National
WHAT A YEAR!
Our picks for the top national and international stories of 2013

(Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
It was perhaps the biggest year yet for the LGBT rights movement in the United States, as the Supreme Court made history by striking down Prop 8 and part of the Defense of Marriage Act. More states legalized marriage in its wake. Elsewhere in the world, the Catholic Church got a new pope who seemed to break with his predecessor over gay rights, among other issues.
Here are the Blade staff’s picks for the year’s top 10 national and international stories.
#1 Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, Prop 8

The plaintiffs in the Proposition 8 case at the Supreme Court emerge victorious with lawyer David Boies, Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin and American Foundation for Equal Rights Executive Director Adam Umhoefer. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a pair of historic decisions against the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 in a news event we have dubbed the story of the year.
In a 5-4 decision, the court struck down Section 3 of DOMA, the 1996 Clinton-era law that prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. In a separate 5-4 decision issued at the same time, the court ruled the proponents of Prop 8 couldn’t defend the initiative in court, allowing a district court ruling to stand that determined the 2008 amendment was unconstitutional.
Writing for the majority in the decision against DOMA, U.S. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy emphasized the harm the anti-gay law causes married same-sex couples.
“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Kennedy wrote. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”
The DOMA lawsuit was brought by New York widow Edith Windsor as a result of having to pay $363,000 in estate taxes in 2009 upon the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer. Windsor became a symbol of the marriage equality movement and was named by Time magazine as its No. 3 pick for “Person of the Year” after her victory at the Supreme Court.
The ruling against Prop 8 restored marriage equality to California. Thousands of same-sex couples — beginning with plaintiffs Kris Perry and Sandra Stier, who were wed by California Attorney General Kamala Harris at San Francisco City Hall — began to marry after the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals gave the go-ahead weeks after the decision.
Immediately after the ruling against DOMA, the Obama administration pledged to work toward implementing the decision to allow for the recognition of same-sex marriage by the federal government. At a news conference during a trip to Africa, President Obama pledged to make the federal benefits of marriage as widely available as possible.
“It’s my personal belief — but I’m speaking now as a president as opposed to as a lawyer — that if you’ve been married in Massachusetts and you move someplace else, you’re still married, and that under federal law you should be able to obtain the benefits of any lawfully married couple,” Obama said.
Then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued guidance saying bi-national same-sex couples would be able to apply for marriage-based green cards to enable them to stay in the United States. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management announced that spousal benefits, including health and pension benefits, would begin to flow to gay federal employees. Perhaps most significantly, the Internal Revenue Service announced it would recognize the marriages of same-sex couples for tax purposes — even if they file tax returns while living in a non-marriage equality state.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel also announced that service members in same-sex marriages would be able to receive spousal benefits, including health, pension and housing benefits. Several national guards with state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage said they would be unable to process these benefits, but after a second edict from Hagel saying they must comply, each of those states fell in line.
Within a few short months, the ruling against DOMA also helped accelerate the path toward marriage equality throughout individual states. In Ohio, a federal judge recognized the marriage of a same-sex couple that married at BWI airport because one of the partners in the relationship was dying of Lou Gehrig’s disease. Later, a New Jersey superior court ruled the state’s civil union law was insufficient — a decision the State Supreme Court let stand upon appeal from New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who later the dropped the lawsuit.
Doug NeJaime, a gay law professor at the University of California, Irvine, said this movement so soon after the Windsor ruling “was anticipated” given the language that Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy used in his opinion.
“Given the flurry of activity, and the quick decisions coming out of places like Ohio, this may mean that the Supreme Court may not be able to avoid the question regarding the constitutionality of state marriage bans as long as some of the justices may hope,” NeJaime said.
#2 States, countries extend marriage rights

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie on Nov. 13, 2013, signed his state’s same-sex marriage bill into law. (Photo courtesy of State of Hawaii/Office of the Governor)
The movement for marriage rights for same-sex couples made significant advances in the U.S. and around the world in 2013.
