June 05, 2025

Duckworth, Colleagues Demand Answers on Cost and Justification for Un-American Transgender Military Ban That Will Harm National Security

 

[WASHINGTON, D.C.] – Combat Veteran and U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)—today led 22 of her fellow Senate Democratic colleagues in urging Defense Secretary Hegseth to reverse course and not implement the Trump Administration’s un-American transgender military service ban that will unfairly attack honorable servicemembers for who they are, compromise good order and discipline and jeopardize our national security. In the Senators’ letter, the group demands answers from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—including what specific data is being used to back up their claim that transgender servicemembers are not in the “interests of national security” and how much it will cost taxpayers to train the replacements of perfectly capable transgender servicemembers that they are forcing out of our military. After Senator Duckworth led over a dozen of her colleagues in April pushing back against the ban, Secretary Hegseth’s response to their letter did not answer many of the questions that were asked about the short- and long-term impacts of the ban on servicemembers, readiness and national security as well as taxpayer cost and more.

“Transgender servicemembers are not political props; they are patriotic Americans serving honorably,” wrote the Senators. “Banning them from service will compromise good order and discipline, take deployable servicemembers out of the fight and create national security risks felt for years to come. Your recent implementation guidance makes matters worse.”

Additionally, the lawmakers admonished the Trump Administration’s latest guidance for implementing the ban, which requires military commanders to report servicemembers in their unit who they think display any signs of gender dysphoria.

“By stating that unit commanders ‘will direct’ reviews of the medical records of servicemembers under their command, despite the fact that they are not equipped to do so, you are requiring them to perform a duty—for purely political reasons—that is far outside the scope of their normal operational and warfighting-centric responsibilities,” continued the Senators. “This burden is corrosive to unit cohesion, trust and the wellbeing of the servicemember and the commanders, who are being failed by their chain of command. This is not leadership.”

In conclusion, the lawmakers’ wrote: “Your policy will harm our armed services’ operational readiness and lethality, not only endangering Americans, but costing billions of dollars in taxpayer money in service of a political stunt meant to attack a small, extraordinarily brave group of people. Servicemembers’ privacy is being invaded, their livelihoods are being threatened and they are being used as a political tool to appeal to a minority of Americans.”

“Mr. Secretary, do not implement this ban.”

In addition to Duckworth, the letter is co-signed by U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Chris Coons (D-DE), John Fetterman (D-PA), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR).


The letter is endorsed by SPARTA, Modern Military Association of America, Minority Veterans of America and Out in National Security.

The full text of the letter is available on Senator Duckworth’s website and below:

Secretary Hegseth:

We write to express our ongoing opposition to the U.S. Department of Defense’s (DoD) destructive and foolhardy ban on transgender servicemembers, as outlined in the May 15, 2025, memorandum entitled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness: Implementation Guidance.” We have already written to condemn the ban itself. Transgender servicemembers are not political props; they are patriotic Americans serving honorably. Banning them from service will compromise good order and discipline, take deployable servicemembers out of the fight and create national security risks felt for years to come. Your recent implementation guidance makes matters worse.

The May 15th memorandum compromises commanders by making them informers on their own troops in areas outside of their expertise. Per that guidance, commanders of servicemembers who, in their judgment, display “gender dysphoria, a history of gender dysphoria, or symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria will direct individualized medical record reviews of such Service members.” Generally, commanders are not trained in medicine, psychology or mental health and are therefore not qualified to assess the members of their units for symptoms of mental health diagnoses. By stating that unit commanders “will direct” reviews of the medical records of servicemembers under their command, despite the fact that they are not equipped to do so, you are requiring them to perform a duty—for purely political reasons—that is far outside the scope of their normal operational and warfighting-centric responsibilities. This burden is corrosive to unit cohesion, trust and the wellbeing of the servicemember and the commanders, who are being failed by their chain of command. This is not leadership.

Additionally, the Department’s discharge guidance punishes those who have volunteered to serve. The guidance, which mandates separating transgender officers using the JDK separation code “on the basis that their continued service is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security,” is unjustifiable.  There is ample evidence that these servicemembers, many of whom are decorated with years of honorable service and all or nearly all of whom are otherwise deployable, are assets to their units and to the force.  Your DoD has failed to produce any meaningful evidence to suggest otherwise, much less to prove that transgender servicemembers threaten national security. Using this discharge code is not only cruel; it’s stupid. Beyond insulting brave individuals who have sacrificed to serve their country, this further ensures that the DoD or other security agencies will not be able to hire these individuals in a civilian capacity, robbing the national security establishment that protects everyday Americans of any opportunity to benefit from the skills and expertise these unreasonably separated servicemembers have gained at great expense to the taxpayer.

Beyond those process failures, your last response declined to answer several critical questions, answers to which are vital for Congress’ ability to oversee your Department. Ongoing litigation is no excuse; the taxpayers have a right to know your reasons and evidence. Please explain:

  1. What is the anticipated cost of implementing this policy, including all costs for separation, legal defense, investments made in these brave servicemembers that will no longer be recouped and the cost to train their replacements? How much more expensive is it than retaining these servicemembers?
  2. What specific information, data or evidence, if any, serve as the basis for the statement that allowing transgender troops to serve is “not clearly consistent with the interests of national security”?
  3. What consultations, studies and/or assessments were conducted (internally or externally) to evaluate the impact of this policy prior to implementation?

We trust that you will either include copies of all such reports, briefs or findings with your response, or specify that no such evidence exists.

Your policy will harm our armed services’ operational readiness and lethality, not only endangering Americans, but costing billions of dollars in taxpayer money in service of a political stunt meant to attack a small, extraordinarily brave group of people. Servicemembers’ privacy is being invaded, their livelihoods are being threatened and they are being used as a political tool to appeal to a minority of Americans.

Mr. Secretary, do not implement this ban.

-30-