Connect with us

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

Published

on

Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott (Photo courtesy of Talbott)

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.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Military/Pentagon

‘This is not the military I gave my life for’: LGBTQ veterans respond to Hegseth

As the military continues DEI rollbacks and policy changes, LGBTQ veterans criticize Hegseth and the Trump Admin.

Published

on

People holding American flags as military officers parade by. (Insert by Cheryl Casey via Bigstock)

As Pete Hegseth, the Defense Secretary, stood on a stage two weeks ago and delivered his now-infamous speech on the military’s new “war on woke” to hundreds of silent, high-ranking military officials, LGBTQ veterans heard what he said loud and clear: This is not the military I gave my life for, and he doesn’t care.

William Kibler is no stranger to danger and conflict. He served as a Lance Corporal in the U.S. Marine Corps in Beirut, Lebanon, during the Lebanese Civil War. He was stationed there months before 241 U.S. service members died in a terrorist attack targeting the Marine barracks — the deadliest day in history for the Marines since Iwo Jima in World War II. Kibler was not personally in the barracks at the time of the attack.

The former Lance Corporal has a clear reason why he served: the Constitution and the ideals it represents to Americans and democracy everywhere. Today, he is president of GayVeteransUS Inc., a nonprofit veterans organization that works to support the LGBTQ veteran community. (His remarks in this story reflect his personal beliefs and he is not speaking on behalf of the organization.)

“Every veteran took an oath to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,” Kibler told the Blade. “Our oath does not have an expiration date, and every veteran that I know lives up to living with those standards.”

Those standards include protecting all Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender identity, or any other feature the Trump administration has deemed “woke.” As President Trump began to militarize U.S. cities under the guise of a “crime emergency,” Kibler saw this as a direct threat not only to the Constitution, but to Americans everywhere.

“It’s a way of life for most veterans, to protect the Constitution, and when you go up against sending Marines into LA or Chicago or Houston or wherever, you’re violating your oath of enlistment, there’s a difference,” the self-described “Marine who happens to be gay,” rather than a “gay Marine,” explained.

“I did not enlist to be ordered to go against my fellow Americans or discredit the U.S. Constitution,” he wrote in a letter to General Eric M. Smith, Commandant of the Marine Corps, the highest-ranking Marine. “I did sign up to protect Americans’ U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, which is something that I am now doing as a Veteran.”

He asks General Smith to “rescind my title as ‘US Marine’” due to the consistent “engaging in hostile actions in Los Angeles,” as videos of National Guard units suppressing protesters’ constitutional right to peacefully demonstrate continue to go viral on social media.

Kibler continues, telling General Smith: “Somewhere along the way you lost your Honor.” He finishes his request with another chilling statement: “May I respectfully remind you of the Nuremberg Trials. From now on, I will simply be referred to as Former Marine.”

It’s common to hear Marines say, “Once a Marine, always a Marine,” because the title is considered lifelong and sacred. For someone to ask for their title — earned after four years of service — to be disavowed is telling.

Kibler’s dissatisfaction with the recent changes in military attitudes extends to the slew of anti-Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives being pushed under Trump’s leadership — programs designed to level the playing field for underrepresented communities seeking jobs within the military, and ones that, contrary to Hegseth’s claims, have never been used to hire unqualified people.

Kibler is not alone in feeling disappointed in the recent actions of the U.S. military. Lene Mees de Tricht is a two-branch veteran and currently works as the Deputy Director for Member Engagement at Common Defense, the country’s largest veteran-led grassroots organization committed to promoting progressive ideals within the military.

“Threatening the jobs of people who disagree with you threatens the neutrality of the military and the revered position it holds in our national discourse,” she told the Blade. “They’re taking a hammer to an institution that matters a lot to Americans.”

That “hammer” being swung by Hegseth, Mees de Tricht explained, is having rippling effects on the military’s determination and cohesion. She went on to say its “impact has been catastrophic on morale.”

“I’m in contact with a lot of trans service members and a lot of Black service members, and they’re all wondering what’s going to happen to their jobs,” she said. “The Secretary of Defense is sending the message that you’re not welcome here. And that’s not just wrong — it’s against the aspirations of the America we talk about wanting to be.”