In addition to Maryland and Delaware, gays and lesbians began to legally marry in California, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Minnesota and Hawaii. Illinois’s same-sex marriage law that Gov. Pat Quinn signed last month will take effect in June.
New Zealand and Uruguay also extended marriage rights to same-sex couples in 2013.
Brazil’s National Council of Justice in May nearly unanimously ruled that registrars in the South American country cannot deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Gays and lesbians in England and Wales on March 29 will begin to exchange vows after the British Parliament over the summer approved a same-sex marriage bill. An identical measure cleared its first hurdle in the Scottish Parliament last month.
The legal process to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples in Mexico continued to gain ground in Baja California, Guanajuato, Jalisco and other states in 2013. A handful of gays and lesbians have exchanged vows in Colombia, but the country’s attorney general has challenged some of them.
Croatian voters on Dec. 1 approved a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The Australia High Court on Dec. 11 ruled a law that extended marriage rights to same-sex couples in the country’s capital is unconstitutional.
#3 Senate passes ENDA; House version stalls

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) spoke in a press conference following the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the U.S. Senate. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key).
For the first time in history, the U.S. Senate approved with bipartisan support this year a long sought piece of legislation that would bar employers from discriminating against or firing workers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
By a vote of 64-32, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act passed the Senate, marking the first time that either chamber of Congress has passed a version of the bill with protections for transgender workers. A total of 10 Republicans joined the entire Democratic caucus present in voting for the bill.
Prior to the vote, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), ENDA’s chief sponsor, delivered a speech on the Senate floor recognizing the historic nature of the moment.
“I look forward to this vote, this vote for liberty, this vote for freedom, this vote for opportunity, this vote for a fair and just America,” Merkley said.
Despite a push to bring up the legislation in the House, momentum on ENDA seems to have stalled as the legislation has capped out at 201 sponsors and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has continually said he opposes it.
“I understand people have differing opinions on this issue, and I respect those opinions,” Boehner said in response to a question from the Washington Blade. “But as someone who’s worked in the employment law area for all my years in the State House and all my years here, I see no basis or no need for this legislation.”
#4 Russia’s LGBT crackdown sparks outrage

Activists protested in front of the Russian embassy several times throughout the year following the passage of anti-gay laws in the country. (Washington Blade photo by Damien Salas)
The Kremlin’s LGBT rights crackdown sparked widespread outrage this past year amid preparations for the 2014 Winter Olympics that will take place in Sochi, Russia, in February.
Russian President Vladimir Putin in June signed a broadly worded bill into law that bans gay propaganda to minors. A second statute that bans foreign same-sex couples and any couple from a country in which gays and lesbians can marry from adopting Russian children took effect in July.
LGBT rights groups and other organizations that receive funding from outside Russia could face a fine if they don’t register as a “foreign agent.”
“These laws are aimed at driving LGBT people back into silence, back underground, back to the invisibility,” Polina Andrianova of Coming Out, a St. Petersburg-based LGBT advocacy group, told the Washington Blade during an August interview.
Playwright Harvey Fierstein is among those who have called for a boycott of the Sochi games in response to Russia’s LGBT rights crackdown. The International Olympic Committee and the U.S. Olympic Committee have also faced criticism from those who feel they have not done enough to publicly criticize the Kremlin over the gay propaganda law.
“The U.S. Olympic Committee has been complicit in this act of aggression because they say we respect Russia’s right to do this,” U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) told the Washington Blade in late September before the USOC added sexual orientation to its anti-discrimination policy. “That is not worthy of Olympic standards.”
Retired Olympic diver Greg Louganis on Dec. 13 told the Blade that gay MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts should not have co-hosted the Miss Universe 2013 pageant in November in Moscow. The four-time gold medalist also said gay singer Elton John should not have performed in Russia earlier this month.
“It just seems like all they’re doing is lending credibility to what’s going on there,” said Louganis.
