we find that several recent studies conclude that WPATH Standards of Care compliant treatment decrease gender dysphoria and improves mental health.”^[155] The Mayo Clinic study concluded that gender dysphoria treatment was effective.^[156] In a joint statement released on March 28, former Surgeons General Joycelyn Elders and David Satcher were “troubled that the Defense department’s report on transgender military service has mischaracterized the robust body of peer-reviewed research on the effectiveness of transgender medical care as demonstrating ‘considerable scientific uncertainty.'”^[151] A letter from American Medical Association CEO James Madara addressed to Secretary Mattis on April 3, 2018, also criticized the new policy, stating “there is no medically valid reason–including a diagnosis of gender dysphoria–to exclude transgender individuals from military service. Transgender individuals have served, and continue to serve, our country with honor, and we believe they should be allowed to continue doing so.”^[157]

The DoD report also asserts that using a person’s gender identity, rather than their anatomy is inherently unfair since “sex-based standards are based on legitimate biological differences between males and females, it follows that a person’s physical biology should dictate which standards apply”, going on to fault the “variability and fluidity of gender transition” and providing examples such as “allowing a biological male to meet the female physical fitness and body fat standards and to compete against females in gender-specific physical training and athletic competition, [would undermine] fairness (or perceptions of fairness) because males competing as females will likely score higher on the female test than on the male test and possibly compromise safety”.^{[144]: 30–31} One study has shown that transgender female distance runners have no speed advantage over cisgender women after one year of hormone therapy.^[158]

On March 23, 2018, the Trump administration issued a new memorandum stating that Mattis had recommended “transgender persons with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria–individuals who the policies state may require substantial medical treatment, including medications and surgery–are disqualified from military service except under certain limited circumstances.”^[159] Among other declarations, the new memorandum revoked the prior memo of August 25, 2017 and authorized Secretaries Mattis and Kirstjen Nielsen to “implement any appropriate policies concerning military service by transgender individuals”.^[160]

Based on the new memorandum, in each of the four court cases (Doe, Stone, Karnoski, and Stockman), USDOJ has filed motions to dissolve the preliminary injunctions previously imposed^{[161][162][163][164]} and impose protective orders to halt discovery.^{[165][166][167]} The motions to dissolve the preliminary injunctions stated “this new policy [from the Mattis memorandum of February 2018], like the Carter policy before it, turns on the medical condition of gender dysphoria and contains a nuanced set of exceptions allowing some transgender individuals, including almost every Plaintiff here, to serve” and asserted “the military’s new policy is constitutional”, concluding that challenges to the new policy “should not be litigated under the shadow of a preliminary injunction of a Presidential Memorandum [August 2017] that is no longer in effect”.^{[161]: 1–2 [162]: 1–2 [163]: 1–2 [164]: 1–2}

The policy was stayed in Karnoski vs. Trump (Western District of Washington) on April 13, 2018, when the court ruled that the 2018 memorandum essentially repeated the same issues as its predecessor order from 2017, that transgender service members (and transgender individuals as a class) were a protected class entitled to strict scrutiny of adverse laws (or at worst, a quasi-suspect class), and ordered that matter continue to a full trial hearing on the legality of the proposed policy.^{[168][169][170][171]}

The Trump administration, through Solicitor General Noel Francisco, has submitted petitions of writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in November 2018 to rule on the matter on the Karnoski, Stockman, and Doe cases prior to their final judgement, specifically seeking to reverse the stay on the order while the cases otherwise continued in their respective courts.^[172][173]

On January 22, 2019, in two 5-4 orders, split along ideological lines, the U.S. Supreme Court, denied the Trump administration’s petition for expedited review of Karnoski v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump.^{[174][175][note 1]}. The Court, however, did agree to lift preliminary injunctions issued by the Karnoski and Stockman courts while legal proceedings go forward in lower courts.^{[174][176][177]} The injunctions had blocked the reinstatement of restrictions on military service by transgender people.^[174][175] However, the U.S. Defense Department did not implement the policies set forth in the Presidential Memorandum of March 23, 2018, because the preliminary injunction issued by the federal district court in Maryland in Stone v. Trump was not considered by the Supreme Court and remains in effect.^[174][175] The court’s five conservative justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh supported the lifting the preliminary injunctions. Mara Keisling wrote, “The Court’s extraordinary action […] is an attack on transgender people around the nation.”^[178]

The ban went into effect on April 12.^[179][180]

In 2019, Army Capt. Alivia Stehlik, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Blake Dremann, Army Capt. Jennifer Peace, Army Staff Sgt. Patricia King and Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Akira Wyatt became the first openly transgender members of the United States military to testify publicly in front of Congress when they testified in front of the House Armed Services Committee in support of openly transgender people serving in the military.^[181]

Directive-type Memorandum-19-004 reinstated restrictions for transgender personnel and was signed by David L. Norquist on March 12, 2019. It came into effect April 12, 2019 and was slated to expire 11 months later.

The Trump administration policy demands adherence to sex assignment at birth as a condition for military service. Discovery of one’s gender identity is a disqualifier.

