Trump Issues Order to Ban Transgender Troops from Serving Openly in the Military.
On January 27, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning transgender individuals from serving openly in the military. This order directs Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to revise the Pentagon’s policy on transgender troops within 30 days. The move has sparked significant controversy and debate, with critics arguing that it undermines the rights and dignity of transgender service members.
The executive order, titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” reinstates a policy from Trump’s first term and rescinds an order by former President Joe Biden that allowed transgender people to enlist and permitted already enlisted trans service members to receive coverage for transition-related medical care. The order emphasizes the need for high standards of troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity, arguing that these standards are inconsistent with the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria.
The order mandates that the Defense Department update its military medical standards within 60 days, promptly ending invented and identification-based pronoun usage and prohibiting people assigned male at birth from using women’s sleeping, changing, and bathing facilities. The order will take time to implement, so transgender service members will not be immediately ejected. However, it remains unclear what will happen to service members who are receiving transition-related care through Tricare, the military’s health care program.
Critics of the order argue that it undermines the rights and dignity of transgender service members, who have served honorably and with distinction. They point out that the costs associated with providing gender-affirming care to transgender troops are minimal compared to other medical expenses incurred by the military. For example, the Department of Defense spent nearly $300 million on erectile dysfunction medications, including Viagra, for military beneficiaries between 2011 and 2015, while the cost of gender-affirming care for transgender personnel was only $15 million over five years.
Supporters of the order, however, argue that it is necessary to maintain military readiness and effectiveness. They claim that allowing transgender individuals to serve openly in the military undermines unit cohesion and stability and that the medical and mental health constraints associated with gender dysphoria are incompatible with the rigorous standards required for military service.
The impact of the order on the strength and readiness of the U.S. military force remains to be seen. While the number of transgender individuals serving in the military is relatively small, their contributions are significant, particularly in critical-skill positions such as cybersecurity and drone operations. Removing these individuals from service could have far-reaching consequences for the military’s overall effectiveness.
As the debate over the executive order continues, the future of transgender service members in the U.S. military remains uncertain. The order represents a significant shift in policy and raises important questions about the balance between military readiness and the rights of individuals to serve their country openly and authentically.
