US troops will no longer be allowed to claim trans healthcare
The Pentagon is halting gender-affirming healthcare for transgender troops as it takes steps to remove them from the US armed forces.
'I am directing you to take the necessary steps to immediately implement this guidance,' Stephen Ferrara, the acting assistant secretary of defence for health affairs, said in a memo.
The Defence Health Agency did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The move was well signposted by an administration that campaigned last year on promises to take a common sense attitude to transgender issues.
In January, soon after taking office, Donald Trump signed an executive order banning transgender people from serving in the armed forces.
'A man's assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honour this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member,' runs the order.
'War on woke'
Then last week Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, issued instructions to the Pentagon to start expelling transgender troops who do not resign by June 6.
It said the department would 'initiate involuntary separation processes' for anyone who did not leave voluntarily.
A Pentagon spokesman said about 1,000 troops had self-identified with gender dysphoria and begun the separation process.
It is an illustration of how Mr Hegseth, a former Fox News presenter, has put the 'war on woke' at the centre of the way he runs the Pentagon.
He won a green light from the Supreme Court last week, paving the way for a ban to take effect.
'No more trans at the (US) Department of Defence,' he posted after the court issued a brief order granting an emergency request from the Trump administration to lift a nationwide injunction against its policy while other lawsuits make their way through the courts.
Three liberal justices dissented.
More than 4,000 transgender troops
There are 4,240 active-duty and National Guard transgender troops, according to officials, but activists put the number far higher.
In the meantime, public opinion has been hardening against allowing transgender troops in the armed forces.
A Gallup poll published in February found that 58 per cent of Americans were in favour of allowing transgender troops. That number has fallen from 71 per cent six years ago.
Mr Trump targeted transgender troops during his first term. After six months in office he announced he would ban transgender people in the military but then his administration spent two years navigating legal challenges.
It eventually reached a compromise that allowed anyone already serving to stay but barred recruits who were taking hormones or transitioning to another gender.
Two appeals courts continue to weigh the latest policy.
Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at Glad Law, wrote in a letter to the Washington DC court of appeals: 'The directive restates the unsupported assertion that 'expressing a false 'gender identity' divergent from an individual's sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service, further corroborating the district court's finding that the transgender military ban was motivated by animus against transgender people as a group.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Trump: I had nothing to do with attack on Iran
Donald Trump angrily denied that American forces participated in Israel's attacks on Iran's nuclear weapons projects after Tehran alleged American involvement. The Islamic regime claimed it has 'solid proof' that US forces supported Israel in their long-range strikes, having previously promised reprisals against the likes of the UK and France. But in a social media post at about 1am in Washington DC, the US President said: 'The US had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, tonight. 'If we are attacked in any way, shape or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the US Armed Forces will come down on you at levels never seen before.' Mr Trump also used his veiled threat of violence against Iran to further his diplomatic efforts to convince the Islamic Republic to end its efforts to build a nuclear weapon. 'We can easily get a deal done between Iran and Israel, and end this bloody conflict,' he wrote. His intervention came as Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister, used a televised address to claim that the US had supported Israel's attacks on his country. 'We have solid proof of the support of the American forces and American bases in the region for the attacks of the Zionist regime military forces,' he said. Mr Araghchi proceeded to claim that he didn't want the escalating conflict to spread outside the confines of Iran and Israel, but said Tehran would not hesitate to strike any of the Jewish state's allies if they become involved. There is no evidence to suggest American involvement in the initial set of strikes by Israel against Iran's underground nuclear facilities, except the use of US-made fighter jets, which the IDF is known to possess. However, US officials have confirmed their forces' involvement in the downing of ballistic missiles fired by Iran at Israel late on Friday. Washington is known to have a Patriot air-defence battery deployed in Israel, as well as a Navy destroyer in the Mediterranean. The UK has previously been involved in similar defensive operations assisting Israel down Iranian-launched missiles and drones. But officials in London have claimed the British military has not assisted this time round. The Royal Air Force has, however, dispatched extra assets, including combat aircraft, to its base in Cyprus. Iran has said it would strike British and French bases in and around the Middle East if their forces helped Israel defend itself against Tehran's long-range salvos. Away from its main operating base in Cyprus, RAF Akrotiri, the UK has a number of airbases across the Middle East, including in Oman and the UAE. The British bases are all within range of Iran's known arsenal of ballistic missiles, which are notoriously difficult to intercept. Rachel Reeves has indicated that the UK could 'potentially' support Israel amid the conflict in the Middle East. She told Sky News that she was 'not going to rule anything out at this stage' given the 'fast-moving situation'. Asked whether the UK would come to Israel's aid if asked, the Chancellor told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips: 'We have, in the past, supported Israel when there have been missiles coming in. 'I'm not going to comment on what might happen in the future, but so far, we haven't been involved, and we're sending in assets to both protect ourselves and also potentially to support our allies.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Fighting Russia is now Europe's problem: America is about to leave the stage
