Transgender military ban

Just over a year after former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced “transgender Americans may serve openly, and they can no longer be discharged or otherwise separated from the military just for being transgender,” Trump tweeted that “the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender [sic] individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military [sic].”

This is not the first time that members of the Trump administration have halted the entry of transgender people into the military.

Days before the deadline for a policy that would have allowed transgender military recruits to serve starting on July 1, defense secretary Mattis delayed the start date for six months, citing the need to review how integrating transgender recruits would affect “readiness and lethality.”

On Aug. 25, Trump issued a memo that directed the military that said Mattis and acting Secretary of Homeland Security needed to deliver their study of what should be done with the transgender troops currently serving by Feb. 21, 2018.

On Aug. 29, Mattis indicated that transgender troops would still be allowed to serve as Trump’s ban was reviewed. On the same day, he indicated that the Pentagon would develop a study of how to deploy a ban that does “what is best for the military's combat effectiveness.”

Trump’s tweets regarding his wish to ban transgender people from the military were met with backlash.

During a speech at the Capitol, Mara Keisling, the executive director of the National Center on Transgender Equality, attempted to quantify how the transgender military ban would affect American readiness.

“The President of the United States announced this morning that he is ready to blow 15,000 holes in American military readiness. It is an absolute disgrace, it is a shame, it is unpatriotic and it is cowardly,” Keisling said.

On Oct. 30, District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, found the ban suspect and likely to be unconstitutional.

In response to the suit brought forth by “current and aspiring service members who are transgender,” the court denied in-part and granted in-part the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, according to the case’s memorandum opinion.

Among other reasons, Judge Kollar-Kotelly cited “the unusual circumstances surrounding the President’s announcement of them,” “the fact that the reasons given for them do not appear to be supported by facts,” and “the recent rejection of those reasons by the military itself” as reasons to support the plaintiffs due process claim.

On Nov. 21, 2017, Judge Marvin Garbis issued a ruling against the ban, citing factors like “the cancellation and postponements of surgeries,” “facing the prospect of discharge” and “the inability to move forward with long-term medical plans” to demonstrate “that [transgender members of the military] are already suffering harmful consequences.”

On Dec. 11, the Pentagon announced that transgender recruits would be allowed to enlist in the military starting on Jan. 1.