The Trump administration reissued DoD Instruction 1300.28, with the new version taking effect on September 4, 2020, under the title “Military Service by Transgender Persons and Persons with Gender Dysphoria”. It cancels the previous DoD Instruction of the same number, which the Obama administration had issued on October 1, 2016, under the title “In-Service Transition for Transgender Service Members”.^[182]

On March 28, 2019, the United States House of Representatives passed, with 238 yeas, 185 nays, 1 present, and 8 not voting, H.Res. 124, a non-binding resolution expressing opposition to banning service in the Armed Forces by openly transgender individuals.^[183]

On June 13, 2019, celebrating Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month in the Pentagon Center Courtyard, Senator Tammy Duckworth attacked Directive-type Memorandum-19-004. The Pentagon celebrated Pride Month in 2019 after not doing so in 2018.^[184][185]

On November 25, 2024, at 12:01 AM GMT, The Times, in a report by Alistair Dawber, revealed that Donald Trump would issue an executive order on January 20, 2025, his first day back in office, that would lead to the removal of all transgender service members from the U.S. military, according to defense sources. The proposed policy would result in approximately 1,320^[197] to 15,500^[198] transgender individuals, depending on which survey, currently serving being medically discharged, deeming them unfit for service. The order would also prohibit transgender individuals from enlisting in the armed forces.^[199]

This proposed ban is said to be broader in scope than the policy implemented during Trump’s first term, which barred new transgender recruits but allowed those already serving to remain. The new policy would reportedly target all transgender personnel, including those with long-standing military careers, a move that critics argue could exacerbate the military’s ongoing recruitment challenges. Currently, only the Marine Corps is meeting its recruitment goals, while other branches are struggling to attract enough new members.^[199]

Pentagon data from 2021 suggests that about 2,200 service members had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria at the time the previous ban was lifted. The total number of transgender individuals serving is believed to be much higher, though precise figures are difficult to determine due to privacy regulations. With around 1.3 million active duty personnel in the military, the removal of thousands of transgender members would significantly impact the armed forces.^[199]

Trump nominated Pete Hegseth, a former major in the U.S. National Guard and a Fox News host, to serve as United States Secretary of Defense. Hegseth has been a vocal critic of what he calls “weak” leadership in the military and has argued against the inclusion of transgender personnel. He has described medical care for transgender individuals as an unnecessary expense and has characterized policies accommodating transgender service members as examples of “trans lunacy”. Current transgender service members have expressed concerns that such a policy would not only create personal hardships but also harm the military’s operational effectiveness.^[199]

Critics highlight the potential loss of experienced personnel in key positions as detrimental during a time of recruitment shortfalls. Karoline Leavitt, spokeswoman for the Trump-Vance transition team, dismissed these reports as speculation. She stated that no decisions have been made and emphasized that only statements directly from Trump or authorized representatives should be considered official policy.^[199] On November 24, 2024, at 7:06 PM ET, Marjorie Taylor Greene said that a ban would improve recruitment and save money.^[200]

On December 22, 2024, at AmericaFest 2024 President-elect Donald Trump announced plans to reinstate ban transgender individuals from the U.S. military on January 20, 2025. Trump stated, “And I will sign executive orders to […] get transgender out of the military.” This declaration was met with enthusiastic cheers from the predominantly young conservative audience.^[201]

This section contains an excessive amount of intricate detail. Please help improve it by spinning off or relocating relevant information and removing excessive detail that goes against Wikipedia’s inclusion policy. (September 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14148 which revoked several directives from the previous administration, including the Executive Order on Enabling All Qualified Americans to Serve Their Country in Uniform. This revocation removed federal policy protections that ensured transgender individuals could serve openly in the U.S. military, effectively leaving future decisions on transgender service to United States Department of Defense policy. The administration justified this action as part of a broader effort to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within federal agencies.^[202][203] Critics argue that this move undermines civil rights protections and may hinder progress toward inclusivity in the armed forces.^[204]

On January 27, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14183. The executive order declares that identification with a gender different from one’s assigned sex “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life” and that the use of preferred pronouns along these lines compromises the government’s ability to “establish high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity”. Additionally, the order prohibits individuals from using or sharing facilities designated for the opposite sex. It also directs that all policies, directives, and guidance issued pursuant to Executive Order 14004 shall be rescinded to the extent that they are inconsistent with the provisions of this order.^[205] Speaking at a retreat with House Republicans at his Doral, Florida, the same day he signed executive orders targeting military policy, Trump stated, “To ensure we have the most lethal fighting force in the world, we will get transgender ideology the hell out of our military. It’s going to be gone.”^[206]

The executive order asserts that accommodating gender identities divergent from an individual’s assigned sex is inconsistent with military readiness and unit cohesion. It emphasizes the necessity for service members to adhere to high mental and physical health standards to ensure the military’s capability to deploy, fight, and win in various conditions.^[207] The executive order has been met with criticism from civil rights organizations, which argue that it discriminates against transgender individuals and undermines inclusivity within the armed forces.^[208]

On January 28, 2025, the United States Navy issued a memo directing recruiters to reject all transgender applicants, aligning with an executive order signed by President Donald Trump the day before.^[209] The order instructed the Department of Defense to craft new policies barring transgender individuals from serving in the military, with a 30-day window for reporting and a 60-day deadline for implementation.^[209]

The Navy memo, obtained by Military.com, said, “recruits who self-identify as transgender are not eligible to process for enlistment at this time.”^[209] It also mandated that any transgender recruits in the delayed-entry program would have their ship-out dates postponed pending further guidance from the Department of Defense.^[209] Additionally, the memo included a script for recruiters to inform transgender applicants that their enlistment was not being processed due to “recent policy changes”.^[209]

The policy shift marked the first known instance of a military branch enforcing Trump’s directive before the Pentagon formally finalized its implementation guidelines.^[209] Critics of the ban argued that it was issued without a study on the effectiveness of transgender service members or an assessment of any related costs or concerns.^[209] A lawsuit challenging the order was filed the day after it was signed, including two transgender individuals actively seeking to enlist–one of whom was working with Marine Corps recruiters.^[209]

Navy Recruiting Command, which issued the memo, did not directly respond to questions about Trump’s characterization of transgender service members as incompatible with military values. A spokesperson stated that the command was “committed to building a strong, merit-based force” while following all applicable laws and policies.^[209]

Also on January 28, 2025, six current transgender service members and two individuals seeking to enlist filed a lawsuit against the executive order, arguing that it is unconstitutional. The federal case, Doe v. Trump, seeks an emergency injunction to prevent the enforcement of the ban. The plaintiffs are represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law).^[210]