Mees de Tricht explained that the anti-DEI efforts the administration has pushed forward are ignoring a crucial strength that helps make the U.S. military one of the strongest in the world.

“Our military has become as ‘great’ as it has in part because it’s embraced people from all walks of life to serve the country. Stripping away DEI is short-sighted and out of step with what the American people want,” the Coast Guard and Navy vet said. “DEI made it possible for us to step outside of ourselves and think about how our adversary is thinking. Making the military less diverse will make us less capable, less resilient, and less intelligent.”

That asset, which has become a liability — at least in words under the Trump administration — will have lasting impacts, Mees de Tricht highlighted, ones that could affect those offering their lives to protect the country and the Constitution.

“It’s going to make the force weaker, more rigid, and more brittle…The military is more than combat arms — intelligence only works if we can get inside our adversary’s head. DEI made that possible.”

Mees de Tricht shared that while in the Navy, there were some Mexicans who served alongside her to earn citizenship — an action that, at its core, is about providing diverse and inclusive efforts within the military — that helped her.

“A lot of our work took us to South and Central America on that ship, and having somebody on board who understood the language and were familiar enough with the cultures made my experience of those deployments significantly easier — and it made me the person I am today,” she explained.

“With every ounce of respect due to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the current occupant of that office is dead wrong.”

This attack on identity within the military is not foreign for Mees de Tricht or Kibler. Both expressed deep frustration at the way discharges of LGBTQ military personnel have historically been carried out.

“We serve in different branches, but we’re unified by one common factor: we served honorably, and most of us have our honorable discharge,” Kibler said. “Some of us are still fighting the system to get that honorable discharge because they were kicked out — it’s been so many years, and people are still fighting to get their upgrades.”

Mees de Tricht is one of those people and has made it part of her personal mission to prevent this from happening again.

“I was discharged from the Coast Guard for being transgender in 2012, and I’m so sorry this is happening again. My life’s work has been to try to stop this from happening to anybody else — and it’s happening again.”

Despite the details surrounding her discharge from the military, Mees de Tricht emphasized that while there might not seem like a light at the end of the tunnel, there are people everywhere attempting to light a path.

“I survived. In fact, I thrived once I found my feet. I hope that gives folks hope.”

Continue Reading

U.S. Military/Pentagon

Hegseth calls for an end to ‘woke’ military, citing DEI and LGBTQ issues

Pete Hegseth denounced decades of diversity and inclusion efforts in the military, with a singular focus on warfighting.

Published

on

The U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

While giving a televised speech to U.S. military leaders at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia on Tuesday, Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, denounced past military leadership for being too “woke,” citing DEI and LGBTQ groups in the Department of Defense.

The 45-minute speech, delivered to an unprecedented number of U.S. military leaders called in from around the world, emphasized “warrior ethos” and decried what Hegseth described as “decades of decay” within the military.

“This administration has done a great deal from day one to remove the social justice, politically correct, and toxic ideological garbage that had infected our department,” Hegseth told the silent crowd. “No more identity months, DEI Offices, dudes in dresses. No more climate change worship, no more division, distraction, or gender delusions… We are done with that shit.”’

The former “Fox & Friends” weekend co-host continued to make digs at inclusive measures the military—and the federal government—first widely implemented in the 1990s to comply with federal legislation, specifically the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“For too long we have promoted too many leaders for the wrong reasons, based on their race, based on gender quotas, based on historic so-called ‘firsts,’” he said, despite no proof that the military has been more lenient with minority applicants. “They had to put out dizzying DEI and LGBTQ+ statements. We were told females and males were the same thing. Or that males who think they are females are totally normal.

“An entire generation of generals and admirals were told that they must parrot the insane fallacy that ‘our diversity is our strength,’” Hegseth continued. “We know our unity is our strength.”

One theme Hegseth returned to throughout his speech was his mission of “clearing out the debris” within the military—highlighting how he fired a number of high-ranking officials in the department. “We became the Woke Department… The leaders who created the woke department have already driven out too many hard chargers.”

