According to a newly filed document in Talbott v. Trump — the court case that will determine whether transgender people can continue to serve in the U.S. military — the military now plans to ask all service members if they exhibit “symptoms” of being transgender. The filing signals a shift from targeting only openly transgender individuals to potentially investigating those who are closeted or concealing their transgender status. Filed on March 21, the document states that the policy will not be implemented unless the preliminary injunction blocking the military ban, issued last week, is lifted.
The document states that “Service members who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria are no longer eligible for military service.” While a footnote clarifies that the symptoms must be “marked and clinically significant,” such determinations are typically made confidentially between a psychologist and patient. Regardless, the language appears deliberately broad, seemingly designed to target not only openly transgender individuals but also those who are closeted or have not disclosed their identity.
Furthermore, the filing states that all service members will be asked about gender dysphoria. It notes that “service members have a responsibility to report medical issues,” and instructs unit commanders to include gender dysphoria evaluations as part of the Individual Medical Readiness program. The Periodic Health Assessment questionnaire — which all service members are required to complete — will now include a question asking whether they are transgender or exhibit symptoms of gender dysphoria. Those who answer yes will be evaluated and recommended for separation from service.
The idea that there is a medical justification for the ban and accompanying questionnaire is undercut by the language of the executive order itself. Rather than relying on clinical reasoning, Trump’s order asserts that being transgender “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle,” and claims it “is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.” These statements — not medical arguments — formed the basis for the ban. It was this language that Judge Ana Reyes cited in her decision to block the order last week, describing it as “dripping with animus.”
If the military ban is allowed to go into effect, it could be costly. SPARTA, a leading transgender military advocacy organization, estimates that removing 15,000 transgender service members would result in the loss of an $18 billion capital investment, with the Palm Center projecting an additional $1 billion cost to recruit and train replacements. Notably, up to 73% of these service members are senior enlisted personnel with 12-21 years of experience — expertise that cannot be easily replaced by the U.S. government.
Unless the preliminary injunction is listed, the new regulations on asking service members of symptoms of being transgender will not go into effect. The government is likely to appeal the case. It has until March 28th to do so, upon which the preliminary injunction will go into effect.
This piece was republished with permission from Erin In The Morning.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today during our fundraiser. We have 48 hours to add 230 new monthly donors. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.