#5 LGBT Catholics welcome Pope Francis

‘If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and is of good will, who am I to judge him,’ said Pope Francis. (Photo by Agência Brasil; courtesy Wikimedia Commons)
LGBT Catholics in 2013 welcomed Pope Francis’ more moderate tone toward gays.
The College of Cardinals on March 16 elected the former archbishop of Buenos Aires to succeed Pope Benedict XVI who abruptly resigned in February.
The Argentine pontiff said during a September interview with an Italian Jesuit newspaper that the Roman Catholic church has grown “obsessed” with nuptials for gays and lesbians, abortion and contraception. These comments came roughly two months after he told reporters as he returned to Rome after a weeklong trip to Brazil that gays and lesbians should not be judged or marginalized.
“If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and is of good will, who am I to judge him?” said Francis in response to a question about gay priests.
LGBT rights advocates in Argentina noted to the Washington Blade the pontiff categorized the same-sex marriage bill the country’s president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, signed in 2010 as “the work of the devil” that would “spark God’s war.”
Dignity USA Executive Director Marianne Duddy-Burke acknowledged Francis’ anti-LGBT statements after his election. She remains optimistic the new pontiff will welcome LGBT Catholics back into the church.
“We find much to be hopeful about, particularly in the Pope’s firm desire that the church be a ‘home for all people,’ and his belief that God looks on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people with love rather than condemnation,” said Duddy-Burke in a September statement.
#6 Obama names gay ambassadors, judges

John Berry was named U.S. Ambassador to Australia. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
The U.S. Senate approved this year several openly gay appointees — including the first openly gay federal appeals judge — in confirmations that were historic both in number and significance.
Among the confirmed appointees were five openly gay ambassadors, including former U.S. Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry as U.S. ambassador to Australia. The confirmation made him the first openly gay U.S. ambassador to a G-20 country.
Also among the gay confirmations were Daniel Baer as U.S. ambassador to Organization for Security & Cooperation in Europe; Rufus Gifford as U.S. ambassador to Denmark; James Costos as U.S. ambassador to Spain; and James “Wally” Brewster as U.S. ambassador to the Dominican Republic.
Additionally, the Senate confirmed Eric Fanning as under secretary of the Air Force. After the departure of his immediate boss shortly after the confirmation, Fanning became acting secretary of the Air Force, making him the highest-ranking openly gay civilian in the U.S. military.
Chai Feldblum, the lesbian member of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, was confirmed for a second term after leading the way for a ruling instituting transgender workplace non-discrimination protections.
The Senate also confirmed openly gay judicial nominees. The highest-ranking among them was Todd Hughes, who was confirmed as circuit judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He’s the first openly gay person to serve a federal appeals court.
The other confirmations were Pamela Ki Mai Chen as U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York; Michael McShane as U.S. District Judge for the District of Oregon; and Nitza Quiñones Alejandro as U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
#7 Trans protections recognized under Title IX
The Obama administration made a historic ruling for transgender rights this year by applying existing law to protect students in school on the basis of their gender identity.
The Departments of Education and Justice announced the resolution as a result of a complaint filed by the National Center for Lesbian Rights on behalf of a transgender student in California’s Arcadia Unified School District. The resolution requires the school district to treat the student as male in all respects and keep his transgender status private.
NCLR Staff Attorney Asaf Orr commended the Obama administration for taking the step “to ensure that schools are safe and supportive environments where all students can thrive, including transgender students.”
The resolution represents a growing legal and administrative trend to interpret existing law — in this case, Title IX of the Education Act of 1972 — to ban discrimination against trans people.
Prior to the ruling, the student was required to sleep in a cabin by himself on an overnight field trip instead of being allowed to room with his male peers. The school district also excluded the student from the boys’ restroom and locker room, insisting that he use the nurse’s office.
The student, who remained anonymous, said he’s glad his school district agreed to put in place the resolution proposed by the Obama administration.
“Knowing that I have the school district’s support, I can focus on learning and being a typical high school student, like my friends,” the student said.
