Columns, Opinions

Grundy ’20: Transgender military ban is unnecessary and bigoted

Monday, February 4, 2019

Last month in a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration’s ban on the participation of most transgender individuals in the military to take effect — another unfortunate and harsh blow to transgender people in the United States. While current military members who are openly transgender can continue to serve under an Obama-era policy, the Trump administration’s stance makes it largely impossible for transgender individuals to enlist or come out as transgender after joining the military. The policy also states that any servicemember who is in the process of transitioning and in need of medically provided hormones will be disqualified from the military.

This new Supreme Court decision enables an unnecessary policy that is counterproductive to our safety and, most importantly, detrimental to our national values of respect and inclusion. As a campus and community constantly striving for inclusivity and equal opportunity, we should speak out against the Trump administration’s divisive, outdated and harmful actions.

The Trump administration justifies this policy by arguing that it is too expensive to provide servicemembers with transitional operations and hormones through defense spending, but this concern is unwarranted. According to CNBC, Trump authorized a federal defense budget of $674 billion for 2019, more than the next seven countries combined. This is certainly enough to provide medical care for the estimated 9,000 transgender military personnel, many of whom do not choose to undergo gender affirmation surgery at all. A 2015 study published by the New England Journal of Medicine estimated that the cost of providing transition-related care for military personnel would be around $5.6 million — a small fraction of the Department of Defense’s healthcare budget, which was $43 billion in 2017. The benefit of these individuals’ service greatly outweighs the cost ­— especially when fewer citizens are willing to dedicate their time and lives to serving our country, and fewer current military members intend to re-enlist. As the wealthiest nation in the world with the largest defense spending budget, there is no excuse for this type of discrimination.

Further, people who are willing and capable to work hard, train hard and protect our country should be allowed to serve. When lives are on the line, the gender identity, sexual orientation and race of military personnel should not matter. The American military should not be constrained by racism, sexism, homophobia or transphobia.

Not only is this policy unnecessary and counterproductive, it is also simply bigoted. President Trump has repeatedly shared hateful rhetoric, claiming that the presence of perfectly capable transgender troops would severely hinder the capabilities and productivity of the military complex as a whole. For instance, in 2017 he tweeted that, “our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that (transgender people) in the military would entail.” While far-right conservatives — the same people who claim to value our troops — overwhelmingly approved of Trump’s policy, LGBTQ activists and many others have criticized his policy as “cruel and irrational.”

In 2019, it’s both saddening and infuriating to see a community who must work so hard to achieve the same access to opportunities yet again be told that their identity makes them unequal and unworthy of American belonging. Hopefully, vocal objection from the American people can sway the newly elected Democratic House of Representatives to advocate in opposition of this policy and propel America further down a path toward political and social inclusivity. It’s a new and changing America, and our Department of Defense needs to keep up.

Miranda Grundy ’20 can be reached at Please send responses to this opinion to and op-eds to

To stay up-to-date, subscribe to our daily newsletter.

  1. “The policy also states that any servicemember who is in the process of transitioning and in need of medically provided hormones will be disqualified from the military.”
    The above is not true as you just (correctly) stated above it that “current military members who are openly transgender can continue to serve under an Obama-era policy.”
    Furthermore, there is still a nationwide injunction from MD that does not allow the policy to in to effect yet. Only after that is lifted is there even a possibility of the Mattis Plan being implemented.

  2. The military is not intended as a social science experiment. It must maintain the highest possible level of lethality and efficiency or soldiers will die and military objectives will not be gained, even to the extent that wars are lost.

    There are many reasons why persons are rejected from service, including not being smart enough, not being in good enough physical shape, or having mental problems.

    Against the very serious need to maintain the highest level of efficiency in war-fighting, it really is a non-issue whether trans persons don’t get to participate. It is hardly obvious that keeping trans people out is pure discrimination. Rather, it is obvious that trans people present a particular set of problems that could detract from preparedness and effectiveness of the war machine.

    Which social goal is more important?

Comments are closed. If you have corrections to submit, you can email The Herald at