Timeline: The Debate Over Transgender Military Service
A look at 10 years of policy decisions and courtroom battles
With research assistance from James Rushmore
The Trump Administration this week asked the U.S. Supreme Court to do what it did in 2019: lift an injunction that prohibits the Defense Department from proceeding with a policy that prohibits transgender people from serving in the military.
In 2019, the Supreme Court lifted the injunction on a policy developed by former Defense Secretary James Mattis while also rejecting the first Trump administration’s request to bypass lower courts and take up the case.
Solicitor General John Sauer argues in his emergency application filed Thursday that the government suffers irreparable harm under judicial orders that prohibit implementation of the policy while cases play out in court.
In staying the injunctions against the Mattis policy, this Court necessarily determined that those injunctions would otherwise cause the government irreparable harm. The same is true here: Like the injunctions against the Mattis policy, the injunction against the 2025 policy irreparably harms the government by forcing it to maintain a policy that the Department has found to be inconsistent with “the best interests of the Military Services” and with “the interests of national security.”
The policy approved by the Trump administration in February also prohibits the Defense Department from paying for “medical procedures associated with facilitating sex reassignment surgery, genital reconstruction surgery as treatment for gender dysphoria, or newly initiated cross-sex hormone therapy.”
But Politico obtained a leaked memo dated April 21 that says at least some medical care will resume. The memo from Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, Dr. Stephen Ferrara, says:
Service members and all other covered beneficiaries 19 years of age or older may receive appropriate care for their diagnosis of [gender dysphoria], including mental health care and counseling and newly initiated or ongoing cross-sex hormone therapy.
That is the only portion of the memo that Politico reprinted, so it’s unclear if that includes procedures such as genital reconstruction surgery. However, Politico reports “the memo says the Defense Department is returning to the Biden-era medical policy for transgender service members…”
Here’s a timeline of the policy decisions, court cases and other key moments in the debate over transgender people serving in the military, going back to the Obama administration:
July 13, 2015
Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announces the formation of a working group to look at the impact of lifting a ban on transgender people openly serving in the military, and makes clear a policy change is forthcoming.
The Defense Department’s current regulations regarding transgender service members are outdated and are causing uncertainty that distracts commanders from our core missions.
October 3, 2015
In an address to the Human Rights Campaign, Vice President Joe Biden takes credit for Carter’s above remarks.
In July, when I said…transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time, it took the secretary of defense about 10 minutes in July 2015, no longer any questions: transgender people are able to serve in the United States military.
June 30, 2016
Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announces that transgender people can openly serve in the military, and that they will be provided “medically necessary care.” Any transgender person who wants to enter the military must have “completed any medical treatment… in connection with their gender transition and to have been stable in their identified gender for 18 months.”
Ash cites a RAND study that estimates there are 4,000 members of the military who are transgender.
The first and fundamental reason is that the Defense Department and the military need to avail ourselves of all talent possible in order to remain what we are now – the finest fighting force the world has ever known.
June 30, 2017
Secretary of Defense James Mattis delays enlistment of transgender recruits for six months. The announcement comes one day before they were eligible to enlist.
The press release announcing the delay is two sentences:
Secretary Mattis today approved a recommendation by the services to defer accessing transgender applicants into the military until Jan. 1, 2018.
The services will review their accession plans and provide input on the impact to the readiness and lethality of our forces.
July 26, 2017
President Trump announces in a series of tweets that the government “will not accept or allow” transgender people “to serve in any capacity.”
August 25, 2017
President Trump issues a memorandum that formally prohibits transgender people from joining the military, and leaves it up to Mattis to decide what to do with current members of the military who are transgender.
August 28, 2017 - Oct. 2017
Transgender members of the military and advocacy groups file a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of the ban.
A person’s gender identity constitutes a core aspect of individual self-definition. The Ban and current accessions bar diminish the personhood, dignity, and autonomy of the individual plaintiffs and of the transgender members of the organizational plaintiffs, and impermissibly interfere with the most intimate choices a person may make in a lifetime, including the right to self-expression and to live openly and authentically.
In another lawsuit, Democratic attorneys general from 14 states and Washington, D.C., file an amicus brief in support of a preliminary injunction. Among its arguments:
Prohibiting open service estranges transgender service members from their fellow troops, undermining the group’s ability to trust and bond.
March 23, 2018
Trump signs a memorandum that revokes his Aug. 25, 2017, memorandum and gives Mattis authority to implement the policies regarding transgender military members that he had given to the president a month earlier. Most transgender people are prohibited from military service, but there are exceptions. The policies are:
Transgender persons with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria are disqualified from military service, except under the following limited circumstances: (1) if they have been stable for 36 consecutive months in their biological sex prior to accession; (2) Service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria after entering into service may be retained if they do not require a change of gender and remain deployable within applicable retention standards; and (3) currently serving Service members who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria since the previous administration's policy took effect and prior to the effective date of this new policy, may continue to serve in their preferred gender and receive medically necessary treatment for gender dysphoria.
