Trump bans transgenders from military service

[SoLongAtlas]

His last post as of 7m ago

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump  7 minutes ago

 After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow......

--

Updated the thread title to reflect his more recent tweets, those are below.

[SoLongAtlas]

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump  1 minute ago

 ....Transgender individuals to  serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming.....
--

At least it's not a tactical redeployment of the 7th fleet or something like that.

This type of decision should be put out in a speech or presser, not a Twitter game.

[SoLongAtlas]

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump  2 minutes ago

 ....victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you

[SoLongAtlas]

As a vet, obviously mixed on this. It would cost an additional 26 million or so from a report that was put out earlier but had no problem serving with LBG, the T part would follow eventually. I'm no longer active duty so not affected by this as much as current active duty SMs.

As to the decision and a court challenge, it may happen but it is a decision coming from the CINC re military decisions. Any decision coming from that level would have extreme merit in a case, regardless of the good or bad merits of it. It is essentially an order.

[SoLongAtlas]

IIRC, General Mattis was the driving force behind this, no?  

He pushed back against an outright ban but helped to delay a decision on it. I'm assuming Trump in his tweet "with the generals" was the JCS and SecDef. Curious to see how that one was decided, split or unanimous.

[SoLongAtlas]

Seriously, what is the justification for this?

Medical expenses?? Please.

Everyone knows exactly what this is.  America is dwindling, and by the time he's through, we'll be a tiny fraction of what we once were.

It's the push back against funding reassignment surgeries within the DoD system. Which yea or nay on, has a TON of pushback from AD. It would only be 26M tho which is a drop in the bucket of DoD spending.

[SoLongAtlas]

As a vet, obviously mixed on this. It would cost an additional 26 million or so from a report that was put out earlier but had no problem serving with LBG, the T part would follow eventually. I'm no longer active duty so not affected by this as much as current active duty SMs.

As to the decision and a court challenge, it may happen but it is a decision coming from the CINC re military decisions. Any decision coming from that level would have extreme merit in a case, regardless of the good or bad merits of it. It is essentially an order.

$26m? That's 'lose behind the couch' money for the military. So it's in no way a financial decision.

Looks like we posted at the same time (see my last) but yeah agree. 26M is nothing really in the grand scheme

[SoLongAtlas]

I can see the court case (if one happens) to base it on discrimination of procedures, singling out one vs. allowance of all care, esp if done via TriCare/VA/base hospitals. Does the DoD have the right to prefer certain care in the overall structure as opposed to all? Would be an interesting SCOTUS case.

[SoLongAtlas]

I can see the court case (if one happens) to base it on discrimination of procedures, singling out one vs. allowance of all care, esp if done via TriCare/VA/base hospitals. Does the DoD have the right to prefer certain care in the overall structure as opposed to all? Would be an interesting SCOTUS case.

I though the military wasn't fully subject to some Constitutional protections. DADT was repealed like 10 years after Lawrence v. Texas?

It's essentially within its own branch of federalism, separate legal system (UCMJ), separate chain (answerable to CINC), but funded by the taxpayer through Congress.

Here is a good briefer on case law, precedents, etc. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/rights_of_military_mbrs.pdf

[SoLongAtlas]

The only thing I have to say is that Twitter is an inappropriate platform to make this kind of announcement.

Seriously. Where's the policy? Are they going to expel all TG people from the military? What kind of discharge? Too many questions.

It that was to occur, it would likely be an admin sep, Honorable or General discharge. Both are good but you def want to sep with HON.

[SoLongAtlas]

Now he's going on about Sessions again right after a landmark decision was made. JFC...

[SoLongAtlas]

I'm guessing we're good for 10 pages? 

Haha yeah. Hey let's only do a requote of one or two replies to not take up so much space if you guys wouldn't mind.

Also keep it to a certain amount of civility so it doesn't get locked.

[SoLongAtlas]

Relevant

"The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law estimates there are more than 15,000 transgender troops in the US military. The RAND Corporation estimates there are 1,320 and 6,630 transgender personnel in the active service and between 830–4,160 in the selected reserve.

“The full implications of that tweet are to be determined. My read of it is that it appears that those currently serving transgender troops will be forced out,” Brad Carson, the Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness from 2015-16, who help craft the policy that ended the ban a year ago. “To have a tweet reverse a DoD personnel policy is unprecedented.”

