Society / January 31, 2025

Trump’s Transgender Military Ban Doesn’t Make Sense. It Didn’t the First Time Either.

The ban will only serve to create chaos and risk the health and safety of Americans.

Michele Goodwin

The US Armed Forces recruiting station in Times Square.


(Roberto Machado Noa / LightRocket via Getty Images)

In a barrage of extreme executive orders, uprooting long standing constitutional norms and legal policies, from birthright citizenship to antidiscrimination in government employment, President Donald Trump has outlined the wasteful and economically inefficient focus of his new administration. Despite boastful claims of stewarding an economically vibrant agenda seemingly by dismantling nondiscrimination policies, what awaits Americans are hard lessons about how the economy and rule of law really work.

Take removing transgender service members from the armed forces. Transgender service members have been permitted since 2016, save for the period of Trump’s last executive order removing them from service. But Trump made clear on the campaign trail that his administration would be hostile to recently secured transgender rights—and he did not hold back upon taking the oath of office.

In August 2024, he unveiled his plans at a rally in North Carolina, informing the crowd, “If you want to have a sex change or a social justice seminar, then you can do it somewhere else, but you’re not going to do it in the Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force, Space Force, or the United States Marines—sorry.”

Taking aim this week, in the “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” executive order, he claimed that “the Armed Forces have been afflicted with radical gender ideology to appease activists unconcerned with the requirements of military service like physical and mental health, selflessness, and unit cohesion” and that “expressing a false ‘gender identity’ divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.” In sum, according to Trump, “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.“

While Trump’s rhetoric may translate as a score or deliverable to his base, does it make sense? Ultimately, Trump’s anti-trans policy agenda may blind his administration to the realities and costs of doing so.

In a CNN interview this week, Navy Commander Emily Shilling shed light on this. Shilling has served for nearly two decades with two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, flying 60 combat missions and becoming a test pilot. Time and again, Shilling received commendations for being meritorious. In other words, the new policy ignores exactly what Trump claims to be in search of: merit and talent.

The Nation Weekly

Fridays. A weekly digest of the best of our coverage.
By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You may unsubscribe or adjust your preferences at any time. You can read our Privacy Policy here.

Further, by reorganizing the military by edict, the 47th president is exposing ignorance, fear, and weakness, not strength and fiscal savviness. Removing experienced, proven, and committed members of the armed forces from their jobs based on sex not only reinforces stereotypes; it also invites chaos and creates serious gaps that “will take decades to fill,” according to Commander Shilling. This includes soldiers who take to the front lines, commanding officers, lawyers, special forces rangers, and others. Those glaring holes in leadership and experience will predictably undermine readiness, morale, and safety.

None of this is new, but the impacts may be more severe. Much like during his first term, the policy was announced along with a slew of executive orders targeting LGBTQ communities and stripping away protections. One such order claims that there are only two sexes—completely ignoring science and medicine, as some individuals are born with male and female reproductive organs.

Trump’s first transgender military ban in 2017 was launched through a series of tweets on the platform now known as X. To justify the ban, which effectively reversed the 2016 Obama administration order permitting transgender individuals to serve in the military, he claimed that such a policy harmed the armed forces. Trump alleged that trans members of the armed services caused economic hardships and burdened the military. Advocacy groups immediately challenged the ban, as they did just this week, in Talbot v. Trump, arguing, “The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from denying equal protection of the laws.” And they are right, the ban does discriminate against these members of the military based on their sex and without lawful justification.

Still, let’s consider the Trump administration’s erroneous and debunked claims. First, the president has claimed that allowing transgender individuals to serve in the military would bring about considerable financial burdens. However, his financial analysis was just plain wrong. According to a study published by the RAND Corporation, allowing trans-inclusive medical care marginally increased healthcare “spending by only 0.038-0.054 percent.” By contrast, the sexual health costs associated with cisgender members in the military who seek and receive services to address erectile dysfunction is incredibly high.

Current Issue

Cover of May 2025 Issue

At the time of his first transgender ban, studies showed that the military spent over $82 million a year to address erectile dysfunction in its male service-members. In 2015, Patricia Kime, a senior writer for Military Times, noted that the Department of Defense (DoD) spent $84.24 million on erectile dysfunction medications in 2014, including $41.6 million for Viagra, $22.82 million for Cialis, and $2.24 million for Revatio. These expenses predated transgender individuals’ being able to openly enlist and only shortly after the repeal of the Clinton-era policy “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” In a three-year period from 2011 to 2014, the DoD spent a total of $294 million on erectile dysfunction medications.

