Donald Trump said on Wednesday he would not allow transgender individuals to serve in the US military in any capacity, reversing a policy put in place by Barack Obama a year ago.
The US president tweeted: “After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow … transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the US Military.”
He added: “Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming … victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”
Trump’s decision marks a sharp reversal of a policy initiated under Obama in 2016, in which the Pentagon ended a longtime ban on trans people from serving openly in the military.
The Pentagon appeared to be caught off guard by Trump’s announcement and deferred to the White House when reached for comment.
“We will continue to work closely with the White House to address the new guidance provided by the commander-in-chief on trans individuals serving the military,” a spokesperson for the Department of Defense said. “We will provide revised guidance to the department in the near future.”
Under Obama, then defense secretary Ashton Carter announced on 30 June 2016 that any trans people already serving in the armed forced could serve openly “effective immediately”, making the shift in policy a year after ordering the Pentagon to study the potential effects of allowing trans people to serve on the combat readiness of the armed forces. Several outside studies had already found that reversing the ban was unlikely to have a negative impact.
A 2016 study by the RAND Corporation estimated there are up to 6,630 trans people on active duty and up to 4,160 in the select reserve. There are roughly 1.4 million active duty service members in the entire military.
The same study estimated that medical care for individuals who transition would cost roughly $2.4 to $4m annually. Every year, the Pentagon spends approximately $6bn on medical care for active members of the armed forces.
Trump’s move to ban trans people from the military comes after the Pentagon recently delayed a deadline set by the Obama administration of 1 July 2017 to decide whether incoming recruits who openly identified as trans could enlist.
Last month, defense secretary James Mattis outlined the six-month delay on trans recruitment in an internal memo, which was reported by CNN, in which he wrote: “We will use this additional time to evaluate more carefully the impact of such accessions on readiness and lethality.”
The delay was negotiated after the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps met with Mattis to request more time to prepare for the recruitment of transgender service members. Reports have suggested the joint chiefs asked for an additional six months, while others instead wanted another two years. But there was no public indication that the joint chiefs were seeking an outright ban.
Mattis was on vacation at the time of Trump’s announcement, signaling a lack of coordination between the White House and the relevant agencies, and raising questions over whether the new policy was yet another impulsive decision by the president.
An administration official fueled speculation over the president’s motives by suggesting to a reporter the shift was, in fact, a political ploy that would force Democrats facing re-election in states won by Trump into complex culture wars.
As a candidate, Trump cast himself as a supporter of LGBT rights and indicated he would uphold certain Obama-era policies designed to protect transgender people.
But upon taking office, Trump rescinded his predecessor’s guidance requiring public schools to allow transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice.
The president lifted the guidance in February, despite saying during his campaign that transgender people should use “whatever bathroom they feel is appropriate”.
Trump’s decision to bar transgender service members came on the anniversary of Harry Truman’s 1948 executive order desegregating the US military.
Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, blasted Trump for what she dubbed as “a cruel and arbitrary decision designed to humiliate transgender Americans who stepped forward to serve our country”.
“This morning’s tweets reveal a president with no loyalty to the courageous men and women in uniform who risk their lives to defend our freedoms,” Pelosi said in a statement. “This disgusting ban will weaken our military and the nation it defends.”
“Once again, president Trump has shown his conduct is driven not by honor, decency, or national security, but by raw prejudice. This is a dark day for thousands of heroes in our military and for our entire country.”
Congressman Ruben Gallego, a Democrat from Arizona who is an Iraq War veteran, said banning a qualified person from serving in the military based on identity was “both discriminatory and bad national security policy”.
In a series of tweets, Gallego said Trump “will never understand complex military needs” and “doesn’t have the experience or intellectual capacity to learn”.
Gallego added that Trump, who received five draft deferrments during the Vietnam War, was “an impotent leader”.
“He is using fear of trans community to score political points”.
Earlier this month, the House of Representatives voted down a measure that would have restricted funding for trans members of the military. The amendment would have prohibited the defense department from providing medical treatment “related to gender transition” to service members, with an exception for mental health treatment.
Although the measure passed a House committee on a party line vote, it ultimately failed on the House floor on a 209-214 vote, as 24 Republicans broke with their party and banded together with Democrats to kill the proposal.
The author of the proposal, Representative Vicky Hartzler of Missouri, celebrated Trump’s decision on Wednesday.
“I’m glad to hear the president will be changing this costly and damaging policy,” she said in a statement. “Military service is a privilege, not a right.”
(TheGuardian US)