The ACLU said it is considering a legal challenge to the ban."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/coralewis/trump-transgender-military-service?utm_term=.boNg81yRq#.uqWNo26rv

[SoLongAtlas]

A part of me has the disgusting feeling Trump will win on this like Bush did in '04 but another part of me is thinking that this is a bit of a harder sell then being against gay marriage was in '04

Honestly I think it will be an easier sell. Most ppl don't care about or support gay marriage now, even a plurality of the GOP. It would be an easier sell to politicize this issue esp with regard to its relation to the military. LBG (ok fine) T (those others) - the new GOP logic going fwd, even if it's disgusting logic.

Edit: I can already see the ads, "Warren (or whoever Dem) supports wasteful money on reassignment operations instead of more funding for our troops, vote (insert Trump) in November"

Same thing in 18 to gin up the culture warriors.

[SoLongAtlas]

Conversations I've had with IRL relatives about this are leading me to believe that many think transgender people only enlist to get medical care, because it's so expensive. Anecdotal, but perhaps insightful into the political calculus here...

I doubt that, as they could get insurance with any job.

Catch here is that any job has a ton of prereqs now (college for most, tech skills, etc.) The mil, esp on the enlisted side, so long as you aren't a criminal, smoke weed, shoot up, etc., you can get in.

Many consider the mil as a safer bet, esp those right out of HS.

[SoLongAtlas]

Conversations I've had with IRL relatives about this are leading me to believe that many think transgender people only enlist to get medical care, because it's so expensive. Anecdotal, but perhaps insightful into the political calculus here...

I doubt that, as they could get insurance with any job.

Many plans don't cover reassignment. Also, what VirginiaModerate said.

To be clear, I totally disagree -- just thought that it shows how some of the voters this is going to rule up think.

It certainly is an interesting viewpoint that I hadn't thought of.

Many folks enlist just for the medical care, esp those in poorer parts of the South and Appalachia. Usually the base will have an on-site medical and dental clinic, if not full on hospital. It's a VA style set up but smaller and for AD SMs. So yeah this would def be a thing, those wanting the reassignments and transition treatments would go there first, or the major hospitals near the base, like Balboa in SD, for example.

[SoLongAtlas]

Headline from Reuters but no article  yet:

MORE: Pentagon has already decided to allow currently-serving transgender troops to stay in military - Senate Armed Forces Chairman McCain

Thank God. What they're doing is bad enough, but discharging thousands of personnel would be a catastrophe.

It actually wouldn't be. That's the normal flow of regular seps and admin seps on a monthly basis. It would be picked up in terms of new poolees and DEPers, actually would open up rates and MOSs for more ppl but it would be terrible optically and politically, also bad if the transgender SM has a critical skill MOS.

[SoLongAtlas]

Trump lost Joni Ernst:

So why don't these frauds hold a vote about it ?

They did, it failed and a few dozen GOP voted against the surgery ban bill.

[SoLongAtlas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It won't be easy to overturn a directive for the military from the sitting CINC. If the CINC puts out guidance to the mil, it is an order to be followed.

[SoLongAtlas]

Well I was right on the way the religious right would spin it
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chelsea-manning-family-research-council_us_5971010fe4b062ea5f90b625

"But it cuts money from regular programs, support our troops! yada yada" Same stuff, different day

[SoLongAtlas]

So how do you think the troops (in all services) feel about this?

A lot actually want it, some are more libertarian on it, others have more concerns about the bullying that would logically ensue, urinalysis observation concerns, barracks, squad bays, berthings, etc.

T&P has some good insight from vets, AD, etc. Read some of these, the comments are usu by AD SMs/vets

https://tinyurl.com/y9s4bmab

[SoLongAtlas]

DOD costs for trans-related medical service: 2-8 million.
Extra Cost for Secret Service to protect Trump in NYC & FL: 120 million.

Yeah you have a good point there

[SoLongAtlas]

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1530.html Report on numbers, etc. from earlier.

[SoLongAtlas]

Interesting how Republicans seem to be taking the Pat McCrory strategy to the national level, even though it was a failing one in an evenly divided state.

It's their strategy for 18 and 20, same as in 04, to gin up waves of social warrior voters. Last chance to do this, since in the next few cycles those same voters will be dead or close to it.

[SoLongAtlas]

NYT article on it https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/trump-transgender-military.html

They pointed out that this was done on the anniversary of Truman's integration order. Doubtful that that was just a coincidence.