On February 6, 2025, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation (HRCF) and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging the constitutionality of the transgender military ban. The case, Human Rights Campaign Foundation & Lambda Legal v. Trump, represents six actively serving transgender service members, one transgender individual seeking to enlist, and the Gender Justice League.^[211]

On February 7, 2025, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a memorandum titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness”, outlining new policies restricting transgender service in the military. The memo reaffirmed the Department of Defense’s (DoD) mission to maintain strict mental and physical standards, stating that efforts to divide troops along identity lines would not be tolerated. It referenced Executive Order 14183, signed by the President on January 27, 2025, which stated, “‘gender identity’ divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for Military Service.”^[212]

Effective immediately, all new accessions for individuals with a history of gender dysphoria were paused, alongside any scheduled, unscheduled, or planned medical procedures related to gender transition for service members. The policy emphasized that while individuals with gender dysphoria who were already enlisted would be treated with “dignity and respect”, they would be subject to additional policy guidance issued by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.^[212]

On February 13, 2025, the U.S. Coast Guard issued ALCOAST 059/25, aligning with Executive Order 14183 and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s February 7, 2025, memorandum. The directive paused new accessions for individuals with gender dysphoria and halted all gender transition-related medical procedures, including scheduled and planned treatments, for service members. The directive emphasized that individuals with gender dysphoria would be treated with dignity and respect, while further policy guidance was expected.^[213]

On February 14, 2025, the U.S. Army announced a policy change that paused all new accessions for individuals with a history of gender dysphoria and all gender-affirming medical procedures for service members. The Army stated that individuals with gender dysphoria who were already serving would be treated “with dignity and respect”.^[214]

On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) issued a memorandum titled “Additional Guidance on Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness”, implementing Executive Order 14183, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness”, which banned transgender individuals from military service.^[215] The policy stated that individuals with a current diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria, or who exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria, are ineligible for enlistment, appointment, or retention in the U.S. military.

The directive superseded prior policies permitting transgender service members to serve openly and repealed previous guidance on gender-affirming medical care. Effective immediately, the policy mandated the separation of currently serving transgender personnel unless they met strict waiver criteria. Additionally, all military records and personnel systems were required to reflect only male or female designations as defined by assigned sex.^[215]

The policy became effective on February 26, 2025, with the first reporting deadline set for March 26, 2025. The full implementation, including the rescission and updates of affected DoD policies, was scheduled to be completed no later than June 25, 2025.^[215] The first transgender service member who could be discharged under this policy would be eligible for separation beginning March 28, 2025, following the 30-day identification and separation initiation process outlined in the memorandum.^[215]

However, on March 18, U.S. District Court Judge Ana C. Reyes ruled in Talbott v. United States that the ban was likely unconstitutional, and she issued a preliminary injunction.^{[216][217][218]}

On March 23, Hegseth posted to X sarcastically referring to Reyes as a “top military planner” and calling her “she/they”.^[219]

Though the Trump administration filed an emergency motion to block Reyes’s injunction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the request on March 31.^[220]

United States v. Shilling
Court	Western District of Washington
Started	February 6, 2025
Docket nos.	2:25-cv-00241 (W.D. Wash.) 25-2039 (9th Cir.) 24A1030 (SCOTUS)
Case history
Appealed to	Ninth Circuit
Subsequent action	district ruling stayed by supreme court via shadow docket[221]
Court membership
Judge sitting	Benjamin Settle

On May 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed Judge Reyes’s injunction pending the outcome of the appeal in the Ninth Circuit.^[9][222]

On May 8, 2025, the U.S. Secretary of Defense issued the memorandum titled Implementing Policy on Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness. The memo reinstated five earlier Department of Defense (DoD) policy documents from February and March 2025, all aligned with Executive Order 14183. The guidance reaffirmed that individuals with a current diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria (GD), or who exhibit symptoms consistent with GD, are not considered fit for military service. Service members affected by the policy were given the option to voluntarily separate–with deadlines of June 6, 2025, for active duty and July 7, 2025, for reservists–after which involuntary separation procedures would begin. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness was delegated sole authority to issue further policy guidance as needed.^[223]

On May 9, 2025, the U.S. Department of Defense issued the memorandum titled Additional Guidance on Treatment of Gender Dysphoria, which amended and replaced an earlier April 21, 2025 memo of the same name. The guidance clarified that within military medical treatment facilities (MTFs), service members and other covered beneficiaries aged 19 and older would be eligible only for mental health care and counseling related to GD, including diagnostic evaluations. All other forms of GD-related treatment–such as cross-sex hormone therapy–were to be referred to private-sector providers. The memo further emphasized that gender-affirming surgeries, also known as cross-sex or sex-reassignment procedures, remained explicitly excluded from TRICARE coverage, and that MTF staff must not submit referrals for any non-covered GD care.^[224]

On May 15, 2025, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued the memorandum titled Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness: Implementation Guidance. The guidance rescinded previous compliance memos related to both the Shilling and Talbott cases and reaffirmed the implementation of earlier policy documents aligned with Executive Order 14183. It outlined procedures for processing both voluntary and involuntary separations of service members diagnosed with, or exhibiting symptoms of, gender dysphoria. Voluntary separation required medical verification and had to be initiated before deadlines set in a May 8 directive. After this window, military departments were instructed to begin identification and involuntary separation of affected service members through the Individual Medical Readiness (IMR) program. The memo also specified privacy safeguards, reentry codes (RE-3), waiver restrictions, and limitations on benefits such as disqualification from SkillBridge. The first compliance reports from service branches were due by June 15, 2025.^[225]

