Donald Trump's ban on transgender military service and the LGBTQ community which supported him
Seeing Trump and the LGBTQ community as anything but compatible is an easy conclusion to arrive at. Despite his transgender military ban in 2018 and numerous claims of discrimination against the LGBTQ community, Trump still had a committed group of LGBTQ supporters in both the first and the second election. This is a closer look at his LGBTQ supporters’ arguments and views.
Sourced: Wikimedia Commons
In a surprising moment at the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Cleveland in 2016, Trump turned to his audience and said, “As your president I will do everything in my power to protect LGBTQ citizens.” As the audience cheered, Trump seemed happy about the positive receptions of such statements considering the Republican Party’s historically more critical stance on LGBTQ issues. He went on to swear "to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology.” At another point he called the massacre of 49 mostly LGBTQ people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida an “assault on the ability of free people to live their lives, love who they want and express their identity.”
Richard Grenell, an openly gay man, was the acting director of National Intelligence for the United States (for three months) as well as the ambassador to Germany during Trump’s presidency. In the run up to the 2020 election, he described Trump as the “most pro-gay president in American history.” As evidence he referenced his own appointment as well as Trump’s efforts to push countries that criminalize being gay to end those practices.
However, Alphonso David, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ civil rights group in the US, responded, “We’re not taking the bait”. Some of Mr Trump’s adversaries believe that “the Trump administration is looking to drive a wedge within the L.G.B.T.Q. community between L.G.B. and T.,” Mr. David said. The common view from Trump’s opposition was therefore that, while he mostly attacked transgender rights, he was also generally anti-LGBTQ.
This is supported by GLAAD, a leading American media monitoring organization, which aims to improve media coverage of LGBTQ people. It accused the Trump administration of 181 separate attacks since his inauguration where, according to their views, the administration attacked LGBTQ rights.
For me personally - and I am sure for many others - the definition of discrimination, what is wrong and what is right, what is considered anti-LGBTQ and what is considered supportive of the LGBTQ community is very black and white. With topics as important as this, there is usually little room for grey area, perhaps rightly so. A closer look at a particular part of the LGBTQ community, Trump supporters, shows that even the LGBTQ community is contentious and divided on questions such as what counts as “discriminatory”. This piece offers an insight into an electoral group which many might have approached, and still do, with at least a degree of incredulity.
One of the most dividing policy changes during Trump’s presidency was arguably his transgender military ban in 2018. It was widely perceived as a significant step back for transgender rights and criticised by the predominant part of the LGBTQ community. Even more so, because transgender individuals can openly join the military in countries like Germany, Canada and France. Nevertheless, Trump retained a committed LGBTQ voter base in his second election.
It is therefore interesting to have a look at the highly divisive transgender military ban in detail, how the administration justified their policy change in the Mattis Report, and whether this can give insights into how LGBTQ Trump supporters evaluated this policy change themselves. This can allow for a better understanding of how they justified other issues which were widely considered anti-LGBTQ both within the LGBTQ community and outside of it.
Obama’s policy on transgender individuals in the military
Until June 2016, the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) generally prohibited openly transgender individuals from accession into the United States military and authorized the discharge of such individuals on those grounds.
President Obama’s Administration changed the rules to allow transgender individuals to serve openly in the military after 1 July 2017. Usage of the two Departments’ resources to fund sex-reassignment surgical procedures was also authorised. Under the 2016 policy, transgender individuals were presumptively disqualified unless they were stable for 18 months in their preferred gender or biological sex.
Trump’s change of policy
The 2018 policy changes to these accession rules were first announced by Trump in a tweet. In-depth evaluation of this policy change took place in the Mattis Report, the official government report on the policy change. We will take a closer look at this report later to better understand the reasoning behind the decision. Nevertheless, this evaluation took place only after the policy change had already been announced in Trump’s tweet.
Transgender individuals were presumptively disqualified from military service unless they were stable for 36 months and willing and able to serve in their biological sex. Any applicants with a history of medical transition treatment were presumptively disqualified. It stopped short of a full ban by allowing military services to grant waivers on a case-by-case-basis. Any members who joined the military in their preferred gender or were diagnosed with gender dysphoria before the 2018 policy took effect were exempted from the new policy and were allowed to continue to serve in their preferred gender. The effect of the policy change was to stop all use of United States Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security resources to fund sex reassignment surgical procedures for military personnel, except where necessary to protect the health of an individual who has already begun a course of treatment for sex reassignment. It was a radical change of direction in comparison to Obama’s policy.
