On January 27th, just a week after taking the oath of office for a second term, Donald Trump signed an executive order that laid the groundwork for barring transgender service members from openly serving in the US military. Both on the campaign trail and during his presidential transition, Trump called not only for prohibiting the recruitment of those who were openly transgender but also for the immediate discharge of all transgender troops actively serving in the United States military.
On February 26th, the DoD released a memorandum for Pentagon leadership that officially adjusted policy by permitting transgender people to serve and enlist in the military, while also requiring separation for transgender service members unless a waiver is granted.
This executive order, along with the policy shift, will not only harm the US military by weakening readiness and degrading morale but will also pose a significant threat to national security—particularly as the US faces one of the most serious and complex security environments since the Second World War.
This policy undermines the core principles of merit, skill, and capability that have long been fundamental to America’s ability to project power, deter aggression, and defeat adversaries across the globe. Any policy that calls for the dismissal of thousands of service members—particularly from a group that volunteers to serve at a disproportionately higher rate than the general population—must be grounded in clear, compelling, and substantiated evidence. However, this policy is entirely devoid of such justification. It would be in the best interest of the United States if it were reconsidered.
A Brief Overview of Transgender Troops in the US Military
Following the 2011 repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy—which had prohibited openly gay, bisexual, and lesbian service members from serving in the US military—transgender individuals remained at risk of discharge. Despite this, it was projected that thousands of transgender troops still served in the shadows.
It was not until 2016 when then-Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced that the policy banning transgender people from serving openly in the military would be overturned following comprehensive research and feedback on the topic.
In 2017, President Donald Trump announced that under his orders the Obama Administration’s policy would be reversed and transgender people would once again be barred across the board from enlisting in or serving in the military. Furthermore, in 2018, President Trump issued another order banning those with a history of gender dysphoria from enlisting in the US military, but allowed those who were already serving to continue.
When Joe Biden took office in 2021, one of the first actions his administration took was to lift Trump’s previous order.
New Policy and Transgender Service Members
While there is no accurate or up-to-date information about the number of transgender people serving in the United States military, multiple studies estimate there could be anywhere from 1,320 to 15,500 transgender service members. Regardless of the number, transgender people serve across all branches of the armed forces and in many of the military’s professions—including some of the most demanding, such as submariners, front-line infantry, and fighter pilots.
The January 27th executive order asserts that simply being transgender “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle.” This statement is contrary to the honor and dedication demonstrated by transgender service members who have answered the call of duty with courage and have continued to seek the opportunity to serve their country.
The executive order further contends that transgender military service harms military lethality, readiness, and effectiveness, damages unit cohesion, and that transgender individuals do not meet standard military requirements. However, research, testimony, and lived experience strongly challenge the validity of the claims that underpin the executive order.
Most notably, a 2016 RAND Corporation study—sponsored by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness—examined potential issues surrounding the open service of transgender people in the military. The study, which looked at data on transgender healthcare in the military, potential readiness concerns, and case studies from other armed forces, found little or no impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness, or readiness, and noted that commanders in foreign militaries observed improved overall morale across their units.
In 2017, the then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, further affirmed in Senate testimony that transgender people had no reason to be disqualified from military service. After all, as DoD policy on in-service transition states, transgender service members are “subject to the same high standards and procedures as other service members.”
A 2020 study that polled active-duty military personnel found that service members across the force supported transgender people serving in the military, calling into question arguments that claim negative effects on unit morale and cohesion. Examples can also be drawn from previous instances of integrating groups that were once disqualified from military service—such as homosexuals following the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, the integration of women into combat roles, and even racial desegregation. In each of these cases, opposition was largely driven by concerns over unit cohesion, morale, and combat readiness. However, post-integration evidence revealed that these fears were unfounded and that, in many cases, anti-integration policies led to worse outcomes regarding these factors. Prohibitions on military service and forced separation policies for transgender service members are yet another modern example of this pattern.
Other studies and data from the Department of Defense have shown that transgender-related medical costs accounted for a negligible percentage of the department’s medical budget.
The Ban and National Security
As previously noted, the US faces one of the most complex and demanding security environments since World War II. To deter—and, if necessary, defeat—adversaries that threaten US security and stability, the military must be composed of the most dedicated, capable, meritorious, and lethal warriors possible. Prohibiting enlistment—or, worse, discharging—qualified service members who answer the call to serve at disproportionately high rates based on flawed reasoning not only weakens the force but also undermines national security.
The United States military and its service members thrive during times of policy consistency. Removing thousands of service members who have been deeply integrated into units both socially and operationally for potentially over half a decade or more will only create disorder. Critical roles that require long and arduous training, such as pilots or nuclear engineers, will go unfilled, increasing the workload and strain on other service members while replacements are processed through training pipelines. Retaining qualified service members is one of the crucial issues that the US military continues to struggle with.
This does not even consider the impacts on unit cohesion and morale that removing dedicated warriors will have in the notoriously close-knit military community. Further banning and removing otherwise qualified individuals from service sends the wrong message to those who are either looking to serve or already serving their country.
Not only does the removal of transgender service members diminish morale and readiness, but it also costs time and money—resources that the Department of Defense lacks to adequately address the United States’ most pressing security challenges. As Captain Jay Caputo, US Coast Guard, wrote in the US Naval Institute’s Proceedings, “The medical costs to return highly trained military members to duty pale in comparison to the time, money, and effort required to replace them.” One estimate calculated that a ban could cost the US government up to 18 billion dollars and take 20 years to replace lost experience and manpower. The US military cannot afford these costs under current budgetary pressures, and especially cannot afford the debilitating effects of ‘brain drain’ and the loss of experience as it prepares to fight a major war in the near future.
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously noted, “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” It is now the job of the President, the Secretary of Defense, and military and policy leaders to ensure that the United States has the force and manpower it needs to win. Merit, effectiveness, and lethality—not identity and politics—should be the US military’s sole focus. Banning transgender service members, in addition to being an unsound policy, undermines that goal.