Secretary of Defense James Mattis

Trump Releases Transgender Troop Policy

04/09/2018 By Meg Flanagan

President Donald Trump recently released his policy directive regarding the continuing service of transgender troops in the U.S. military.

Under recommendations from Secretary of Defense James Mattis, the Trump administration has ruled that transgender individuals are generally disqualified from military service except under certain circumstances.

Transgender Troops Are Out Under New Policy

Mattis outlined the new policy recommendations in a February 22 memo. Transgender individuals are disqualified from military service unless they have not been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Troops must also be willing to serve in their biological gender. Changing gender identity is no longer allowed under most circumstances.

Troops diagnosed with gender dysphoria or with a history of this diagnosis are generally barred from military service. However, they may serve if they have been deemed stable for 36 consecutive months in their biological gender prior to joining the military.

Transgender troops may also remain in uniform if they were diagnosed after joining, but remain in their biological gender and maintain deployability status in that gender.

If a service member was diagnosed between the Obama administration’s policy change in July 2016 and the adoption of this new policy, they may continue to serve and receive medical treatment for their diagnosis. This small subset of transgender troops may continue to serve in their preferred gender.

The reaction to Trump’s policy on transgender troops is split along party lines.

Mattis based his changes on a new transgender policy study conducted by Department of Defense officials and military leaders. This study generally contradicts the findings of a 2016 Rand Corporation study. The earlier study indicated that there would be minimal impact on military readiness and morale caused by the service of transgender troops in their preferred gender identity. The new study found that allowing troops diagnosed with gender dysphoria to serve or join the military would be detrimental to military readiness and morale.

“(T)he Department concludes that accommodating gender transition could impair unit readiness; undermine unit cohesion, as well as good order and discipline, by blurring the clear lines that demarcate male and female standards and policies where they exist; and lead to disproportionate costs,” the DoD report reads in part.

Transgender Policy Changes Were Rapidly Reversed

Under the former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, transgender individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria were allowed to transition to their preferred gender identity. This policy was implemented in stages. As of July 1, 2016, currently serving transgender troops were allowed to openly serve without fear of discharge based on their gender identity. The final policy change of allowing transgender individuals to join the military in their preferred gender was set to roll out on July 1, 2017.

However, after a series of tweets from Trump in July 2017 and with coordinating action from Mattis, this policy was halted for a 6-month review process. This review led to the creation of the current administration’s policy on the military service of transgender troops.

Based on the Rand study, between 1,300 and 7,000 transgender troops are currently serving in the U.S. military. Per the new policy, only those troops willing to serve in their biological gender and who have not been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, except under specific circumstances, will no longer be allowed to serve or join.

Trump’s Ban Faces Legal Battles and Mixed Public Reaction

Trump’s ban on transgender individuals serving in the Armed Forces is already facing legal pushback. The Human Rights Campaign and Washington State are moving ahead with their federal lawsuit against the ban. They are joined by legal challenges in California. These legal battles continue earlier challenges that lifted the block on transgender individuals enlisting earlier in 2018. Based on these legal battles, Pentagon spokesperson Army Maj. David Eastburn noted that these policy changes would have little impact immediately.

Reaction to the change in policy has been generally split along party lines.

The Family Research Council, a conservative think tank, praised Trump’s decision in a series of tweets.

Congressman Ted Lieu wrote, in an opinion piece for Fortune magazine, that he believed these policy changes to be “stupid” and “unconstitutional.” Lieu is a veteran.

Troops and their families impacted by this decision are disturbed by these policy changes.

“The Trump administration’s continued insistence on targeting our families for discrimination is appalling, reckless and unpatriotic,” said Ashley Broadway-Mack, president of the American Military Partners Association and spouse of an active duty Army officer.

What do you think of Trump’s policy on transgender service members?

Is a ‘Deploy or Get Out’ Rule Fair for Our Service Members?

03/23/2018 By Meg Flanagan

Secretary of Defense James Mattis instituted a new retention rule for troops. Now service members must be deployable or in his words, “get out.”