On June 6, 2025, under the Additional Guidance on Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness, the United States Armed Forces began involuntary administrative separation–with honorable characterization–of Active Component Service transgender personnel who, without a waiver, meet disqualifying criteria, such as having a current diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria, exhibiting symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria, or having a history of cross-sex hormone therapy or sex reassignment or genital reconstruction surgery as treatment for gender dysphoria or in pursuit of a sex transition. This marked the end of 8 years, 11 months, and 6 days of open service by Active Component Service transgender members who underwent gender transition in the United States Armed Forces–though between April 12, 2019, and January 24, 2021, such service was permitted only for those who were grandfathered in under previous policy or granted a waiver. On June 7, 2025, Bree Fram announced she had been placed on administrative leave, pending separation under the ban.^[226] Reserve Component Service members began involuntary administrative separation–with honorable characterization–on July 7, 2025, under the same policy criteria. This marked the end of 9 years and 1 week of open service by Reserve Component Service transgender members who underwent gender transition in the reserve components of the United States Armed Forces–though between April 12, 2019, and January 24, 2021, such service was permitted only for those who were grandfathered in under previous policy or granted a waiver.

On July 11, 2025, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved an amendment to the fiscal year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) introduced by Senator Tommy Tuberville (R‑AL) that would prohibit the Department of Defense from using funds or facilities to “perform or facilitate sex change surgeries”. The amendment passed in a 14–13 party-line vote within the committee.^[227]

The Tuberville amendment targets surgical procedures only and does not ban hormone treatments or prohibit transgender individuals from serving in the military. As such, it constitutes a funding limitation rather than a statutory service ban. As of July 2025, no version of the NDAA includes provisions codifying Executive Order 14183, which bans individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria from serving in the military.^[228] In parallel, the House-passed fiscal year 2026 defense appropriations bill included language that would restrict TRICARE coverage for gender-affirming care for minor dependents and bar relocation assistance for families seeking gender transition services through the Exceptional Family Member Program.^[227]

On August 7, 2025, Reuters reported that the United States Air Force had denied all pending requests for early retirement under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) from transgender service members with between 15 and 18 years of service, opting instead to separate them without retirement benefits.^[229] According to an August 4 memorandum signed by Brian Scarlett, performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, all TERA exception-to-policy requests for this service range were disapproved, including some that had already been approved and were subsequently rescinded.^[229]

The decision followed a May 23, 2025, policy memo stating that airmen with 15–18 years of service could request early retirement. Under the revised policy, those with 18–20 years of service remained eligible for prorated retirement, while those with less than 15 years received separation under existing rules.^[229] The Air Force indicated that affected personnel would instead receive lump-sum separation payments but no retirement pensions. Transgender rights advocates criticized the move as a betrayal, citing the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in lifetime benefits. Shannon Minter of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights described the change as “devastating”.^[229]

In December 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stayed U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes’ March 2025 preliminary injunction in Talbot v. United States, and held that the February 2025 policy memo by Secretary Pete Hegseth on the military transgender ban was likely constitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court‘s recent decision in United States v. Skrmetti.^[230][231]

On January 8, 2026, Colonel Bree Fram, Lieutenant Colonel Erin Krizek, Commander Blake Dremann, Sergeant First Class Cathrine Schmid, and Chief Petty Officer Jaida McGuire were honored by the Human Rights Campaign after being forced to retire from the military due to the ban.^[232]

On June 1, 2026, the US court of appeals for D.C. ruled that transgender members of the military can continue to serve, but the armed services can continue refusing to enlist new transgender members.^[233]

Research has found that transgender people are significantly more likely to serve in the United States military than the general population.^[234][235] In 2014, the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law estimated that approximately 15,500 transgender individuals were serving on active duty or in the National Guard or Reserve, based on data from the National Transgender Discrimination Survey combined with U.S. military service rates.^[236] According to the same 2014 study, despite the ban on open military service at the time, about 21.4% of the total transgender population in the U.S. was estimated to have served in the military. About 32% of transgender individuals in the U.S. who are assigned male at birth serve or have served in the military, compared to 5.5% for transgender individuals assigned female at birth.^[236] The report noted, “[t]he American military employs more transgender people than any other organisation in the world: around 15,500 … more than 6,000 of whom are on active duty.”^[237]

In 2016, the Williams Institute updated its estimate to approximately 12,800 transgender service members using revised survey and demographic data.^[238] That same year, a RAND Corporation study commissioned by the Department of Defense estimated between 1,320 and 6,630 transgender personnel on active duty, and between 830 and 4,160 in the Selected Reserve.^[239] The 2016 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members found that approximately 9,000 service members self-identified as transgender.^[240] In 2018, the Department of Defense reported that 8,980 service members self-identified as transgender in personnel records, and 1,071 had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria in the preceding year.^[241]

In 2019, the Department of Defense stated that approximately 1,400 service members had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and fewer than 10 were receiving gender reassignment surgery.^[240] In 2020, a study published in the journal Transgender Health estimated that approximately 8,000 transgender individuals were serving on active duty in the U.S. military, based on a descriptive analysis of service member records.^[242] In December 2024, Pentagon officials stated that 4,240 active-duty, National Guard, and Reserve troops had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, a figure used by the department as a proxy for the number of transgender service members.^[243] On May 15, 2025, a senior Department of Defense official confirmed in a background briefing that the estimate of roughly 4,200 service members was based on the December 2024 count and that no updated figure had been produced.^[244]

Discharges

The discharge of transgender individuals from the United States military has historically been an underreported issue, with official statistics rarely recorded. Prior to policy changes in recent years, transgender individuals were often discharged under medical or administrative grounds, typically categorized as “unsuitability” or “unfitness” for service. In April 2015, the Palm Center reported that at least a dozen transgender individuals had been discharged within a six-month period, between October 2014 to March 2015, despite the lack of official data documenting such cases.^[245]