The Obama administration had based its policy change predominantly on a study by the RAND National Defense Research Institute. The Trump administration criticised that the study contained significant shortcomings. It was alleged that in many ways the data in the study was simply used to support existing conclusions and did not adequately evaluate the effect of transgender individuals on healthcare costs, readiness, and unit cohesion. The study supposedly also relied on selective experiences of foreign militaries which did not adequately describe requirements of the US military.
Why did Trump change the policy?
In a Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, issued on 25 August 2017, the President declared that there were insufficient grounds to hold that military effectiveness and lethality would not be hindered by the accession of transgender individuals in the military. Further inquiry was necessary in particular regarding the possible disruption of unit cohesion as well as the legitimacy of using tax military resources for sex reassignment procedures or hormonal treatment. It was mentioned that several concerns remained which necessitated a further reevaluation to ensure that the 2016 policy did not lead to any negative effects. Before implementing the policy, Trump's Defense minister Mattis set up a Panel of Experts to evaluate the proposed policy change.
In the report, the Panel reviewed their own data on gender dysphoria, treatment of gender dysphoria, and the effects of currently serving individuals with gender dysphoria on military effectiveness, unit cohesion and resources.
Healthcare costs
One of the most widely discussed aspects of the transgender accession to the military was its potential impact on healthcare cost and the legitimacy of using tax money for these purposes.
The RAND study, commissioned by the Pentagon under the Obama administration, found that allowing transgender people to serve openly in the military would have little impact on readiness and health care costs.
The study calculated that the annual health care costs for transgender troops could range from $2.4 to $8.4 million meaning 0.04 to 0.13 percent.
Some news outlets described this as one tenth of the $84 million the military spends on medications like Viagra for erectile dysfunction. Such medications have been used to treat heart diseases since its positive effects to treat such diseases were discovered in a medical study in 2012. One in four males are prone to heart disease, which explains the high figure.
Some 2,000 to 11,000 active-duty troops are transgender, though estimates have varied widely. It was estimated that less than 0.1 percent of the total force would seek transition-related care that could disrupt their ability to deploy.
The Pentagon spent nearly $8 million to treat more than 1,500 transgender troops since 2016, according to data obtained by USA TODAY. Psychotherapy sessions amounted to around $5.8 million and surgery cost to more than $2 million. As of 1 February 2016, 1,071 service members on active duty and in the reserve force were diagnosed with gender dysphoria, a fragment of the total force of 2.1 million.
When Obama allowed for the accession of transgender persons to the military Mr. Mattis, a retired marine, Obama’s 11th Commander of the United States Central Command and Trump’s Secretary of Defense, argued that medical accommodations including hormone injections for transgender person could open up claims. In particular he was concerned that this decision could open the Defense Department to claims from other people not allowed to serve, like Type 1 diabetics, who also need regular injections. This could lead to complications for health care claims in the military.
Mattis’ Panel of Experts
The Mattis report sought to offer a justification for why accession of transgender individuals was not grounded in a discriminatory intention. The Panel which drafted the report consisted of both senior uniformed and civilian Defense Department leaders with mature experience in combat and deployment operations. Analysing the main arguments provided by the Panel of Experts can allow for a more insightful evaluation of why some LGBTQ-Trump supporters thought the decision was justified. It is also useful for attempting to understand why some LGBTQ Trump supporters were not alienated due to Trump’s decision.
The report, from the outset, attempted to clarify that nothing in the suggested change of policy sought to discriminate against transgender individuals. 71% of Americans from ages 17 to 24 cannot join the military without a waiver for mental, medical or behavioral reasons (report, page 6). It sought to streamline transgender individuals’ exclusion from accession to the military into this statistic.
The report stated that the Department honoured all citizens who wish to dedicate and potentially lose their lives in defense of the US, even when the Department cannot grant their wish because of conflicting military interests (report, p. 6). The policy change was not intended to convey that transgender individuals and individuals with gender dysphoria were less esteemed members of the American public than other categories of persons who are barred from military service.
The main criticism was that the RAND report, used by the Obama administration, failed to address the mental health problems that accompany gender dysphoria such as high rates of comorbidities and psychiatric hospitilisation to high rates of suicide ideation and suicidality. In particular, the concern was on the scope of the scientific uncertainty regarding whether gender transition treatments provide an adequate remedy (report, p. 14).
Military service, in particular the experience of combat, has a significant impact on individuals and their mental health. The report suggested that it would be reckless to put individuals into battle who might be at increased risk of psychological injury, both for the individuals themselves and for their fellow service members (p. 19).