Transgender persons who require or have undergone gender transition are disqualified from military service.
Transgender persons without a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria, who are otherwise qualified for service, may serve, like all other Service members, in their biological sex.
Mattis writes in a memo to Trump:
January 22, 2019
The U.S. Supreme Court removes lower court injunctions on the ban — allowing the policies to take effect — but rejects the Trump administration’s request to bypass lower courts and hear oral arguments on the topic.
January 21, 2021
President Joe Biden signs an executive order that overturns Trump’s ban on transgender people serving in the military
“What I’m doing is enabling all qualified Americans to serve their country in uniform,” Biden says in the Oval Office before signing the order.
January 27, 2025
President Trump signs an executive order that sets the stage for the Department of Defense to ban transgender people from serving in the military. It rescinds Biden’s order and directs the Defense Department to have a new policy within 60 days. The order says that:
Expressing a false “gender identity” divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service. Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life. A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.
January 28, 2025
An Army reservist, 2nd Lt. Nicolas Talbott, and other members of the military file a lawsuit to strike down Trump’s order. He says in a prepared statement:
When you put on the uniform, differences fall away and what matters is your ability to do the job. Every individual must meet the same objective and rigorous qualifications in order to serve. It has been my dream and my goal to serve my country for as long as I can remember. My being transgender has no bearing on my dedication to the mission, my commitment to my unit, or my ability to perform my duties in accordance with the high standards expected of me and every service member.
Feb. 06, 2025
U.S. Navy Commander Emily “Hawking” Shilling and other service members file a lawsuit challenging Trump’s executive order. Shilling, who has served for 19 years, says Trump’s order is not about readiness, cohesion, or merit but “about exclusion and betrayal, purposely targeting those of us who volunteered to serve, simply for having the courage and integrity to live our truth.”
In the video above, Shilling explains the process she went through after transitioning.
I’m one of the first naval aviators to regain my flight clearance post-transition. And what that means is the Navy was rightfully medically conservative — I’m going to go fly a $100 million aircraft, the F-18 like you saw in Top Gun II — so they ran me through every psychological evaluation, every physical evaluation you could think of, and at the end of the day there was no reason to keep me out of the cockpit.
Feb. 28, 2025
Under the above headline, the Defense Department announces that “Service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria will soon be processed for separation by their respective services,” and that medical care related to gender dysphoria will end.
A February 26 memo from acting Under Secretary of Defense Darin Selnick lists several policy provisions. Among them:
Military service by Service members and applicants for military service who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria is incompatible with military service. Service by these individuals is not in the best interests of the Military Services and is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security.
Service members who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms
consistent with, gender dysphoria will be processed for separation from military service … Characterization of service under these procedures will be honorable except where the Service member's record otherwise warrants a lower characterization.
No funds from the Department of Defense will be used to pay for Service members' unscheduled, scheduled, or planned medical procedures associated with facilitating sex reassignment surgery, genital reconstruction surgery as treatment for gender dysphoria, or newly initiated cross-sex hormone therapy.
March 18, 2025
U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes grants Talbot case plaintiffs a preliminary injunction. In her opinion, she address the government’s claim that courts should defer to the military’s judgment.
Yes, the Court must defer. But not blindly. The President issued EO14183 within seven days of taking office, and Secretary Hegseth issued the Policy thirty days later. There is no evidence that they consulted with uniformed military leaders before doing so. Neither document contains any analysis nor cites any data.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth responds on X:
March 27, 2025
U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle orders a preliminary injunction in the Shilling case, prohibiting the Defense Department from implementing its ban on transgender members of the military.
May 1, 2025
Attorneys in the Shilling case urge justices to maintain Judge Settle’s preliminary injunction, arguing that a stay “would upend the status quo by allowing the government to immediately begin discharging thousands of transgender servicemembers.”
Their response to Sauer’s emergency application also says that Hegseth’s policy would undercut “the equal protection, due process, and free speech rights of transgender servicemembers and those who wish to serve, as well as basic equitable notions of fairness.” They note the Hegseth policy goes further than the Mattis policy, as the latter did not call for the expulsion of servicemembers who had already transitioned.
If I can’t deploy service members with diabetes because I can’t guarantee insulin to them, how the hell am I supposed to guarantee hormones? They’re nondeployable…therefore not fit for winning our nation’s wars.
Thirty year Army veteran here. I can assure you that not a single solitary military commander in the history of the world has ever thought, “having transgender soldiers on my roster is going to improve my unit’s readiness.” These are always going to be problems that drain attention away from what is actually important. Some dude wanting to be a chick should do so on his own time, not the military’s. Sorry to be a “bigot,” I guess. But it’s absolutely the truth.