Mattis feels that too many are carrying the load for all, with about 11% of all current troops on active duty, in the Reserves or in the National Guard classified as non-deployable. That amounts to 235,000 individuals out of the 2.1 million total troop force.

The thought behind this new rule is for the good of the military family. Mattis, rightly, remarks that “we may enlist soldiers, but we reenlist families.”

Is a 'Deploy or Get Out' Rule Fair for Our Service Members?

We expect our teachers to stay up to date with the best classroom practices. We expect our lawyers to know about new laws. We expect our service members to be ready and willing to deploy.

High Tempo Missions

Mattis is right: too many of the same service members have been deployed over and over again for the last 17 years. I’ve seen more friends and neighbors pull almost back-to-back deployments than I care to count.

This high operational tempo leads to burnout for troops and families. It’s hard to stay motivated with a “go team” mentality when your group is always doing the grunt work. Even when often deployed troops are home, it can be hard to settle into family life. Disconnecting from the mission and rejoining a different pace of life can be a struggle.

Military spouses and children feel the burn too. Too many families have almost become single parent homes due to the frequent absence of one parent. Military spouses of deployed troops feel constantly on edge, just waiting for that knock. The mental load is heavy and all too real.

It’s only right to equally spread the burden among all service members. Part of doing your job means being able to fulfill all portions of that position. Military troops must be ready to deploy in support of the mission. It’s simply not fair to rely on the same people over and over again.

Deployable, Not Deployed

At this juncture, I feel it’s important to note one key phrase in Mattis’ rule. He states that troops who have been non-deployable for 12 or more months must separate. He does not expressly state that all troops must actively deploy within the same time frame.

This is an important difference.

Not all positions require the same tempo of deployments. Each military job is very specific about the requirements needed and the potential operational tempo. An infantryman is likely to face a different deployment schedule and mission than a doctor or a pilot or a mechanic.

What Mattis is asking for is simply that troops remain at the ready. I think that this is reasonable. We expect our teachers to stay up to date with the best classroom practices. We expect our lawyers to know about new laws.

Military troops should put their checks in their deployment boxes.

This means maintaining an acceptable level of physical fitness, ensuring that medical and dental exams are complete and continuing to develop in their assigned billet. None of this seems out of order.

For troops that are non-deployable due to their own lack of follow-through, like missing vaccinations or poor PT scores, they should be asked to leave. Part of the job is being mission ready and they were unable to meet that requirement. It shows a lack of commitment.

Of course, this assumes that these services are readily available both physically and in actuality. Appointments for medical and dental care are often hard to come by. Individuals should need to show their good faith efforts to complete their duty before being asked to leave.

Not Considerate Enough

There are exceptions for troops who are injured in the line of duty or in the field. Mattis has given assurances that troops who meet this requirement will be given alternate assignments and retained. This is only fair. It shows a willingness to support those who have suffered a workplace injury. This caveat helps to reenlist families.

What doesn’t help to reenlist families is the lack of guidance regarding pregnancy and the postpartum period. Female service members are likely to be non-deployable for at least 40 weeks when you account for pregnancy alone. If we consider the time needed to recover from childbirth, that puts most women over the 52-week mark.

Is Mattis suggesting that women, who have recently given birth, be asked to leave the military?

This doesn’t seem right and certainly doesn’t support military families. Studies vary, but several have found that full recovery postpartum takes longer than the typical maternity leave of 12 weeks. Asking a new mom to leave her place of employment due to childbirth seems cruel and unusual.

There needs to be additional guidance regarding pregnancy and childbirth. Reasonable and medically sound timelines for a return to full duty should be implemented and explained.

Family Friendly Rule

While this rule is still in its infancy, the intention is good. Spreading the workload by ensuring a highly deployable force is fair. It removes an undue burden from troops who have faced repeat deployments as a result of others in non-deployment status. It also forces troops to take their deployment status seriously.