Regarding mental health, the report pointed out that military service can contribute to suicidal thoughts. Data regarding lifetime suicidal attempts was calculated at 41% for transgender individuals, compared to 4.6% amongst the general population (p. 21). Administrative data indicated that transgender service members were eight times more likely to commit suicide attempts (p. 21). Active transgender service memebers also had nine times as many mental health visits. The Hill pointed out that three of the studies cited in the report found that discrimination was a key cause of the increased likelihood of suicide, criticising a lack of context in the report.
The report continued by outlining possible transition related treatment options for individuals with gender dysphoria (which is treated throughout the report as a condition of most transgender individuals). Many surgeries would take up substantial amounts of time and could lead to complications, which could impact deployability (p. 23).
Available scientific evidence, such as a comprehensive literature review by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, concluded that the extent to which transition related treatments provide a remedy for issues related to gender dysphoria was unclear (p. 24). The report also pointed out that the RAND study itself highlighted that none of the studies assessing the outcomes of treatment for gender dysphoria were the gold standard for evaluating treatment efficacy. It was key for the panel that any studies excluded the additional level of stress which military life and combat situations can have on individuals (report, p. 24).
Regarding hormone therapy, the quality of evidence which suggested improvement in well-being after cross sex hormone therapy was very low, though it conceded some positive findings (p. 26).
The report concluded by stating that “making accommodations for gender transition are not conducive to, and would likely undermine, the inputs - readiness, good order and discipline, sound leadership, and unit cohesion - that are essential to military effectiveness and lethality” (p. 41).
Additional remarks addressed the traditional distinction of sex based spaces in military accommodation and military spaces in general and the supposed difficulties of changing this in a military setting.
LGBTQ Trump supporters on the transgender military ban
Now that the main arguments for the administration's decision have been outlined, it’s worth taking a look at why some LGBTQ Trump supporters agreed with the rationale of the decision.
Joseph Murray, a gay Trump supporter, stated in an article that he understood this as a president having to take hard decisions:
“The military is a highly-selective group that routinely limits who can and who cannot join the ranks. Whether the restriction is age, height, or, yes, gender identity, the military, through its commander in chief, has the ability to decide who gets into the club.
In this case, Trump decided that the military is not a petri dish. Trump contends that Beltway social engineers should not continue to experiment with the issues of open-stall showers, restrooms, and gender re-assignment surgery.”
In the doe, an online blog community, an anonymous black trans man wrote an article outlining why he supported Trump and would continue to do so in the 2020 election despite the trans military ban:
“My response is that being transgender means replacing hormones, so we have mood swings and our minds are sometimes cloudy. We have to go to therapy just for the surgeries we want and have to keep going to therapy afterward to make sure we don’t have a mental breakdown. We wouldn’t be able to control our emotions, and if we get captured we would not be able to access the meds we have to take to be who we are.”
Some also believe that Trump isn’t actually discriminatory. Arielle Scarcella believed that Trump’s executive order did not ban transgender Americans from serving in the military. The order pertained to anyone currently undergoing prolonged medical intervention (pre-existing medical conditions), including gender dysphoria. On this understanding, trans people were barred from accession to the military, due to their gender dysphoria and the potential transition related medical treatment, not because of their identity itself.
Most individuals who have a medical condition which is likely to require prolonged medical treatment must ask for a waiver for accession to the military. For instance individuals with other conditions and similar treatments, such as hormone therapy for low testosterone, could not join the military without a waiver. Both groups had to ask for a waiver under Trump’s policy. For some LGBTQ Trump supporters, the trans-military ban fell in line with this general rule and was therefore not deemed discriminatory.
Haynes, a transgender woman, who had served in the Air Force for 21 years, gave her vote to president Trump in 2016. She was very upset when she learnt about the transgender ban and wrote a letter to the president to express her discontent with his decision. She made her continued support for Trump in 2020 conditional on the fact that he “change(s) his ways and start(s) appreciating the community. (…) I expect him to do the right thing—he’s an honorable man,” she said. For her, Trump has a lot in common with a transgender personality. She understands this as sometimes just wanting “to shock the hell out of people. (...) I can look at him and I can tell who he is. He’s a wild child. I love that.”
She recognised the Obama administration’s efforts for creating a safe environment for her about coming out. The decision to vote for Trump in the 2016 election stemmed from her disappointment with Obama’s military leadership. She commended Trump on his foreign policy stance on North Korea. She believed that such big topics were more important than her gender. “In the big picture, I’m nothing. Sometimes you need to make sacrifices.”