So it's official: Washington is pulling the plug on military aid to Ukraine. At Congressional hearings this week US secretary of defence Pete Hegseth confirmed the Trump administration has a 'very different view' of the war in Ukraine to that of Joe Biden's – and insisted that a 'negotiated peaceful settlement is in the best interest of both parties and our nation's interests.' Given that the topic of the hearings was the US's 2026 military budget, the message could hardly have been clearer. Fighting Russia is now Europe's problem. Washington has given Ukraine some $74 billion in military aid since Putin's invasion in February 2022. That includes game-changing equipment such as Patriot air defence systems that are Ukraine's only effective defence against Russian ballistic missiles, ATACMS and HIMARS missiles, long-range M777 artillery, tanks, armoured vehicles, and millions of artillery rounds. Some of the Biden-era packages are still coming down the procurement pipeline. But the bitter bottom line for Kyiv is that it has been abandoned by its most powerful and deep-pocketed ally. That leaves Ukraine three options. The first is to rely on Europe stepping in to supply the weapons and equipment it needs. The second – proposed earlier this month by Zelensky – was to buy US made weapons from Washington with European money. The third is to make the weapons it needs in Ukrainian factories, funded by money from European allies. Happily for Ukraine, Europe's leaders have repeatedly promised to step up to the plate and deliver what Ukraine needs to fight on. Less happily, in practice, Europe seems better at promising than actually stepping. Back on February 9, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen announced a 'ReArm Europe' package in Brussels that 'could mobilise close to €800 billion of defence expenditures over five years … This is a moment for Europe, and we are ready to step up.' But it soon emerged that this staggering sum was not, in fact, ready money but represented an easing of borrowing constraints on EU members if they chose to increase their defence budgets. On March 19 EU high representative for external relations, Kaja Kallas, proposed a €40 billion arms aid package for Ukraine. But that plan was shot down by doubters such as Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, Spain and Italy. Last month Europe finally put some cash (albeit someone else's cash) on the table by directing €1 billion from the EU's Peace Facility – made from frozen Russian assets – towards financing Ukraine's domestic arms industry. Kyiv will certainly put that aid to good use. Domestic production now meets up to 50 per cent of Ukraine's military needs, despite repeated Russian strikes on factories. And Ukraine already outproduces the EU in the production of many weapons. Output of Ukraine's Bohdana howitzer is now 20 per month, outpacing the production of French Caesars, and could double with more EU funding. Drone production is scaling up fast, with five million small First Person View (FPV) drones planned for 2025, plus 30,000 long-range drones, and 3,000 cruise missiles. Plus some of the new Ukrainian kit is actually better than foreign supplied equipment because it's tailored more precisely to the specific needs of the killing fields of Donbas. Ukraine's Limma Electronic warfare system outperforms Russian and Western tech in jamming Russian glide bombs. And of course there's Ukraine's extraordinarily bold and sophisticated mass drone attack on Russian strategic bombers deep inside Siberia and the Arctic earlier this month, which featured drone swarms hidden in the roofs of prefabricated housing units and trucked right to their targets by unwitting freelance drivers. So there's no doubt that Ukraine has the technical sophistication, the industrial capacity and the tactical imagination to create its own formidable defences. Indeed, by many metrics the Ukrainian army is not only the largest but also the best-equipped on the European continent, bar Russia's. But Ukraine also has deep vulnerabilities further down the defence-procurement totem pole when it comes to the nuts-and-bolts sinews of war, from artillery shells to bullets to spare parts. And the most urgent military and political problem of all is a looming chronic shortage of bodies to man the front lines. Videos of violent press-gang tactics used to round up military-age men – often featuring posses of citizens rallying to save the men targeted – are the subject of daily online anger on Ukraine's social media. Stories of Russia's imminent economic and military collapse make for feel-good reading – but aren't borne out by ongoing and relentless assaults in the air and on the ground. Russia is set to spend $160 billion on defence this year, and thanks to purchasing power disparities a dollar spent in Russia gets far more bang for the buck. A Russian T-90 costs approximately $4.5 million, a US M1 Abrams can cost as much as $9.61 million. Western defence experts have warned that US-made Patriot missile systems, in production since 1981, are increasingly ineffective against Russian hypersonic cruise missiles and massed swarms of Iranian Shaheed drones. Can Ukraine survive just on its own resources, and Europe's intermittent money? The deepest irony of all is that much of the Kremlin's lavish defence spending is directly financed by Europe itself, which is due to spend over €20 billion buying oil, gas, coal and uranium from Russia in 2025.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘Stay below the radar': corporate America goes quiet after Trump's return