#8 Obama references Stonewall in inaugural speech

In a first, President Obama made two references to gay rights during his inaugural address in January. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
President Obama stirred passions in the LGBT community by making an unprecedented reference to LGBT rights during his second-term inaugural address and saying he believes gay people deserve equal treatment under the law.
“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well,” Obama said.
The words marked the first time that any U.S. president mentioned gay rights during an inaugural address and sent shockwaves through the LGBT community.
Also during the speech, Obama made a reference to the 1969 Stonewall riots, which are considered the start of the modern LGBT rights movement.
“We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth,” Obama said.
#9: Gay mayors in Seattle, Houston; Quinn loses in New York

Lesbian Christine Quinn started her mayoral campaign a heavy favorite but ultimately lost in New York’s primary. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
Lesbian Annise Parker won election to her third and final term as mayor of Houston, on Nov. 5, receiving a decisive 57 percent of the vote in a nine-candidate race.
In Seattle, Washington State Sen. Ed Murray defeated incumbent Mayor Mike McGinn by a margin of 56 percent to 43 percent to become that city’s first openly gay mayor.
And in Atlantic City, N.J., gay Republican Don Guardian shook up the political establishment by winning an upset victory over incumbent Mayor Lorenzo Langford, a Democrat, in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans among registered voters by a nine to one margin. Guardian ran as a socially progressive reform candidate with a record as a highly competent administrator of services for the city’s tourist district.
Meanwhile, New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn lost her race to become New York’s first openly gay and first female mayor, finishing third in a hotly contested Democratic primary in September. A New York Times exit poll showed pro-LGBT candidate Bill deBlasio, who won the primary and the general election in November, beat Quinn among LGBT voters by a margin of 47 percent to 34 percent in a four candidate race.
Most political observers said LGBT voters joined the majority of their straight counterparts in backing deBlasio, who emerged as more progressive on economic issues than Quinn and who was perceived as an outspoken critic of incumbent Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is highly unpopular among Democratic voters. Quinn had long been viewed as a Bloomberg ally.
# 10 Manning gets 35 years, comes out as trans

Manning announced she is transitioning one day after being sentenced for leaking classified documents. (Public domain photo)
One day after a military judge sentenced former U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning to 35 years in prison for leaking classified documents to Wikileaks, the 25-year-old soldier released a statement through her attorney coming out as transgender.
“As I transition into this next phase of my life, I want everyone to know the real me,” Manning said. “I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female.”
Manning’s dramatic announcement shifted the media focus from that of her conviction in an Army court martial proceeding of violating the U.S. Espionage Act for leaking an unprecedented amount of classified information to the issue of who transgender people are and whether they should be entitled to equal rights.
Some transgender rights advocates said Manning’s case would hurt efforts to lift the military’s ban on transgender service members by casting transgender people in a negative light. Transgender activists Brynn Tannehill and Autumn Sandeen, who served in the military before transitioning, said they were especially troubled by arguments by Manning’s attorney that Manning’s struggle over her gender identity created stress that played some role in her decision to leak classified information.
“In my last four years in the Navy I was grappling with gender identity yet I did my job” and didn’t release classified information,” Sandeen said.
By Lou Chibbaro Jr., Chris Johnson and Michael Lavers
National
US bishops ban gender-affirming care at Catholic hospitals
Directive adopted during meeting in Baltimore.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops this week adopted a directive that bans Catholic hospitals from offering gender-affirming care to their patients.
Since ‘creation is prior to us and must be received as a gift,’ we have a duty ‘to protect our humanity,’ which means first of all, ‘accepting it and respecting it as it was created,’” reads the directive the USCCB adopted during their meeting that is taking place this week in Baltimore.
The Washington Blade obtained a copy of it on Thursday.