Prior to the lifting of the transgender military ban on June 30, 2016, the U.S. Department of Defense classified transgender identity as a disqualifying medical condition under its medical fitness standards, such as DoDI 6130.03, which listed “psychosexual conditions”, including “transsexualism”, as grounds for administrative separation.^[246][247] The final publicly known discharge of a service member under this policy occurred in November 2015, when Army Corporal Laila Villanueva (now known as Laila Ireland) was medically retired.^[248] Villanueva had served in the Army for over a decade and began her gender transition while still in uniform. Despite receiving support from her chain of command, she was ultimately separated under the medical regulations in place at the time.^[249]

Villanueva’s discharge occurred during a Pentagon-imposed administrative “pause” on transgender separations. In July 2015, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced that no service member could be discharged solely for being transgender without approval from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.^[247] While this effectively suspended most discharges, Villanueva was still medically retired later that year—indicating that the ban remained enforceable through medical classification. Her case was one of the last known separations tied to gender identity before the formal repeal of the ban.

According to “a DOD official”, as reported by writer Chris Bray on July 25, 2025, a total of 1,404 service members had voluntarily entered the separation process due to gender dysphoria between May 8 and May 31, 2025. Of those, four had completed their separation from the military, while the remaining 1,400 were still awaiting completion of the process.^[250] Using the Pentagon’s 2025 estimate of about 4,200 active-duty transgender personnel,^[251] this represents approximately 33.43% of the estimated transgender population entering separation during that short window.

These four separations were the first known discharges under a reinstated ban on transgender military service, marking the resumption of such removals after a gap of approximately nine years and six months since the last publicly confirmed case in November 2015. Bray noted that a more complete breakdown by service branch, component, and rank had not yet been released, and that congressional oversight might be required to obtain a comprehensive accounting.^[250]

Although only 0.28%—equivalent to 0.10% of an estimated 4,200 active-duty transgender personnel—of those who entered the voluntary separation process had been discharged by May 31, 2025, the remainder are expected to finalize by early 2026, given standard administrative separation timelines.^[252] If completed on that schedule, the 1,404 discharges alone would account for 33.43%—more than one-third—of the active-duty transgender force, excluding additional voluntary or involuntary separations initiated after May.^[253]

Comparatively, at the height of separations under the Department of Defense’s ban on service by homosexual individuals—prior to the pre-1994 Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy—fiscal year 1982 (October 1, 1982 to September 30, 1983) saw 1,998 total discharges, equivalent to 1.09% of the estimated 91,500 active-duty LGB personnel at the time.^[254] Based on current Pentagon estimates, the projected 2025 transgender discharge rate of 33.43% is approximately 30.67 times higher—also more than six times higher than the best historical estimate for the 1944 peak of homosexual discharges during World War II, when roughly 4,000 were separated, representing about 4–5% of the estimated 75,000–100,000 LGB personnel in service that year.^[255][252]

Veterans

This section needs more citations. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

• Calpernia Addams
• Albert Cashier^[256]
• Mary Elizabeth Clark
• Charlotte Clymer
• Joanne Conte
• Felicia Elizondo
• Fallon Fox
• Sage Fox
• Phyllis Frye
• Deborah Hartin
• Monica Helms^[257]
• Christine Jorgensen
• Janae Kroc
• Chelsea Manning^[258]
• Shane Ortega
• Jennifer Pritzker
• Renée Richards
• Angelica Ross
• Autumn Sandeen
• Lauren Scott
• Emma Shinn
• Sheri Swokowski^[259]

See also

• Transgender people and military service
• Transgender American Veterans Association
• Intersex people in the United States military
• Bibliography of works on the United States military and LGBT+ topics
• Sexual orientation and gender identity in the United States military
• Transphobia in the United States

from — Wikipedia contributors. (2026y, July 1). Transgender personnel in the United States military. Wikipedia. Retrieved July 27, 2026

~ ~ ~ 

Understanding Trump’s Trans Military Ban

Thousands of trans people are currently serving honorably in the military, and have done so for years. But on day one of the new administration, President Trump signed EO 14183, titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” to remove all trans people serving – leaving tens of thousands of active-duty service members, veterans, and members of military families in fear and uncertainty about their jobs, their healthcare, and their future. 

This resource unpacks the impact of this executive order, the implications on medical care for trans service members, how the policy impacts new recruits, and the current status of the military ban.

Thousands of transgender people are currently serving honorably in the military and have been doing so for years. Despite this reality, the Trump administration has targeted and maligned trans service members, leaving tens of thousands of active duty service members, veterans, and members of military families in fear and uncertainty about their jobs, their healthcare, and their futures.

On January 27, President Trump signed EO 14183, titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” which directed the Department of Defense (DoD) to adopt policies that would prohibit transgender, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming people from serving in the military. This order also insulted trans people generally, claiming that they are incapable of meeting the military’s accession requirements, and lack the “selflessness and humility” required for military service.

In response, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued a memo on February 7 immediately pausing all gender-affirming medical procedures for service members. On February 26, DoD issued the new policy, declaring that transgender and nonbinary individuals will no longer be eligible to join the military, and directing that all trans people currently serving be separated from service.  

While two federal courts had previously issued nationwide orders blocking the implementation of this ban, on May 6 the Supreme Court lifted those orders, clearing the way for DoD to begin removing trans people from military service. 

How does the Trump Administration attempt to justify this policy? 

The new policy asserts that the presence of trans service members is not in the best interests of the military and “not consistent with the interests of national security.” 

Generally, eligibility for military service depends on satisfying DoD accession standards, which specify age, health, fitness, citizenship/residency, education, and aptitude requirements. This policy now characterizes trans people as incapable of the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” because they have a history, or signs of, gender dysphoria. According to the DoD, this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.” Under this new policy, transgender people are categorically ineligible for service. 