From vast protests and all-caps social media posts to acrimonious legislative hearings and pugnacious White House statements, Washington has perhaps never been noisier. But since Donald Trump's return to office, one corner of civil society has been almost eerily quiet. Those leading corporate America rapidly turned down the volume after the president's re-election. Gone are the days of political and social interventions, highly publicized diversity initiatives and donations to important causes. For months, some of the most powerful firms in the world have nervously navigated a dangerous US political landscape, desperate to avoid the wrath of an administration as volatile as it is vocal. 'CEOs like two things. They like consistency and predictability,' said Bill George, former chairman and CEO of Medtronic and serial board director. 'They like to know where things are going. No one can figure out where this administration's really going, because everything is transactional.' 'Stay below the radar screen,' George has been advising senior executives across the US. 'Do not get in a fight with this president.' Industry leaders from David Solomon of Goldman Sachs to Dara Khosrowshahi of Uber extoled the benefits of 'Trump accounts' for babies this week. It was the latest example of knee-flexing that began on the patio of Mar-a-Lago in the aftermath of Trump's victory last November. The genuflections have been backed by big money, with millions of dollars thrown into the president's inaugural fund by companies and executives. That started to look like chump change before long. Amazon reportedly paid $40m for a documentary about Melania Trump. Apple announced plans to invest $500bn in the US. But those moves do not appear to have bought much favor. The White House accused Amazon of being 'hostile and political' following a report (upon which the company later poured cold water) that it would start disclosing the impact of Trump's tariffs on prices. And the president threatened Apple with vast tariffs. No CEO seemed closer to Trump than Elon Musk, the billionaire industrialist behind Tesla and SpaceX, who gave almost $300m to Republican campaigns last year, and worked in the administration for months. Their explosive fallout, days after Musk's exit, prompted the president to threaten the cancellation of federal contracts and tax subsidies for Musk's companies. The pair's rupture underlined why many executives are struggling to trust the president, according to Paul Argenti, professor of corporate communication at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth. 'The mercurial nature of this guy kind of just seeps in, and people start to realize they're dealing with something that's a bit more difficult.' His advice? 'Proceed with extreme caution.' 'Loyalty only goes one way with Trump,' said Dan Schwerin, co-founder of Evergreen Strategy Group, and former speechwriter for Hillary Clinton, who has previously worked with firms including Levi Strauss and Patagonia. 'This is like doing business with the mafia: you're not going to win, and you're not going to be safe.' The standard playbook is clear: 'You make a big splashy announcement: the details don't matter, you don't have to follow through, but you placate the White House,' said Schwerin. 'That maybe buys you a little time and a little goodwill. 'But history suggests that Trump will do whatever is best for Trump, and he will turn on you in an instant, if it's better for him. And that is true for his friends, so it will certainly be true for a company that he has no loyalty to.' Extreme caution has become the name of the game – anything to avoid your company getting drawn into the crosshairs of this administration. But companies can't just focus on the president: they have shareholders, customers and employees to answer to. 'You can't base everything on getting through the next four years,' said George. 'Yeah, it's going to be chaotic. Yes, it's going to be challenging. But you better hold firm to your purpose and your values.' He pointed to retailer Target, where he served on the board for 12 years. 'They were very, very big on differentiating themselves from Walmart, using diversity as the criteria – and particularly being, they called themselves, the most gay-friendly company in town. 'And then [Target CEO] Brian Cornell, six days after the inauguration, abandoned all that,' said George. The chain faced a backlash – and boycotts – for abruptly announcing the rollback of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Breaking his silence in an email to employees three months later, Cornell claimed: 'We are still the Target you know and believe in.' Contrast this with Costco, another retailer, which in January faced a shareholder proposal against DEI efforts from a conservative thinktank. The firm's board robustly defended its 'commitment to an enterprise rooted in respect and inclusion' before the proposal was put to its investors for a vote. 'They got a 98% vote to stay the course, to stay true to what they were,' said George. 'And their customer base is very conservative. This is not like they have some liberal customer base.' Argenti believes the period of strategic silence by many companies, and knee-flexing to the White House, might be coming to a close following Musk's messy exit. 'We're at an inflection point,' he said. 'There's going to period where people realize you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.' CEOs of companies counting the cost of Trump's policies are 'not going to suffer in silence', he said. 'You can't win. It's not like you can be secure in knowing if you follow this strategy, he'll leave you alone.' 'We are starting to see the pendulum swing back,' according to Schwerin, who claimed the administration's erratic execution of tariffs had 'opened some people's eyes' that its policies were bad for business. 'I think it's crucial that we start to see a little more pushback. Better to have a backbone than to just bend the knee.' On controversial issues at the heart of political discourse, however, George does not expect much of a shift from CEOs. 'It is radio silence, and I think you'll see that continuing. There's not much to be gained from speaking out today.' 'Stick to your lane,' he has been counseling executives. 'If you're a banker, you can talk about the economy. If you're an oil expert ... talk to the energy industry. But you can't speak ex-cathedra to everyone else.' 'Only a handful' of business figures are deemed able to stand up and make bold public statements on any issue, according to George, who points to Jamie Dimon, the veteran JPMorgan Chase boss, and Warren Buffett, the longtime head of Berkshire Hathaway. 'There are certain people who are really hard to take on. Jamie's one,' he said. 'If you were president of the United States, would you take on Warren Buffett?'
