Pink, White, and Blue: What’s the current status of trans troops?

On January 27, 2025, Donald Trump reinstated the transgender military ban from his first presidential term, although the reasoning for each ban differed. Both are remarkably harmful and give room for anti-transgender sentiment to fester.

Trump’s original ban in 2017 affected me directly: at the time, I had just graduated from high school and was struggling to survive living with my anti-transgender parents. When my ideal college plans fell through due to financial constraints, I turned to the military. Before that first ban, transgender people were allowed to openly serve due to the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and were given medical coverage through guaranteed health benefits for all soldiers. But for some reason, I kept feeling something was wrong in my gut, so I never signed the dotted line, and I lived with relatives that summer with the plan that I would enlist in the fall. Three days before my 18th birthday, Donald Trump made his infamous tweets stating transgender people would be banned from service. I ended up attending community college and getting involved with my local queer scene, pursuing higher education through FAFSA.

The original ban hinged on the premise that transgender soldiers were too costly for the military. Trump and his cronies lamented that gender-affirming care, like hormone replacement therapy and surgery, was causing the budget to skyrocket and was a massive burden for the military to handle – but people were quick to point out how flawed that logic was.

Very few individuals want to serve in the United States military just for the joy of it. No, the armed forces are notoriously known for their campaigns in American high schools, convincing teenagers that enlistment is their best way to pay for college. The military has always relied on using its benefits as a means to drive enlistment – transgender people seeking healthcare coverage isn’t much different than other young people joining to pay for college. That’s why the military has the insane budget it’s been given by Congress; the armed forces continue to take up most of the federal budget. Further, it’s been well proven that gender-affirming care was overall insignificant to the military budget and absolutely not worth banning potentially combat-ready soldiers from service. If money were that much of an issue, Donald Trump wouldn’t be having a personal parade for his birthday to “honor” the Army’s coinciding 250th anniversary.

Since both bans are enforced via executive order, the current ban will inevitably be erased once Donald Trump is removed from power. Executive orders are incredibly flimsy, but they’re a favorite tool amongst unpopular presidents to enforce rules that can’t be made into laws through Congress.

Trump’s second ban is darker. Rather than arguing that transgender service members are too expensive to keep, Trump argued that transgender individuals are simply just dishonorable by nature and thus unfit to serve. In his own words, “the Armed Forces have been afflicted with radical gender ideology to appease activists unconcerned with the requirements of military service like physical and mental health, selflessness, and unit cohesion… Consistent with the military mission and longstanding DoD policy, expressing a false ‘gender identity’ divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.  Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.  A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.”

The current ban on transgender service members is based on the understanding that transgender identity alone makes us dishonorable, untruthful, undisciplined, and otherwise unfit to adhere to the military’s moral code. That’s terrifying logic meant to dehumanize transgender people – but the good news is that it’s easier to fight in court. Sarah Warbelow stated in a Human Rights Campaign press release, “This discriminatory ban is a threat to our national security, wastes years of training and financial investments, and is unconstitutional.”

“The assertion that transgender service members like myself are inherently untrustworthy or lack honor is an insult to all who have dedicated their lives to defending this country,” said Commander Emily Shilling. “…I have been selected for promotion and ranked number one in my community for merit. Not because of my identity, our boards are deliberately blind to such things, but because my performance and leadership set me apart. What greater proof of merit is required? This ban is not about readiness or cohesion, and it is certainly not about merit. It is about exclusion and betrayal, purposely targeting those of us who volunteered to serve, simply for having the courage and integrity to live our truth.”

It’s already been sued by multiple agencies, but it has not made its way to the Supreme Court. Depending on how it is worded to the Court, it could be an easy win or a devastating lost – assuming they take the approach that gender identity is no more fair to discriminate against than other identity markers like biological sex, race, or ethnicity, it would be easy to argue that the current ban segregates transgender people from the rest of society.

Currently, transgender people are not allowed to serve in the armed forces if they have ever had a diagnosis identifying them as transgender or having gender dysphoria – which is a prerequisite requirement for health insurance to cover gender-affirming care like hormone replacement therapy or surgery, and it’s required in some states to legally change one’s gender marker on official documents. Anyone who has any form of “gender-affirming care,” as determined by the Trump administration, is barred from service – so like under his first ban, transgender soldiers are being dishonorably discharged in droves based on his political agenda. Further, the new ban is also requiring the military to screen both incoming recruits and trained members for ‘signs’ of gender dysphoria – which means the current transgender military ban also invites an anti-trans witch hunt similar to the days during the Lavender Scare. It took years for Biden to reverse the previous dishonorable discharges accrued from the first ban, and thus former service members were given a black mark for employment, education, healthcare, etc.

Military service can be controversial, especially in activist circles. It’s ultimately its own industry, and it thrives off how American capitalism forces marginalized youth to join in order to protect their futures, even if it means going to war overseas for political interests. Regardless, it cannot be overstated how important access to military service is to general human rights: the armed forces were among the first places desegregated, and it was exposure to others that began to change the public’s mindset on civil rights. Even today, the military serves as an eye-opener – most conservatives who love the idea of the military have never served, but the military has served an integral role in mixing the most closed-minded with other perspectives.

Last week was the final deadline for transgender service members to identify themselves and voluntarily leave – now, the Trump administration will begin enforcing involuntary separations. Similar to Trump’s previous attempts to force federal workers to quit, there are still a large number of individuals refusing to leave their posts. It’s a calculated move – if they’re dishonorably discharged, they have a much better court case. However, it’s not always feasible since refusing to leave now means they could potentially have to pay thousands of dollars back to the United States government if they’re involuntarily separated.

Last month, the Supreme Court suspended the pause enforced by a federal judge in Washington that had been barring the order from going into effect. U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle agreed originally that Trump’s order clearly violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause by enforcing a blanket ban. This decision does not mean the Court will necessarily side in Trump’s favor – it means that the order will go into effect, causing many service members to be discharged and be easily able to bring the case to sue.

The decision thus far by the Supreme Court also doesn’t eliminate the lawsuit already progressing that incited Settle’s pause. The battle isn’t lost yet. The GOP changed their attack from financial to ‘ethics,’ but that doesn’t mean they have a better chance of defending it in court. Previously, the argument that transgender people were too expensive to keep didn’t make sense, considering the United States has the most over-budget military in the world and specifically uses advertised benefits to attract recruits. The claim that transgender people are unfit to serve because we lack honor is a moral-based argument – it makes just as little sense as banning atheists or Muslims because they lack the same religious ‘moral code’ as traditional Christians, to ban women from service because they’re ‘less rational’ than men, or to ban Black and Brown Americans because they’re ‘morally inferior.’

These arguments never hold up in court. It’s easy to feel defeated, but we have to persist.