DoD additionally justifies this discriminatory stance by stating “some policies and spaces in the military are different for men and women,” asserting that uniform standards must be applied to all service members based on their sex assigned at birth. In practice, however, the military regularly grants waivers for service members who do not meet the accession standards for medical issues, physical fitness, criminal conduct, and drug use. Provisional enlistment policies exist for service members who fail to meet fitness, body fat, or testing standards. Recently, the Army has been deviating from their own rules and enlisting soldiers with up to 55% body fat to help “meet their recruiting goals.” 

Neither the January 27 executive order nor the DoD memo and policy offer any explanation why the military’s integrity and readiness are not threatened by making exceptions for service members who are out of shape or otherwise do not meet accession standards, but trans people who are already serving with distinction must be fired.   

Who is impacted by this policy? 

The primary purpose of this policy is to bar transgender, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming people from military service. To accomplish this, it disqualifies all people from military service if they have a current or historical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, or if they “exhibit symptoms consistent with” gender dysphoria. It also explicitly bars transgender individuals who have undergone any hormone replacement therapy (HRT) or transition-related surgery for the purpose of gender transition, regardless of their current health, fitness, or ability to meet military standards. There are no exceptions for service members who transitioned before application to the military. 

Whether someone has a current or historical formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria is a fact that can be objectively verified. There may be more ambiguity if someone has undergone HRT or what is often considered transition-related surgery without a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria or for reasons other than gender transition (e.g. a trans woman who has had an orchiectomy due to a cancer diagnosis), but it is reasonable to expect that DoD officials will interpret the policy in the way least favorable to anyone known or believed to be transgender, nonbinary, or gender non-conforming. 

On the other hand, the determination of whether someone exhibits symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria is more open-ended and subjective, which potentially opens the door to service members who do not consider themselves to be transgender, nonbinary, or gender-nonconforming to find themselves “accused” of being trans under the policy, and face involuntary separation as a result. 

In addition, while many transgender, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming people have a current or historical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, or exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria, some do not. It is possible (though not guaranteed) that someone who has never received a gender dysphoria diagnosis and who has not legally or medically transitioned might fly under the radar and avoid separation under this policy. In order to make this distinction clear, for the remainder of this document people who have undergone medical transition, have a current or historical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, or exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria as described by the policy will be referred to as “people who meet the separation criteria.” 

The policy calls for the separation of all active duty, reserve, and National Guard service members who meet the separation criteria. Applicants for military service who meet the separation criteria are disqualified from joining the military. The policy also requires service academies to separate any currently enrolled cadets who meet the separation criteria and rescind offers of admission to any applicants who meet the separation criteria. 

The policy also strengthens sex-based restrictions and requirements for all service members – including any transgender, nonbinary, or gender-nonconforming members who do not meet the separation criteria or whose separation is not complete. 

Can trans service members get a waiver to keep serving? 

According to the policy, service members “may be considered for a waiver on a case-by-case basis, provided there is a compelling Government interest in retaining [them]” and the service member who otherwise meets the criteria also meets the requirements of: 

• demonstrates 36 consecutive months of stability in their sex assigned at birth without distress or impairment; 
• demonstrates they have never attempted to transition; and 
• is willing and able to adhere to all sex-based standards associated with their sex assigned at birth. 

This provision creates the illusion of a waiver process, but it is designed to be practically impossible to meet. In practice, nearly all service members who meet the separation criteria will be denied waivers, as the standards for retention are deliberately vague. This gives DoD discretion to reject nearly all waiver applications, ensuring that only a handful of transgender individuals – if any – are retained. Additionally, there are no clear guidelines for what constitutes a “compelling Government interest” under this policy. This will make it nearly impossible for service members who meet the separation criteria to challenge a waiver denial. 

In addition, civilian courts and administrative agencies have recognized gender dysphoria as a protected disability under the Americans with Disability Act and similar laws. But this policy prohibits service members who meet the criteria from referral to the Disability Evaluation Service to determine if they are medically eligible for service despite this disability. 

How is the military discharging trans service members? 

The policy directs the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to establish procedures to identify service members who meet the separation criteria, and to begin discharge procedures for those members within 30 days of them being identified. Service members discharged under this policy will receive an honorable discharge unless a review of the member’s record otherwise warrants a lower characterization. 

The policy requires the administrative separation of enlisted service members who meet the separation criteria prior to the expiration of their term of service if their branch determines “that doing so is in the best interest of the relevant Military Service,” and of officers whose retention is not “clearly consistent with the interests of national security.” Given that it is unlikely that any given service member who meets the separation criteria will qualify for a waiver under this policy, these criteria ensure that most, if not all, trans service members will be removed from military service. 

The provision targeting officers is particularly concerning. The phrase “not clearly consistent with the interests of national security” is a loaded standard that has historically been used to justify discrimination against gay people, women, and racial minorities in military service. This language reinforces false and discriminatory narratives about the ability of trans people to serve effectively.  

Service members who meet the separation criteria identified by this policy will be administratively separated and retain administrative processing protections. While this section claims to offer protections by citing administrative processing rules, the reality is that transgender individuals will almost certainly be separated regardless of their performance, readiness, or ability to serve, and with no justification aside from their trans status.  

Once a service member who meets the separation criteria has been identified for separation, they will be removed from deployable status until their discharge is complete. Once they are discharged, they and their eligible family members will still have access to medical care through TRICARE for 180 days as required by separate federal law. DoD will waive any remaining military service obligation. 

The policy permits a 30-day window after the issuance of the policy for service members to elect for voluntary separation. This window was paused while the policy was blocked in court. With the Supreme Court allowing the policy to go into effect, advocates expect DoD will announce a new deadline for voluntary separation. As of May 13, however, it has not made this announcement. 

