Military Will Now Ask Soldiers If They Have "Symptoms" Of Being Trans

The document, filed in the Trump military ban court cases, raises more questions than it answers.

Photo by Terence Burke on Unsplash

According to a newly filed document in Talbott v. Trump—the court case that will determine whether transgender people can continue to serve in the U.S. military—the military now plans to ask all service members if they exhibit “symptoms” of being transgender. The filing signals a shift from targeting only openly transgender individuals to potentially investigating those who are closeted or concealing their transgender status. Filed on March 21, the document states that the policy will not be implemented unless the preliminary injunction blocking the military ban, issued last week, is lifted.

The document states that “Service members who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria are no longer eligible for military service.” While a footnote clarifies that the symptoms must be “marked and clinically significant,” such determinations are typically made confidentially between a psychologist and patient. Regardless, the language appears deliberately broad, seemingly designed to target not only openly transgender individuals but also those who are closeted or have not disclosed their identity.

Furthermore, the filing states that all service members will be asked about gender dysphoria. It notes that “service members have a responsibility to report medical issues,” and instructs unit commanders to include gender dysphoria evaluations as part of the Individual Medical Readiness program. The Periodic Health Assessment questionnaire—which all service members are required to complete—will now include a question asking whether they are transgender or exhibit symptoms of gender dysphoria. Those who answer yes will be evaluated and recommended for separation from service.

The idea that there is a medical justification for the ban and accompanying questionnaire is undercut by the language of the executive order itself. Rather than relying on clinical reasoning, Trump’s order asserts that being transgender “conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle,” and claims it “is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.” These statements—not medical arguments—formed the basis for the ban. It was this language that Judge Ana Reyes cited in her decision to block the order last week, describing it as “dripping with animus.”

If the military ban is allowed to go into effect, it could be costly. SPARTA, a leading transgender military advocacy organization, estimates that removing 15,000 transgender service members would result in the loss of an $18 billion capital investment, with the Palm Center projecting an additional $1 billion cost to recruit and train replacements. Notably, up to 73% of these service members are senior enlisted personnel with 12-21 years of experience—expertise that cannot be easily replaced by the U.S. government.

Unless the preliminary injunction is listed, the new regulations on asking service members of symptoms of being transgender will not go into effect. The government is likely to appeal the case. It has until March 28th to do so, upon which the preliminary injunction will go into effect.