Thursday, July 27th 2017 (WASHINGTON) – The Department of Defense was not given advance notice of President Donald Trump’s decision to ban transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military and has no directives for how to proceed, according to statements from the country’s highest ranking military officers.
The president’s Wednesday morning tweets, which the White House has said constitute official statements, argued that the U.S. military “cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption” of transgender service members. Yet members of the military are still waiting for proper notification from the Commander in Chief.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford issued a statement on Thursday saying there will be no modifications to the current policy allowing transgender individuals to serve in the military “until the President’s direction has been received by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary has issued implementation guidance.”
Shortly after that statement was released, the chief of the U.S. Army said that to his knowledge, Defense Secretary James Mattis still “hasn’t received written directive yet” from President Trump.
“To date, walking in here, I have yet to receive implementation guidance, implementation directive from the Department of Defense,” Gen. Mark Milley said at the National Press Club.
President Trump did not give the Army chief any advance warning of the policy change, “Nor would I expect him to … nor is there any kind of requirement to do that,” Milley noted.
The president’s order via Twitter stated that “the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.”
The announcement marks a reversal of the Pentagon’s controversial 2016 policy change to allow transgender individuals to serve openly without fear of being discharged.
Take the poll: Do you think transgender people should serve in the military?
Trump said he reached his decision to change the military’s policy on transgender service members after consulting with his “Generals and military experts.” But based on their own accounts, it is not clear whether that happened.
Just last month, the Pentagon announced it was putting a temporary pause on accepting new transgender applicants while it conducted a six-month review of the Obama-era policy change. That review was set to be completed by January 2018 and determine whether the Obama-era policy had any impact on military readiness, or the effectiveness of U.S. troops.
The 2016 policy created new challenges for the service branches. Gen. Milley acknowledged facing “a variety of challenges” in integrating transgender members. But said the Army has been dealing with those issues “professionally, privately, with dignity and respect for the individual and the institution.”
Transgender military service was also a hot-button political issue for lawmakers during the debate over the 2018 defense spending bill. A number of conservatives raised concerns that the military would sacrifice other priorities in order to pay the medical expenses associated with gender reassignment procedures.
Last week during the House debate on the defense authorization bill, Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) introduced an amendment to prohibit the military from paying for transgender medical procedures.
The proposal was defeated with 24 Republicans joining 190 Democrats in opposing the proposal, which only dealt with medical costs and military readiness. It did go as far as the President Trump did when he announced he was reimposing the service ban on openly transgender individuals.
Hartzler defended her amendment measure saying that allowing transgender individuals to serve openly and receive medical treatment paid for by the military is “costly and a threat to our readiness.”
Hartzler estimated that the combined costs of surgeries and hormone treatments alone could reach $1.35 billion over the next ten years. Those figures were disputed by the Rand Corporation, which conducted its own study in 2015 and found the additional costs to the Military Health System would be between 2.4 million and $8.4 million per year.
According to a congressional aide with knowledge of the matter, Rep. Hartzler has repeatedly raised her concerns with the Department of Defense. On the day her amendment failed the floor, the congresswoman spoke with Secretary Mattis and pressed the issue of military readiness and the cost of transgender troops, but she received no assurances that the secretary would take action.
She then brought the issue to the White House, urging President Trump to address the issue before Congress approved the funds for the Defense Department.
After Trump’s announced his decision over Twitter, Rep. Hartzler put out a statement thanking the president for reimposing the ban on openly transgender individuals serving in the military.
Other conservatives spoke out in support of the amendment including Marine combat veteran Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) and Rep. Scott Perry (R-Penn.) a former aviation battalion commander in Iraq. The two emphasized that they did not oppose transgender members serving, just the idea that the military would pay the medical costs for gender reassignment procedures.
After Trump’s tweets on Wednesday, Rep. Perry clarified his position, stating, “While I don’t support a unilateral ban, present Department of Defense policies are insufficient to address the pragmatic and logistical issues surrounding service of transgender individuals.”
Perry did not reach out to the White House and he wasn’t contacted by the White House prior to the president’s policy decision, according to the congressman’s staff.
Since the president’s announcement, dozens of members of Congress have come out to denounce the reversal.
Chairman of the Senate Armed Services and decorated Vietnam veteran,John McCain (R-Ariz.) defended those transgender individuals currently serving in the military and called the president’s statement “unclear.”
“Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving,” McCain said.
That sentiment has been reemphasized by other lawmakers, current and former military officers and LGBTQ advocates.
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Martin Dempsey indirectly addressed the issue on social media, saying “The service of men and women who volunteer and who meet our standards of service is a blessing not a burden.”
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) a member of the Armed Services Committee and Iraq War veteran said President Trump’s tweets show he is “clearly not even … on the same page with his own generals.”
Trump’s announcement “a tough morale hit” for those transgender individuals currently serving in the military, the congressman added, explaining that the president’s message is essentially “we don’t want you.”
Until the president issues his directives to the military, it is not clear what transgender service members can expect, whether they are enlisting, training or on active duty.
Even as they await further directives from the president, Gen. Dunford and Gen. Milley both emphasized that the military will continue to treat all of its personnel with respect.