The policy identifies several incentives for service members who accept voluntary separation, including access to voluntary separation pay, and no requirement to pay back bonuses they have received during their career. All other service members who meet the separation criteria are subject to involuntary separation. The policy contains a provision allowing DoD to require those who are involuntarily separated to pay back any bonuses they have received in their career. Involuntarily separated service members have the option to request review of their discharge by an administrative separation board (if enlisted) or a Board of Inquiry (if an officer). They may also receive involuntary separation pay (which is significantly lower than voluntary separation pay). 

Service members who meet the separation criteria and have reached 18-20 years of military service are eligible for early retirement. 

While the policy holds out separation pay as an incentive, not all servicemembers are eligible for separation pay. Separation pay also reduces eligibility for Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits. Similarly, while the policy acknowledges that service members have administrative protections under federal law and can request formal review of their separation, it seems unlikely that any trans service member will be able to avail themselves of these protections successfully and remain in service. 

The policy also includes language specifically allowing for administrative or disciplinary action for service members who meet the separation criteria and who “refuse orders … to comply with applicable standards or otherwise do not meet standards for performance and conduct.”  This leaves the option open for DoD to take actions that may reduce a service member’s eligibility for separation pay and VA benefits, or even reduce the categorization of their separation to something less than honorable (such as a general discharge). A lower categorization of separation can have a significant negative impact on a service member’s civilian employment prospects and many other aspects of their transition to civilian life.

How does this policy affect new recruits or students? 

This policy applies to any new enlistees, commissions, cadets, Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) contracts, or Delayed Entry Program enrollees, regardless of their ability to meet the military’s physical and mental readiness standards. Anyone who meets the separation criteria is automatically disqualified from induction. For individuals who have already signed contracts, undergone medical evaluations, or prepared for service, this section cuts off their career before it can even begin. This will pressure recruiters and training centers to identify and disqualify any transgender applicants before they reach Initial Entry Training (often referred to as “bootcamp”) and provides an additional hurdle and deterrent to discourage even those who might be candidates for a waiver.

Under this new policy, people who meet the separation criteria can no longer access military officer training programs at the college level. Incoming cadets at service academies will have their offers rescinded if they are found to meet the separation criteria. While this section does allow students who meet the separation criteria to attend ROTC courses that are open to all students at their institution, they cannot contract with the military to pursue officer training. Students who remain in ROTC classes will be forced to comply with gendered appearance rules, further deterring trans students from participating at all and posing potentially serious safety risks to those who comply. 

Current service academy cadets who meet the separation criteria will be separated from the program even if they have already begun their training and have met all academic and physical requirements. While this provision protects students from having to repay education benefits or scholarships from the military, it does not protect students from other financial, academic, or housing consequences that come from mid-semester expulsion, and can derail trans students’ entire educational careers.  

How does this impact medical care for trans service members? 

By direction of Secretary Hegseth in his February 7 memo, TRICARE immediately canceled all gender-affirming surgeries for transgender service members, regardless of medical necessity, prior approvals, or stage of treatment. Unlike other military medical policies, which prioritize continuity of care, this directive retroactively strips access to treatment without considering the physical or mental health impact on affected individuals. Canceling procedures that were previously approved or already in progress intentionally destabilizes transgender service members’ health and careers and forces medical providers to violate ethics by abruptly stopping care for patients already under treatment.  

The policy also prohibits military medical providers from initiating new HRT care for service members. The policy permits limited continuation of HRT for service members who have already begun care, but only as a temporary measure until the affected service member’s separation is complete. A DoD healthcare provider must specifically recommend continuation of HRT creates an additional barrier to care, as it allows military leadership to pressure medical professionals into restricting access. 

Service members have an obligation to report any medical issue (including mental health) that would cause them to fall below military requirements or be unable to be deployed. By requiring service members to self-report medical conditions, including gender dysphoria, the policy ensures that transgender individuals who seek medical care will be flagged for separation.  

The military has a legal obligation to keep a service member’s health information private, and a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is private health information. Commanders, and anyone else who has access to this medical information, can only share it with those who need to know in order to do their jobs. This provision would seem to keep medical information between a service member and their doctor private, but the Military Command Exception to health privacy laws means that medical information about service members can be disclosed to enforce this policy’s ban on trans service members.  

What are the sex-based restrictions on service members? 

Under the new policy, all official documents – including identification cards, medical records, personnel files, and administrative paperwork – must align with the service member’s sex assigned at birth. Previously, military systems allowed for gender marker changes. The new policy both disregards a service member’s legal identity and creates additional barriers to accessing healthcare, benefits, and identification documents. 

The policy also restricts access to restrooms, showers, and sleeping areas based on sex. It ensures that all gender-segregated spaces within the military – such as barracks, showers, and restrooms – are strictly categorized as male, female, or family use. The designation of “family use” may offer a neutral option in some circumstances, but this is likely not something that will be available generally to transgender service members. The policy allows for exceptions only in extreme operational situations, but this does not override the policy’s overall exclusionary framework. By burdening commanders with enforcing these restrictions while forbidding accommodations in standard military environments, the policy reinforces the myth that trans service members are a disruption to military operations, rather than acknowledging their proven ability to serve effectively. 

Trans service members will be required to follow grooming, uniform, and physical fitness standards associated with their sex assigned at birth. Additionally, by applying this policy to the Military Personnel Drug Abuse Testing Program, it ensures that all urinalysis procedures follow sex-based designations, preventing any accommodations for transgender service members. Military members undergo frequent urinalysis, which requires another service member to observe the member’s genitals while they provide a urine sample.  

The policy requires the use of gendered pronouns and terms of address based strictly on an individual’s sex assigned at birth. Forcing service members to use pronouns and honorifics that make their fellow service members uncomfortable or unhappy is harmful to morale and unit cohesion. The policy would also seem to mandate that service members misgender civilians, including members of Congress who may use pronouns or titles/salutations that do not align with their sex assigned at birth. 

All service members will be required to comply with these standards, including those who meet the separation criteria but are not yet separated from service, or who may have been granted a waiver under the policy. It is unclear how this policy will be applied to intersex service members. 

