Friday saw a flurry of activity within the military services as they strived to detail plans and issue new directives in an effort to initiate the removal of transgender troops from active service. Late on Thursday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reinstated previously published edicts which claimed that expressing a gender identity inconsistent with one’s biological sex was incapable of meeting the exacting stipulations of military duty. His updated directive sets a deadline for active duty military personnel to disclose their transgender status voluntarily and start arranging their exit from service – June 6. The National Guard and Reservists have until July 7 to do the same.
An example of those impacted by these latest orders is Army Major Alivia Stehlik. She has served in the infantry and presently works as a physical therapist. Stehlik is on track to be eligible for retirement in three years, but vehemently rejects the idea of being ejected from service due to her transgender status. She voiced her commitments and the unique role she has, suggesting that her command relies on her ability to carry out her work since she is the lone officer in her unit with her specific capability.
Given the complexity of the situation and the various circumstances of the troops in question, military services found themselves racing against time to present new guidance to aid commanders through the process. This hasty race was loaded with all kinds of peculiar situations, including unanswered questions about what should be done in case any of the affected troops were deployed, at sea, or might need special orders or funding to meet the set deadlines.
So, how did the concept of banning transgender troops even start to gain traction? The topic traces back to 2015, under then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s administration. He proposed the idea of lifting the prohibition on transgender troops, allowing them to serve openly. While this was seen as a progressive step, it stirred up concern among military leaders at the time. Consequently, Carter initiated a study, which led to the lifting of the ban on transgender troops in June 2016.
A wrench was thrown into these plans six months into President’s first term when he delivered the news via tweet that he would not allow transgender people to join the military in any capacity. A nearly two-year struggle then ensued, burdened with the task of figuring out the complex specifics of this decision while wading through a sea of ensuing legal challenges.
The Pentagon, facing this tug-of-war, eventually formulated a policy that allowed those currently serving to remain in service and carry on with planned hormone treatments and gender transition, should they be diagnosed with gender dysphoria. However, it explicitly prevented new enrolments from anyone with the said condition, who was undergoing hormone therapy or had transitioned to another gender. Gender dysphoria refers to a situation when an individual’s biological sex does not correspond with their identified gender.
The saga continued into this year when the President, once he took office again, tasked Hegseth with the revision of the Pentagon’s policy concerning transgender troops. By the end of February, Pentagon leaders instructed the services to establish procedures to pinpoint troops diagnosed with or receiving treatment for gender dysphoria by March 26. They had a window of 30 days to begin the process of removing said troops from service.
Even though a wave of lawsuits rose against the ban, on Tuesday, the Supreme Court cleared a path for the administration to implement the ban as other legal challenges continue. According to the Defense Department, approximately 1,000 service members have voluntarily disclosed their transgender status and have started the process to transition out of the military. These numbers are early estimates, but if correct, around half of those affected are Army soldiers, and many more serve in the Navy and the Marines.
Defense officials reported that self-identification reports from troops started to trickle in post the February order. The process, however, came to a sudden halt in late March due to the aforementioned lawsuits. With legal obstacles momentarily out of the way, military officials are reportedly returning to those files to strategize about how to proceed.
The total count of troops who might be affected by this decision remains a complicated issue. Even though previous estimates suggest that numbers of transgender troops could be between 9,000 and 12,000, the military services are still grappling to identify and remove everyone. The conjecture encompasses individuals yet to officially receive a diagnosis or medication, those undergoing treatment, those who have had surgery, or are presently transitioning.
Hegseth’s latest directive highlights two different processes. Service members who voluntarily out themselves to their respective commanders might still be able to receive some sort of exit compensation. This could manifest as severance pay, unused leave compensation, or even unpaid bonuses. After June 6, a scour will be conducted through medical records to identify any remaining troops diagnosed with or treated for gender dysphoria, who will then be mandatory discharged from service.
Ironically, the troops being removed and their activist groups argue that their eviction from service also damages military readiness and the effectiveness of their units. For Major Stehlik and others who were whisked away from their service before hitting the 20-year mark, their involuntary departure means a significant loss of benefits, including pension and health insurance.
Over the years, transgender troops, ranging from regular enlisted members to elite special operations soldiers, have served effectively in all services. Their dismissal not only disrupts their lives but also undermines the investment of time, effort, and resources made in their training and support.
Take Sarah Klimm, for instance, a prominent example of lost potential. A transgender Marine who dedicated 23 years of her life to service, Klimm retired just when the ban was lifted in 2016. Unable to serve openly during her tenure and now working as a policy analyst for Minority Veterans of America, she emphasizes the lack of unit cohesion problems over the past nine years and warns that the dismissals will be detrimental to military readiness.
Klimm’s extrapolation highlights a critical fact; senior enlisted and officer ranks require substantial investments of time and money. The abrupt removal of these service members isn’t as simple as backfilling the ranks. The adverse impact on readiness and service morale makes it clear that questions on the wisdom and overall utility of the decision remain open.