You’ve probably been hearing a lot about the ongoing debate over transgender individuals serving in the U.S. military. The issue has been at the forefront of national conversation, with policies changing with presidential administrations. Here's a breakdown of the history and current state of transgender military service in the U.S. The issue is far from resolved.
History of Transgender Military Service
Historically, transgender individuals have served in American armed forces, but it’s been pretty limited. Up until relatively recently, openly trans people were barred from serving in the U.S. military. The second Obama Administration made major efforts to change that.
In 2015, then-Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter initiated a review of policies regarding transgender service members. This led to the 2016 Carter Policy, which allowed transgender individuals to serve openly in the military. The policy was based on extensive research and recommendations by the Department of Defense. The DoD consulted outside experts, including a RAND National Defense Research Institute report that found no negative impact on unit cohesion or operational effectiveness from allowing open service. The Carter Policy concluded that excluding transgender individuals would harm military readiness by discharging trained personnel.
But before these accession standards (requirements that you have to meet to be eligible for military service) could take effect, President Trump came into office for his first term.
Trump’s 2017 Ban
In 2017, the first Trump administration announced a significant policy shift for transgender rights. Through a series of Tweets, President Trump declared that the U.S. government would not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve "in any capacity" in the military. A presidential memorandum was issued directing then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis to prevent the implementation of the Carter Policy's accession standards.
New transgender accessions were generally prohibited by reinstating older medical standards. New sex reassignment surgeries were barred after March 2018, except for ongoing treatment.
Previous Lawsuits
This directive led to widespread legal challenges, with four separate federal lawsuits filed against the administration's decision. Plaintiffs argued that the ban was unconstitutional, violating the Fifth Amendment's equal protection and due process guarantees, as well as the First Amendment's free speech guarantee. Their complaint asserted that the ban lacked any compelling justification and is motivated by animus towards transgender people.
Each court subsequently issued preliminary injunctions blocking the enforcement of the 2017 Ban, citing concerns over its legality and constitutionality. In 2018, Secretary Mattis modified the policy slightly to make it so that currently serving transgender members were protected from discharge solely based on their status and allowed to reenlist pending the final policy.
Despite these modifications and ongoing legal battles, the ban effectively prohibited new enlistments by transgender individuals until it was rescinded by President Biden in January 2021.
Tug-of-War Between Trump and Biden
President Biden, in January 2021, issued an executive order repealing the 2017 Ban, allowing transgender individuals to serve openly again. This policy, known as the Austin Policy, was based on evidence that open service by transgender individuals did not negatively impact military readiness.
But this year, that changed again when Trump got back into office for a second term. Trump rescinded the Austin Policy and issued a new ban on January 27, 2025, excluding transgender individuals from military service. The Ban claimed, without evidence, that transgender status was incompatible with military service and directed the DoD to implement this exclusion.
Déjà Vu With New Lawsuit
Unsurprisingly, reinstating the ban brought back legal action. Lambda Legal is a national nonprofit organization that advocates for the civil rights of LGBTQ+ people and those living with HIV through litigation, education, and public policy work. In February, Lambda Legal, along with the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Washington against the federal government on behalf of those affected by the Austin Policy.
The plaintiffs in this case include seven current transgender service members. Additionally, the Gender Justice League is an organizational plaintiff representing its transgender members affected by the ban.
Similar to previous lawsuits, the current plaintiffs argued that the new ban violates their constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses and the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. They contend that the ban discriminates against them based on sex and transgender status without any legitimate justification. They argue that these policies undermine military readiness and endanger national safety while violating constitutional protections. They also claim that it burdens their ability to express their gender identity openly and coerces them into conforming to a government-imposed viewpoint on gender identity.
A Game of Injunction Chicken
On March 27, Seattle-based U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle granted the plaintiff’s national preliminary injunction, which temporarily blocked the policy from going into effect. The judge found that Trump's order likely violates Equal Protection under the Fifth Amendment.
Then, last week, lawyers for the Trump administration took the matter to a higher authority. The Justice Department went to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to lift Judge Settle’s order blocking the military from carrying out the ban. Solicitor General D. John Sauer explained that without an order from the nation’s highest court, the ban could not take effect for many months — which was “a period far too long” for the DoD to be “forced to maintain” a policy it thinks is “contrary to military readiness and the nation’s interests.” At the very least, he argued, the ban should not be nationwide, but limited only to the plaintiffs bringing the lawsuit.
SCOTUS gave the plaintiffs a week to respond, so more news to come soon.
Related Resources:
- Trump Invokes Alien Enemies Act to Deport Venezuelan Nationals (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- Seeing Crimson, Harvard Sues Trump Administration Over Billions in Threatened Cuts to Research Grants (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