What happens next? What can I do? 

There are resources available to help you – please consider exploring the resources below to learn more about your rights and how trans- and LGBTQIA+-focused military and veterans organizations are responding to this ban.  
 

Modern Military Association of America 

Transgender American Veterans Association 

 
If you can, educate your friends, neighbors, and colleagues about how this policy impacts you and your family. Cisgender people are often unaware of the realities of trans people’s lives. 

You should also consider reaching out to your Senators and Representative in Congress, and to state and local lawmakers, and insist they take immediate action to protect transgender, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming service members who are impacted by this policy. 

from — Understanding Trump’s Trans Military Ban. (2026). Advocates for Trans Equality. Retrieved July 27, 2026

~ ~ ~ 

U.S. House rejects permanent transgender military ban in defense bill vote

Four Republicans joined Democrats to defeat an effort to write Trump’s transgender military restrictions into federal law.

U.S. Army and 1st Armored Division ‘Old Ironsides’ patches are seen on the sleeve of an American soldier participating in the celebrations of Land Forces Day on September 13, 2025. / Artur Widak/NurPhoto via Getty Images

 

House Republicans tried to turn President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender military service into something harder to undo. They failed narrowly, and not before approving two measures targeting transgender troops and their families.

An amendment from Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado that would have given Trump’s executive order “the force and effect of law” failed Tuesday, 212-217. Four Republicans joined every voting Democrat in opposing it.

The vote leaves the administration’s ban in place while preserving a path for courts, Congress or a future president to reverse it.

“Republicans tried to codify Trump’s trans military ban into law, but my fellow members of the Congressional Equality Caucus and I put in countless hours of work in order to kill this amendment—and we were successful. I’m grateful for the bipartisan vote to defeat this discriminatory amendment,” Rep. Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, said in a statement.

Related: Judge in trans military ban case demands Pentagon explain Hegseth’s testosterone double standard

Advocates also celebrated the amendment’s failure. “At SPARTA Pride, we welcome the House’s rejection of an effort to permanently codify the transgender military ban into federal law,” Kara Corcoran, executive director of SPARTA Pride, told The Advocate in an email.

Trump’s policy bars transgender people from serving openly and has forced service members to fight for their careers in federal court. Corcoran said lawmakers’ refusal to cement the ban into statute matters because executive action can be reversed. “Congress chose not to make discrimination permanent,” she said. “We are grateful that transgender troops will continue to have the ability to fight for their right to serve.”

That relief came with a warning. The House approved two amendments from Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina targeting healthcare and school athletics.

One would prohibit TRICARE, the military’s health insurance program, from covering transition-related care for service members and their family members, including hormone treatment, puberty blockers and surgeries. SPARTA Pride said the provision would deny medically necessary care to military families and could leave transgender troops without treatment even if open service is restored.

Related: Federal appeals court rules that Trump’s trans military ban appears discriminatory

The second would bar transgender girls from competing on girls’ teams in Defense Department schools. The amendment defines eligibility according to reproductive biology but does not say how schools would verify a student’s sex. SPARTA Pride, which advocates for transgender people in the military, warned that enforcement could create serious privacy risks for military children.

“There are thousands of service members with transgender children who now have to face whether or not they should stay in the military, as the government they serve discriminates against their kids,” Corcoran said.

The House passed the broader defense authorization bill Wednesday, 216-212. The Senate must now consider its own version before lawmakers negotiate a final bill.

“We must protect our military families,” Corcoran said. “Our focus now shifts to the Senate and ultimately the conference, where we will continue advocating for policies that support military families and ensure every qualified American has the opportunity to serve.”

from — Wiggins, C. (2026, July 27). Trans military ban fails in House defense bill vote. Advocate.com. 

~ ~ ~ 

Appeals court panel rules that transgender troops were illegally barred from U.S. military service

Politics Jun 1, 2026 2:09 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Trump administration policy illegally banned transgender troops from military service, a divided panel of federal appeal court judges ruled on Monday.

WATCH: Transgender military members fight to continue serving despite Trump’s ban

The majority opinion by a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit largely upholds a March 2025 ruling by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C. Reyes concluded that President Donald Trump’s executive order to exclude transgender troops from military service likely violates their constitutional rights.

The administration appealed after Reyes issued a preliminary injunction requested by attorneys for six transgender people who are active-duty service members and two others seeking to join the military. The appeal court’s majority decided that the injunction should be narrowed to the plaintiffs currently serving in the military but not those seeking to join.

The ruling won’t immediately go into effect, allowing the administration time to ask the full appeals court to hear the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the transgender military ban to go into effect last year, as litigation continues to play out. Another lawsuit challenging the ban was filed in Washington state and led to a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs challenging the policy in that case.

READ MORE: Supreme Court allows Trump’s transgender military ban to take effect, for now

In January 2025, Trump signed an executive order that claims the sexual identity of transgender service members “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life” and is harmful to military readiness.

In response to the order, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a policy that presumptively disqualifies people with gender dysphoria from military service. Gender dysphoria is the distress that a person feels because their assigned gender and gender identity don’t match. The medical condition has been linked to depression and suicidal thoughts.

The policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Judge Robert Wilkins wrote for the majority. Wilkins was nominated to the court by Democratic President Barack Obama.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Justin Walker said judges lack the power to second-guess the decision to exclude transgender troops.

“We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks. The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the Commander in Chief,” wrote Walker, who was nominated by Trump, a Republican.

Judge Judith Rogers, who was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton, joined Wilkins’ opinion but also partially dissented.

from — Michael Kunzelman [Associated Press]  & Lindsey Whitehurst [Associated Press]. (2026, June 1). Appeals court panel rules that transgender troops were illegally barred from U.S. military service. PBS News. Retrieved July 27, 2026