Philippines Holds Joint Live Fire Exercises With US

U.S. Army Sergeant First Class Kate Cole, a 34-year-old transgender woman, currently desires continued military service, despite post-retirement plans to work as a climbing guide in Colorado. She values her military community and career.

Cole, one of six transgender service members suing the Trump Administration, emphasizes the importance of her military service and community. The lawsuit challenges the January 27th Executive Order banning transgender individuals from enlisting and openly serving.

While the Department of Defense’s implementation of the ban remains unclear, the Executive Order threatens the employment of Cole and other transgender service members.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law) filed a federal lawsuit on January 28th in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing the ban violates equal protection.

This Executive Order expands upon a similar 2017 directive prohibiting transgender individuals from military enlistment. The current order, however, also mandates the discharge of currently serving transgender service members. (Two individuals hoping to enlist are also plaintiffs).

GLAD Law and the NCLR previously challenged the 2017 ban. A judge temporarily blocked it for two years, but in 2019, the Supreme Court allowed the Executive Order to proceed while lower courts deliberated. President Biden repealed the ban in 2021.

Cole, a long-serving member, expressed prior concerns but hoped the ban wouldn’t be reinstated, given her years of open and honorable service. She and other transgender service members simply wish to continue their duties without disruption, noting widespread support for their service.

Trump’s Executive Order directs Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to implement the ban within 60 days, also calling for an end to the use of gender-affirming pronouns. The President argues transgender individuals, possessing a “false gender identity,” fail to meet military standards, equating gender identity with medical conditions barring enlistment.

Trump’s Executive Order, titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” asserts that a transgender person’s claim to a different gender is incompatible with the military’s requirements for humility, selflessness, and an honorable lifestyle.

Jennifer Levi, senior director at GLAD Law, labels the policy discriminatory and lacking principle, rooted solely in hostility toward transgender people.

Estimates of the number of transgender service members in the U.S. vary, ranging from 8,000 (National Institute of Health article) to 15,500.

Levi expresses optimism about the lawsuit’s outcome, citing the 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County ruling, which protects workers from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This precedent strengthens the legal challenge, although it’s not guaranteed to be easy, particularly given Trump’s prior rejection of the Bostock decision.

Regardless of the legal outcome, Levi highlights the significant harm inflicted upon the LGBTQ+ community by the Trump administration’s actions, causing widespread concern and potential loss of medical care and employment.

Cole aims to highlight the harm inflicted upon the transgender community and underscore the value of transgender service members. She and many others actively serve, demonstrating the capabilities and dedication of transgender personnel, advocating for equal opportunities for all qualified individuals to serve their country.

“`