“In order to respect the nature of the human person as a unity of body and soul, Catholic health care services must not provide or permit medical interventions, whether surgical, hormonal, or genetic, that aim not to restore but rather to alter the fundamental order of the human body in its form or function,” reads the directive. “This includes, for example, some forms of genetic engineering whose purpose is not medical treatment, as well as interventions that aim to transform sexual characteristics of a human body into those of the opposite sex (or to nullify sexual characteristics of a human body.)”
“In accord with the mission of Catholic health care, which includes serving those who are vulnerable, Catholic health care services and providers ‘must employ all appropriate resources to mitigate the suffering of those who experience gender incongruence or gender dysphoria’ and to provide for the full range of their health care needs, employing only those means that respect the fundamental order of the human body,” it adds.
The Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2024 condemned gender-affirming surgeries and “gender theory.” The USCCB directive comes against the backdrop of the Trump-Vance administration’s continued attacks against the trans community.
The U.S. Supreme Court in June upheld a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming medical interventions for minors.
Media reports earlier this month indicated the Trump-Vance administration will seek to prohibit Medicaid reimbursement for medical care to trans minors, and ban reimbursement through the Children’s Health Insurance Program for patients under 19. NPR also reported the White House is considering blocking all Medicaid and Medicare funding for hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to minors.
“The directives adopted by the USCCB will harm, not benefit transgender persons,” said Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, a Maryland-based LGBTQ Catholic organization, in a statement. “In a church called to synodal listening and dialogue, it is embarrassing, even shameful, that the bishops failed to consult transgender people, who have found that gender-affirming medical care has enhanced their lives and their relationship with God.”
President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a bill that reopens the federal government.
Six Democrats — U.S. Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), Adam Gray (D-Calif.), Don Davis (D-N.C.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) — voted for the funding bill that passed in the U.S. House of Representatives. Two Republicans — Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Greg Steube (R-Fla.) — opposed it.
The 43-day shutdown is over after eight Democratic senators gave in to Republicans’ push to roll back parts of the Affordable Care Act. According to CNBC, the average ACA recipient could see premiums more than double in 2026, and about one in 10 enrollees could lose a premium tax credit altogether.
These eight senators — U.S. Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) — sided with Republicans to pass legislation reopening the government for a set number of days. They emphasized that their primary goal was to reopen the government, with discussions about ACA tax credits to continue afterward.
None of the senators who supported the deal are up for reelection.
King said on Sunday night that the Senate deal represents “a victory” because it gives Democrats “an opportunity” to extend ACA tax credits, now that Senate Republican leaders have agreed to hold a vote on the issue in December. (The House has not made any similar commitment.)
The government’s reopening also brought a win for Democrats’ other priorities: Arizona Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva was sworn in after a record-breaking delay in swearing in, eventually becoming the 218th signer of a discharge petition to release the Epstein files.
This story is being updated as more information becomes available.
U.S. Military/Pentagon
Serving America, facing expulsion: Fight for trans inclusion continues on Veterans Day
Advocates sue to reverse Trump ban while service members cope with new struggles
President Trump signed EO 14183, titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” on Jan. 27, directing the Department of Defense (DoD) to adopt policies that would prohibit transgender, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming people from serving in the military.
The Trump-Vance administration’s policy shift redefines the qualifications for military service, asserting that transgender people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history or signs of gender dysphoria. According to the DoD, this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.” Regardless of their physical or intellectual capabilities, transgender applicants are now considered less qualified than their cisgender peers.
On Jan. 28, 2025, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) Law and the National Center for LGBTQ Rights (NCLR) filed Talbott v. Trump, a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the executive order. Originally filed on equal protection grounds on behalf of six active service members and two individuals seeking enlistment, the case has since grown to include 12 additional plaintiffs.
The Washington Blade spoke exclusively with Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott, U.S. Army, a plaintiff in the case, and with Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLAD Law, who is leading the litigation.
For Talbott, serving in the military has been a lifelong aspiration, one he pursued despite the barriers posed by discriminatory policies.