“It is nearly impossible to change a culture with the same people who helped create, or even benefited from that culture,” he said. “Underneath the ‘woke’ garbage is a deeper problem, a more important problem that we are fixing fast.”

Hegseth also repeatedly described himself as the “Secretary of War,” and the Department of Defense as the “Department of War.” Not only is that inaccurate—it would require congressional approval to change the department’s name and roles—but it also underscored his aggressive stance on international conflict. He went as far as to say, “From this moment forward, the only mission of the newly restored Department of War is this: Warfighting.”

“My job has been to determine which leaders did what they must to answer to the prerogatives of civilian leadership, and which leaders are truly invested in the woke department—and incapable of embracing the War department,” he said. “We are in the profession of arms.” Later telling the military leaders “If you disagree, you should do the honorable thing and resign.”

Hegseth also mentioned two tests he is pushing throughout the military structure: the “1990 test” and the “E6 test.” The 1990 test compares current standards to those of 1990, with any superior past standards to be reinstated. The E6 test requires changes to either complicate or empower leadership at the staff sergeant and petty officer level. If the changes complicate, they are removed.

He argued this would make the military “apolitical, faithful to their oath, and the Constitution,” while also invoking God and religion multiple times—despite the Constitution’s explicit separation of church and state.

Hegseth also took aim at current standards within the military, saying that if women could not meet them, they would be turned away from service because “it is what it is.”

“Today, at my direction, this is the first of 10 Department of War directives that are arriving at your commands and inbox… will ensure that every requirement for every combat MOS… returns to the highest MALE standard only.

“This is not about preventing women from serving… but when it comes to any job that requires physical power to perform in combat, those physical standards must be high and gender neutral. If women can make it, excellent. If not, it is what it is.”

“Real toxic leadership is promoting destructive ideologies that are anathema to the Constitution, the laws of nature, and nature’s God,” he said.

According to Social Work Today, a trade publication that works toward being “an essential resource for social work professionals” found that “79,000 LGBTQ+ service members are serving in the diverse branches of the US armed forces, and an additional 1 million LGBTQ+ individuals are identified as veterans.”

Continue Reading

U.S. Military/Pentagon

Military families challenge Trump ban on trans healthcare

Three military families are suing over Trump’s directive cutting transgender healthcare from military coverage.

Published

on

A supporter of transgender healthcare holds a sign advocating for gender-affirming care during Baltimore Pride earlier this year. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Three military families sued the Department of Defense on Monday after President Trump’s anti-transgender policies barred their transgender adolescent and adult children from accessing essential gender-affirming medical care.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, challenges the legality of the Trump administration’s decision to ban coverage of any transgender-related medical care under Department of Defense health insurance plans.

Under the new directive, military clinics and hospitals are prohibited from providing continuing care to transgender adolescent and adult children. It also prevents TRICARE, the military’s health insurance program, from covering the costs of gender-affirming care for both transgender youth and young adults, regardless of where that care is received.

A press release from the families’ attorney explained that the plaintiffs are proceeding under pseudonyms to protect their safety and privacy. They are represented by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law), the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP, and Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP.

“This is a sweeping reversal of military health policy and a betrayal of military families who have sacrificed for our country,” said Sarah Austin, Staff Attorney at GLAD Law. “When a servicemember is deployed and focused on the mission they deserve to know their family is taken care of. This Administration has backtracked on that core promise and put servicemembers at risk of losing access to health care their children desperately need.”

“President Trump has illegally overstepped his authority by abruptly cutting off necessary medical care for military families,” said Shannon Minter, Legal Director at NCLR. “This lawless directive is part of a dangerous pattern of this administration ignoring legal requirements and abandoning our servicemembers.”

“President Trump’s Executive Order blocks military hospitals from giving transgender youth the care their doctors deem necessary and their parents have approved,” said Sharif Jacob, partner at Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP. “Today we filed a lawsuit to put an end to his order, and the agency guidance implementing it.”

“This administration is unlawfully targeting military families by denying essential care to their transgender children,” said Liam Brown, an associate with Keker, Van Nest & Peters. “We will not stand by while those who serve are stripped of the ability to care for their families.”

Continue Reading

Popular