Pentagon plans to discharge transgender soldiers
The memo states that American soldiers diagnosed with, have a history of or exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria "will be processed for separation from military service."
"Service by these individuals is not in the best interests of the Military Services and is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security," the document states.
Those whose military service is of a "compelling Government interest" that "supports warfighting capabilities" and adhere to all "standards associated with the applicant's sex" may be considered for a waiver, it states.
Also eligible for potential exemption are soldiers who demonstrate 36 consecutive months of "stability in service member's sex" without distress or impairment, show they have never attempted to transition and are willing to adhere to all applicable standards.
The memo, which is from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, directs senior Pentagon leadership, combatant command commanders and others to establish procedures and steps within 30 days to identify transgender service members.
They will be honorably discharged except in cases where their record warrants a lower characterization, it said.
The memo states that this policy of the U.S. government is to establish the highest standards for the military, in terms of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty and integrity, among other characteristics, and that policy is inconsistent with "the medical, surgical and mental health constraints" of those who suffer from gender dysphoria.
The memo was made public in a lawsuit brought by GLAD Law and the National Center for Lesbian Rights on behalf of six transgender service members and two seeking to enlist, challenging Trump's Jan. 27 executive order banning transgender Americans from serving in the U.S. military.
The executive order bans transgender service members by stating they are incompatible with active duty.
"Military service demands one thing: the ability to do the job," Shannon Minter, legal director at NCLR, said in a statement announcing their lawsuit against the executive order on Feb. 3.
"Transgender service members consistently meet and exceed military standards. Those willing to risk their lives in service deserve our respect, not a discriminatory ban that ignores their proven capabilities."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
a few seconds ago
- New York Times
Why Zelensky and European Leaders Are Still Pushing for a Cease-Fire in Ukraine
In the public portions of their meeting with President Trump on Monday, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine and other European leaders made a concerted effort to project solidarity with Mr. Trump's negotiating position in talks with Russia over ending the war in Ukraine. One issue was an exception: Whether any route to a peace deal must be preceded by a cease-fire. Last week, Mr. Trump agreed with European leaders that no negotiations could begin in earnest without first halting the fighting in Ukraine. But after meeting President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Friday in Alaska, Mr. Trump dropped his support for that idea, essentially adopting Mr. Putin's position. European leaders say that is a mistake. At the start of one meeting with Mr. Trump on Monday, Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, put it bluntly. 'I can't imagine the next meeting will take place without a cease-fire,' Mr. Merz said, referring to hopes that Mr. Putin and Mr. Zelensky may meet. 'So let's work on that and let's try to put pressure on Russia.' Mr. Merz repeated the position to reporters at the start of a news conference after the meeting: 'A genuine negotiation can only take place at a summit in which Ukraine itself participates,' he said. 'Such a summit is only conceivable if the guns fall silent. I reiterated this demand today.' Why are Mr. Merz and his counterparts so insistent on a cease-fire? There are several reasons, some obvious. They want the killing to stop, including the mounting civilian death toll. Such pauses have historically provided crucial trust and stability that allows genuine peace negotiations to begin. But in the case of Ukraine, the presence of a cease-fire would also change the balance of power. Russia is currently making slow, but appreciable, gains on the battlefield, taking steadily more Ukrainian territory. That gives Mr. Putin an advantage when it comes to the terms of a peace deal, including, likely, decisions about ceding some portions of Ukraine to Russia. A cease-fire would stop that Russian momentum, allow Ukraine's army time to regroup and rearm, and change the dynamics of the peace talks. That's why Mr. Putin doesn't want one — and it's a big reason European leaders like Mr. Merz do.
New York Times
a few seconds ago
- New York Times
Securing Postwar Ukraine, Even With Trump's Pledge to Help, Is Complex
President Trump has pleased Ukrainian and European leaders by promising American involvement in providing security guarantees for Ukraine if a peace settlement with Russia ever comes together. Mark Rutte, the NATO secretary general, pronounced himself 'excited' over Mr. Trump's public commitment on Monday at a summit at the White House to some sort of security guarantee, a pledge that the Europeans have been eagerly seeking. He called it 'a breakthrough.' But exactly what those guarantees would involve remains ambiguous. Officials promised more clarity in the weeks to come as defense ministry planners come to grips with the considerable complications of turning a broad promise into realistic options. Mr. Trump said that European countries would be the 'first line of defense' in providing security guarantees for Ukraine, but Washington will 'help them out, we'll be involved.' He added later: 'European nations are going to take a lot of the burden. We're going to help them and we're going to make it very secure,' he said. He did not explain how. Some involved, like Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni of Italy and the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, spoke of an 'Article 5-like' guarantee outside of NATO itself, though based on the commitment in the alliance's charter that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all of them. But it is hard to imagine that NATO itself would not be quickly implicated if any member state of the alliance with troops stationed in Ukraine gets into a shooting war with Russia. Nor is it a given that Russia would change its stance and agree that troops from NATO countries could be stationed in Ukraine under a form of a de facto NATO-backed guarantee. Many analysts, like John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, believe that Russia's effort to control Ukraine is based on its stated desire to stop NATO enlargement for countries Moscow considers part of its sphere, especially those that were part of the Soviet Union. In that view, Moscow invaded Ukraine to block NATO and ensure the country does not become a member. So the idea that Russia would agree to let NATO country troops station themselves in Ukraine after fighting a long war to prevent them from being there in the first place is complicated at best. 