“Being transgender posed quite the obstacle to me achieving that dream,” Talbott told the Blade. “Not because it [being trans] had any bearing on my ability to become a soldier and meet the requirements of a United States soldier, but simply because of the policy changes that we’ve been facing as transgender service members throughout the course of the past decade… My being transgender had nothing to do with anything that I was doing as a soldier.”
This drive was fueled by early life experiences, including the impact of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which shaped his desire to protect his country.
“Even for an eight-year-old kid, [9/11] has a tremendous amount of impact… I remember thinking, you know, this is a terrible thing. Me, and when I grow up, I want to make sure nothing like this ever happens again,” he said. “I’ve still tried to gear my life in a way that I can be preparing myself to eventually help accomplish that mission of keeping America safe from anything like that ever happening again.”
The attacks inspired countless Americans to enlist; according to the New York City government, 181,510 joined active duty and 72,908 enlisted in the reserves in the year following 9/11. Although Talbott was too young to serve at the time, the events deeply influenced his educational and career path.
“For me, [9/11] just kind of helped shape my future and set me on the path that I’m currently on today,” he added. “It ignited my passion for the field, and it’s something that you know, I’ve carried with me into my adult life, into my professional life, and that I hope to have a career in the future.”
Talbott holds a master’s degree in criminology with a focus on counterterrorism and global security, and while completing his degree, he gained practical experience working with the Transportation Security Administration.
Despite the public scrutiny surrounding the lawsuit and the ongoing uncertainty of his military future, Talbott remains grounded in the values that define military service.
“Being so public about my involvement with this lawsuit grants me the very unique opportunity to continue to exemplify those values,” Talbott said. “I’m in a very privileged spot where I can speak relatively openly about this experience and what I’m doing. It’s very empowering to be able to stand up, not only for myself, but for the other transgender service members out there who have done nothing but serve with honor and dignity and bravery.”
The ban has created significant uncertainty for transgender service members, who now face the possibility of separation solely because of their gender identity.
“With this ban… we are all [trans military members] on track to be separated from the military. So it’s such a great deal of uncertainty… I’m stuck waiting, not knowing what tomorrow might bring. I could receive a phone call any day stating that the separation process has been initiated.”
While the Department of Defense specifies that most service members will receive an honorable discharge, the policy allows for a lower characterization if a review deems it warranted. Compensation and benefits differ depending on whether service members opt for voluntary or involuntary separation. Voluntary separation comes with full separation pay and no obligation to repay bonuses, while involuntary separation carries lower pay, potential repayment of bonuses, and uncertain success in discharge review processes.
Healthcare coverage through TRICARE continues for 180 days post-discharge, but reduced benefits, including VA eligibility, remain a concern. Those with 18–20 years of service may qualify for early retirement, though even this is not guaranteed under the policy.
Talbott emphasized the personal and professional toll of the ban, reflecting on the fairness and capability of transgender service members.
“Quite frankly, the evidence that we have at hand points in the complete opposite direction… there are no documented cases that I’m aware of of a transgender person having a negative impact on unit cohesion simply by being transgender… Being transgender is just another one of those walks of life.”
“When we’re losing thousands of those qualified, experienced individuals… those are seats that are not just going to be able to be filled by anybody … military training that’s not going to be able to be replaced for years and years to come.”
Talbott also highlighted the unique discipline, dedication, and value of diversity that transgender service members bring—especially in identifying problems and finding solutions, regardless of what others think or say. That, he explained, was part of his journey of self-discovery and a key reason he wants to continue serving despite harsh words of disapproval from the men leading the executive branch.
“Being transgender is not some sad thing that people go through… This is something that has taken years and years and years of dedication and discipline and research and ups and downs to get to the point where I am today… my ability to transition was essential to getting me to that point where I am today.”
He sees that as an asset rather than a liability. By having a more diverse, well-rounded group of people, the military can view challenges from perspectives that would otherwise be overlooked. That ability to look at things in a fresh way, he explained, can transform a good service member into a great one.