Some specifics need to be clarified and it is really too soon to say just how this rule will actually impact deployments. But on its face, it seems like a good way to clean up the Armed Forces and ensure that we are ready to face today’s challenges.

What do you think of the new “deploy or get out” rule?

The Debate Surrounding Transgender Troops Serving in the U.S. Military

03/12/2018 By Meg Flanagan

Beginning last summer, the U.S. military community has been debating whether transgender troops are fit to serve. President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense James Mattis, along with many military leaders, seem to be at odds over a policy relating to transgender troops.

The Debate Surrounding Transgender Troops Serving in the U.S. Military

The White House is anticipated to release its final verdict and policy on transgender troops this month.

Final Policy Pending

Mattis was under a February 21, 2018, deadline to return his recommendations to the president. According to The Washington Post, it is anticipated that Mattis will support transgender troops currently serving, as well as those wishing to join in the future. Mattis made his official recommendation regarding Trump’s proposed transgender military policy on February 23, 2018. The Pentagon has not confirmed or commented on Mattis’ final recommendation.

As of January 1, 2018, individuals identifying as transgender are free to enlist or seek a commission in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Mattis’ likely position could be supported by a 2016 Rand Corporation study that was commissioned by the Obama administration. Former President Barack Obama and his administration had removed the ban on transgender troops who serve openly in June 2016.

This study found that less than 1% of active duty troops identify as transgender.

Approximately, between 1,320 and 6,630 active duty troops identify as transgender. Additionally, the study found that total medical costs related directly to transgender-specific medical care would be negligible, amounting to less than $10 million annually. This is a “relatively small” amount in the military budget. It represents a 0.04% to 0.13% increase in the overall active duty health care expenses.

Finally, not all transgender troops would elect to transition medically, with surgery. The study concluded that between 29 and 129 service members would experience a disruption to deployment readiness as a result of transgender-specific medical care.

Currently 1.3 million troops are on active duty.

Trump Tweets New Transgender Policy

On July 26, 2017, Trump tweeted his desire to reinstate a ban on transgender troops. He cited the increased cost of medical care for transgender troops as well as the disruption of military service. His announcement, which claimed that he had consulted with top military brass, seemed to catch Mattis and other military leaders off-guard. At the time of the tweets, Mattis made no immediate official comment.

Days later, military leaders appeared to walk back Trump’s sweeping policy change. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Joseph Dunford made clear that transgender personnel would continue to serve until Mattis received clear direction from Trump. Then, that direction would need to be implemented over time. This decision was supported by Mattis.

According to recently released emails, Dunford communicated to the other service chiefs that he was “not consulted.” Dunford appeared willing to confirm this to the media and wrote that this policy change “was unexpected.”

Ban Blocked in Court

On October 30, 2017, the U.S. district court in Washington, D.C., issued an injunction in favor of 8 transgender individuals who were in ROTC programs or enrolled at service academies. The D.C. court’s decision was backed by the Maryland district court in a November 12, 2017, ruling. The Maryland judge also issued an impending injunction that blocked Trump’s proposed ban to take effect due to constitutional violations of the plaintiffs. Both cases are still pending a final ruling.

The initial rulings from Maryland and D.C. allowed these individuals to continue to take steps toward active duty service. The injunctions also swayed the Pentagon to allow transgender individuals to enlist starting on January 1, 2018.

Trump directed Mattis, per an August 25, 2017, executive order, to review the current policy as well as his proposed policy. His recommendations were due back to the White House on February 21, 2018.

The White House is anticipated to release its final verdict and policy statement on March 23, 2018.

Questions Remain for Transgender Troops

In the middle of all of this political discussion, are the openly transgender troops currently serving. Their continued service is potentially at risk. In addition, as of January 1, 2018, openly transgender individuals are allowed to join active military service.

Trump’s March 23 decision could have immediate ramifications for troops currently serving, as well as those who are beginning their initial processing and training. Troops who are currently serving may be forced to resign without benefits. However, the actual proposed policy regarding current transgender service members remains unclear.