The point is not to demean service members who need medical support to aid and benefit their health and well-being. As the Mayo Clinic notes, “having erection trouble” may “cause stress, affect…self-confidence and contribute to relationship problems.” The problem here is governing by shortcuts and stereotypes. And the administration itself is inviting scrutiny of all military spending.

Second, Trump has claimed that military readiness and cohesion will suffer if the military permits transgender service members. In a law review article I published with UC Berkeley School of Law dean Erwin Chemerinsky, we debunked that claim, explaining that “unit performance is associated with task cohesion—not necessarily social cohesion, which relates to individuals’ friendships and family relationships.” We noted that internal military reports found the “armed forces…had valuable and highly skilled transgender members.” Courts, too, have recognized the weaponization of “unit cohesion” as a foil for homophobia and sex-based discrimination. Specifically, in Log Cabin Republicans v. US, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the “loss of unit cohesion” has been weaponized “against open service by a new minority group.” And the Armed Forces have come to a similar conclusion.

In 2015, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter convened a working group comprised of senior military leaders, medical experts, service members, and researchers from the RAND Corporation. After comprehensive study, they issued a memorandum and DoD fact sheet clarifying that “open service by transgender Service members, while being subject to the same standards and procedures as other members with regard to their medical fitness for duty, physical fitness, uniform and grooming, deployability, and retention, is consistent with military readiness.”

Predictably, Trump’s transgender military ban will only serve to create chaos and risk the health and safety of Americans by irresponsibly curating a culture of surveillance and fear within the armed services.

Michele Goodwin

Michele Goodwin is the Linda D. & Timothy J. O'Neill Professor of Constitutional Law and Global Health Policy at Georgetown University and the president of the Law and Society Association. She is the author of the award-winning book, Policing The Womb: Invisible Women and the Criminalization of Motherhood.

More from The Nation

The newly elected Pontiff, Pope Leo XIV is seen for the first time from the Vatican balcony on May 8, 2025, in Vatican City, Vatican.

Will the New Pope Ever Forgive JD Vance? Will the New Pope Ever Forgive JD Vance?

Leo XIV’s commitment to migrants and the poor will put him at odds with MAGA.

Jeet Heer

Pope Leo XIV at the Vatican on May 8, 2025.

Pope Leo XIV Sent an Unmistakable Signal About His Commitment to Social Justice Pope Leo XIV Sent an Unmistakable Signal About His Commitment to Social Justice

The new pope has taken a name that recalls Pope Leo XIII, who wrote the outline for modern Catholic social justice teaching.

John Nichols

The Phoenix Police Department honor guard is the first department to stand watch during the “Standing Watch for the Fallen” flag ceremony at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial May 14, 2014, in Washington, DC.

The Jim Crow Origins of National Police Week The Jim Crow Origins of National Police Week

Police brutality and corruption are painful realities. So are officers who die honorably performing their duty. But the memorial in Washington fails to distinguish between them.

Elizabeth Robeson

Every day I stayed in bed would provide my baby more time to grow. And every day away from working at full capacity strained our finances, our momentum as a family, and our peace of mind.

The Moms Who Caught Me When the Safety Net Failed The Moms Who Caught Me When the Safety Net Failed

This weekend, as community groups organize on behalf of mothers and caregivers, I am reminded of the strangers who showed up for me when I needed it the most.

Adrianne Wright

A worker assembles components of modular housing in the Capsys factory in the Brooklyn Navy Yard in New York in 2016, shortly before it was repurposed as the Nehemiah Spring Creek housing development.

When It Comes to Building New Housing, “Abundance” Is More Like Avoidance When It Comes to Building New Housing, “Abundance” Is More Like Avoidance

Neither Klein and Thompson nor many of their critics on the left offer a robust strategy for actually building affordable homes. Here’s one that has been proven to work.

Mike Gecan

Donald Trump speaks to the media after signing executive orders relating to higher education.

Trump Is Taking a Wrecking Ball to Indigenous Education Trump Is Taking a Wrecking Ball to Indigenous Education

After mass layoffs and scholarship freezes, students and tribal leaders are suing the Trump administration for violating treaty obligations.

StudentNation / Connor Arakaki