LGBT

Defense Officials Still Haven’t Received Trump’s Transgender Service Ban

JM Ashby
Written by JM Ashby

Trump arbitrarily announced that transgender men and women would no longer be allowed to serve in the military last week, but the White House still hasn't issued any formal guidance at all about the ban.

The Pentagon's chief spokesman says they're "in the process of waiting for that to be formally articulated," which is a very fancy way of saying the White House hasn't told them shit.

Last week, Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a memo to military commanders that "there will be no modifications to the current policy until the president's direction has been received by the secretary of defense and the secretary has issued implementation guidance."

"We are awaiting formal guidance," Davis told reporters, adding that the Pentagon had reason to believe they would get a formal direction in writing from the White House.

It's anyone's guess when the White House will get around to turning Trump's stupid tweets into official policy, but handing that policy to the Pentagon won't be the end of the story.

The Department of Defense will have to decide what to do about the 15,000 transgender service members who are on active duty today and they will have to defend their actions in court in virtually every corner of the country.

  • muselet

    If I may be forgiven for quoting Will the Quill ‘way out of context:

    … It is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.

    Shakespeare would have had a field day with a character like Donald Trump.

    –alopecia

  • Badgerite

    You know when you take the oath in the military, you agree to become cannon fodder if your country needs you to. You agree to abide by a whole separate system of laws. Can you imagine a trump agreeing to anything that might result in even so much as a hangnail for this country?

  • Dread_Pirate_Mathius

    Let’s say I’m the President.

    And also an idiot.

    But I repeat myself.

    And I want to build a big stupid Wall.

    But that wall is tied up in a broader negotiation over budget priorities.

    And one of the priorities of one of the parties is that he is a bigot who doesn’t want to pay for no damn trannies.

    Well, I’m the President, let’s see if I can clear this roadblock and get my Wall?

    Only.. if I come out against paying for medical are for sex changes, I’m going to get mired down in a fight over that.

    BUT.

    But if I go to the extreme and out-and-out ban them.

    But I hold off on issuing official rules.

    Maybe I get dragged into a negotiation.

    And maybe, just maybe, I wind up “settling” for not paying for their extra medical costs.

    And my enemies are ok with that because “it could have been much worse.”

    And my friend are happy because I’ve shown that I’m on their side and I got them their ban on transsexual medical funding.

    And Democrats in red states who are up for election next year are going to have to play defensive on this as an involuntarily major plank of their campaigns. Maybe one of them will lose their seat in to a transphobic Red Shirt?

    That’s why I’m the best at negotiating!

    derp

    • Wildson

      Yeah those damn trannies, with their “I’ll beat a MF ISIS ass”, professionalism, love of country, etc…

    • ninjaf

      Let’s not forget that if we make this pronouncement on the day my #1 most trusted aid and son-in-law is testifying in closed session with one of the Russia committees, it will have the bonus of drowning out the day’s coverage of his testimony.