Rogers, a trans woman and another Air Force veteran, also disagreed with the transgender ban: “I can’t think of one good reason why [transgender people] can’t be in a non-combat position”.
Concerns about identity politics, political correctness and media bias
Phil Kazmierczak, a gay real estate agent in Virginia who supported Donald Trump in the 2020 election, criticised what he perceived as the Democrats’ overt fixation on identity politics. In an email to NBC news before the election he outlined his view that identity politics leads to the conflation of political opinions with one’s identity.
"They want you to believe that someone is constantly coming for your rights. If you're gay, specifically, Democrat propaganda states that the Republicans are going to take away your rights.” Many LGBTQ Trump supporters voice a certain exasperation regarding being told what political views are acceptable if you are part of the LGBTQ community.
Jennifer Williams, a trans woman and honorary delegate at the 2016 Republican National Convention, also pointed out that some LGBTQ voters were looking beyond issues related to their sexual orientation and gender identity and were prioritizing topics like unemployment and housing.
Religious freedom vs. discrimination
Trump allowed Foster Care programs to discriminate against prospective LGBT foster parents on the basis of being faith-centered foster parent agencies. According to Arielle Scarcella the Trump administration never opposed adoptions by same-sex couples. Allowing a small number of religious organisations to run agencies according to their faith does not impede LGBT Americans from adopting children. LGBT parents can still go to other agencies for the adoption of children. They say it is a 1st amendment issue and they accept the ensuing discrimination as legitimate.
Kazmierczak called Trump a “staunch supporter of gay people and their rights” but equally a supporter of and advocate for religious liberty. In his opinion, Trump did not want gay rights to be forced on religious organisation by making them act contrary to their religious views (i.e. in foster care situation). This did not mean that Trump didn’t support LGBT people, it only meant that he put religious liberty before social issues.
Constitutional concerns
In Trump’s contract with the American voter, a 100-day-action-plan which outlined his key goals in the beginning days of his presidency, he mentioned five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law. First on the list was to “cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama.” Many of these executive actions included federal protection of LGBTQ rights.
Gay Trump supporter, Joseph Murray, had one of the biggest LGBTrump Facebook pages in the lead up to the 2016 election, with just under 6,000 followers. When he was interviewed for NBC he criticized Obama’s executive actions, especially the amount of his executive orders, as unconstitutional. As a consequence he did not oppose seeing some executive orders overturned, even if that negatively affected himself by removing non-descrimination protection.
“President Obama abused his executive power, and while LGBT folks may have benefited from those orders, the end doesn't justify the means. (…) So long as LGBT folks are treated fairly, which they are, we do not need Obama’s orders. Americans deserve equal treatment, not special treatment.” LGBTQ people receiving/demanding, or so they say, special treatment seems to be a common denominator in their criticisms.
Trump overturned many of Obama’s executive orders. For Murray, constitutional considerations outweighed the disadvantages or loss of protection to their own community. Executive powers could be used for policies which might be disadvantageous to the LGBT community as well. Therefore they should rather not be used at all.
Congress can pass a new law to override an executive order and future presidents can undo them. Presidents also use memoranda and proclamations to achieve policy goals or to get the message out about their priorities. One president’s executive order might be another’s memoranda. Trump issued 219 executive orders between 2017 and 2021 (one presidential term) and Obama issued 276 executive orders between 2009 and 2017 (two presidential terms). Overall, Trump used more executive orders even though he frequently criticised Obama’s use of executive orders.
What, if anything, is the take-away message here?
All this provides, at the very least, an interesting insight into the reasoning behind an arguably surprising perspective. Still, you may wonder what purpose, if any, there is to looking at these arguments. Especially now that Trump is no longer the president of the United States. Trump’s transgender military ban has been reversed by Biden and the protection of LGBTQ individuals under federal healthcare rules has been reinstated.
Under the Obama administration, the federal protection of LGBTQ rights was massively expanded. Obama’s decision to allow for the accession of transgender individuals was widely welcomed as a big step towards equality of transgender persons. Many, especially within the LGBTQ community, believe that from the moment of taking office, the Trump administration took steps to roll back critical protection for LGBTQ individuals. Trump’s presidency is widely evaluated as a significant step back for LGBTQ rights. Nevertheless, it remains a fact that even in 2020 he retained a fraction of the LGBTQ voter base. Some of these supporters justified the trans military ban and did not perceive it as a discriminatory act. This shows how ambiguous and open ended moral views on contentious issues like LGBTQ rights can be, especially within the LGBTQ community itself.