“I think the more diverse our military is, the stronger our military is… We need people from all different experiences and all different perspectives, because somebody is going to see that challenge or that problem in a way that I would never even think of… and that is what we need more of in the U.S. military.”
Beyond operational effectiveness, Talbott emphasized the social impact of visibility and leadership within the ranks. Fellow soldiers often approached him for guidance, seeing him as a trusted resource because of his transgender status.
“I can think of several instances in which I have been approached by fellow soldiers… I feel like you are a person I can come to if I have a problem with X, Y or Z… some people take my transgender status and designate me as a safe person, so to speak.”
With the arrival of Veterans Day, the Blade asked what he wishes the public knew about the sacrifices of transgender service members. His answer was modest.
“Every person who puts on the uniform is expected to make a tremendous amount of sacrifice,” Talbott said. “Who I am under this uniform should have no bearing on that… We shouldn’t be picking and choosing which veterans are worthy of our thanks on that day.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights, also spoke with the Blade and outlined the legal and human consequences of the ban. This is not Levi’s first time challenging the executive branch on transgender rights; she led the legal fight against the first Trump administration’s military ban in both Doe v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump.
Levi characterized the policy as overtly cruel and legally indefensible.
“This policy and its rollout is even more cruel than the first in a number of ways,” Levi explained. “For one, the policy itself says that transgender people are dishonest, untrustworthy and undisciplined, which is deeply offensive and degrading and demeaning.”
She highlighted procedural abuses and punitive measures embedded in the policy compared to the 2017 ban.
“In the first round the military allowed transgender people to continue to serve… In this round the military policy purge seeks to purge every transgender person from military service, and it also proposes to do it in a very cruel and brutal way, which is to put people through a process… traditionally reserved for kicking people out of the military who engaged in misconduct.”
Levi cited multiple examples of discrimination, including the revocation of authorized retirements and administrative barriers to hearings.
She also explained that the administration’s cost argument is flawed, as removing and replacing transgender service members is more expensive than retaining them.
“There’s no legitimate justification relating to cost… it is far more expensive to both purge the military of people who are serving and also to replace people… than to provide the minuscule amount of costs for medications other service members routinely get.”
On legal grounds, Levi noted the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause.
“The Equal Protection Clause prevents laws that are intended to harm a group of people… The doctrine is rooted in animus, which means a bare desire to harm a group is not even a legitimate governmental justification.”
When asked what she wishes people knew about Talbott and other targeted transgender military members, Levi emphasized their extraordinary service.
“The plaintiffs that I represent are extraordinary… They have 260 years of committed service to this country… I have confidence that ultimately, this baseless ban should not be able to legally survive.”
Other organizations have weighed in on Talbott v. Trump and similar lawsuits targeting transgender service members.
Human Rights Campaign Foundation President Kelley Robinson criticized the ban’s impact on military readiness and highlighted the counterintuitive nature of removing some of the country’s most qualified service members.
“Transgender servicemembers serve their country valiantly, with the same commitment, the same adherence to military standards and the same love of country as any of their counterparts,” Robinson said. “This ban by the Trump administration, which has already stripped transgender servicemembers of their jobs, is cruel, unpatriotic, and compromises the unity and quality of our armed forces.”
Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Sasha Buchert echoed the legal and moral imperative to reverse the policy.
“Every day this discriminatory ban remains in effect, qualified patriots face the threat of being kicked out of the military,” she said. “The evidence is overwhelming that this policy is driven by animus rather than military necessity… We are confident the court will see through this discriminatory ban and restore the injunction that should never have been lifted.”
-
Politics2 days agoPro-trans candidates triumph despite millions in transphobic ads
-
Turks and Caicos Islands4 days agoTurks and Caicos government ordered to recognize gay couple’s marriage
-
U.S. Military/Pentagon4 days agoServing America, facing expulsion: Fight for trans inclusion continues on Veterans Day
-
Opinions2 days agoDemocratic Socialism won’t win the whole country