'Our goal is to ensure that we build the security guarantees together with the U.S.,' President Alexander Stubb of Finland said Monday night. 'I should think that Russia's view of security guarantees is quite different from our view.' Russian officials rejected the idea even before Monday's meeting. A Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, said Russia 'categorically rejects any scenario that envisages the appearance in Ukraine of a military contingent with the participation of NATO countries.' Some European officials and analysts see Mr. Trump's new commitment to security guarantees as a way of convincing President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to agree to Russian demands to give up the rest of the eastern Donetsk region that is not occupied by Russian forces, in order to stop the war that Russia is slowly winning. That argument suggests that what matters is a sovereign Ukraine, its future assured, even if Russia retains the 20 percent or more of Ukrainian territory it has occupied since 2014. The territory issue did not even come up in the meeting with European leaders on Monday, according to Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany. Europeans were relieved, but the question has hardly gone away and underlies what may be part of a final settlement. The land that the Kremlin wants in Donetsk alone is considerably larger than the total amount of land Russia has managed to take since November 2022, and at great cost in lives. So it would be a major gift to Moscow and a major sacrifice for Mr. Zelensky, who rejects the idea out of hand. Instead, the focus in the White House was on security guarantees. Mr. Zelensky warned of the lack of details on Sunday and stressed that the proposal still needed to be worked out. 'We need security to work in practice,' he said. Some work has been done on what a security guarantee might look like under a 'coalition of the willing' led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain and President Emmanuel Macron of France, with a small headquarters in Paris. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has now been charged with coordination from the American side. But France, Britain and tiny Estonia are the only countries that have indicated that they could deploy troops in a post-settlement Ukraine. Germany has hesitated and major frontline states like Poland have refused to take part. The Poles, mistrustful of Russia, have said that they want to keep their troops at home for their own defense, and where they are genuinely protected by NATO's Article 5, rather than vulnerable to incidents or accidents that Russia might use to weaken or divide peacekeepers. A likely solution could be about 15,000 to 20,000 European troops being deployed in Ukraine, said Camille Grand, a former NATO assistant secretary general who has studied options for such security guarantees. Troops would be away from the front lines, in support of the Ukrainian military, already the largest and most experienced in Europe, with some 900,000 people under arms. The Europeans would represent a 'reassurance force.' Other countries or even the United Nations could provide separate, unarmed frontline observers, aided by satellite and drone surveillance. The United States would be asked to provide operational intelligence, including satellite cover and information about Russian intentions or troop movements, and perhaps train Ukrainian forces, but without troops on the ground. But 'if things go sour,' said Mr. Grand, now an analyst with the European Council on Foreign Relations, 'it would be good to have a public commitment that the Americans would not sit on their hands.' Ideally that would include a vow to use U.S. air power and naval assets. The Europeans also want to maintain an American troop presence on the eastern flank of NATO, especially if European troops are deployed in Ukraine, potentially weakening NATO's own deterrence. Europe's ready forces are relatively small, so a deployment of some of them in Ukraine would shrink NATO's defense posture. Ideally, Mr. Grand said, Mr. Rutte and the new NATO and American supreme commander in Europe, Gen. Alexus G. Grynkewich, would be charged with helping the coalition of the willing with planning. NATO is experienced at coordinating different country forces and assets, Mr. Grand said, as it has done in previous non-NATO conflicts, like Libya. 'And none of this needs to be negotiated with Putin,' Mr. Grand said. Russia could be informed but not allowed a veto, he said. He added that Moscow's reluctance or willingness to accept such guarantees 'will be a test of its good faith.' Still, Mr. Grand said, 'what worries me is who in Europe is willing to do something.' Mr. Starmer has made vague promises but the British military is small, and a commitment to Ukraine is risky and expensive and has no end date. That would normally involve rotational forces with one group in country, one group training to go and one group returning. And it would require materiel support, from arms to barracks, including armor, air defenses, air power and naval power on standby. Mr. Macron kept his enthusiasm in check after the meeting. Security guarantees come with a peace settlement, and Mr. Putin wants to continue the war, he said. With many details unsettled, it was clear that a deal to end the war is not at hand. 'Do I think Putin wants peace? I think the answer is no,' he said. 'It's far from over.' Johanna Lemola contributed reporting from Helsinki.
CNN
a few seconds ago
- CNN
Golfer says he ‘overdosed' on creatine during BMW Championship
American golfer Ben Griffin got the shakes at the BMW Championship – though it wasn't necessarily because of nerves, but rather due to swallowing a 'large rock' of creatine. World No. 17 Griffin said that he 'started getting super shaky' and 'felt like I had tremors' on Sunday after accidentally swallowing a large amount of the supplement. Creatine 'contributes to rapid energy production and may enhance power or speed bursts requiring short periods of anaerobic activity,' according to Harvard Health, and usage of the supplement is common among gym enthusiasts as there is evidence it 'can hasten muscle recovery after strenuous exercise.' 'I've taken it on the golf course before. It's fine,' Griffin said, per the PGA Tour. 'I started taking it after my second shot, and I accidentally swallowed one of the big rocks in my water bottle. I've never overdosed on creatine before, but I think I did in the moment because I didn't really drink any water after that. I basically just inhaled a snowball,' the two-time PGA Tour winner explained. Griffin said that he usually takes 15mg of the supplement daily, but on this occasion, he estimates he accidentally ingested that amount at one time. 'I was physically shaking like I've never felt before,' Griffin said. 'And I don't normally miss a lot of short putts. It was really a weird situation.' The golfer said that his caddie intervened by making him drink water and calming him down. Griffin was six over par for the first three holes – carding a triple-bogey, double-bogey and bogey – and the golfer thought about withdrawing from the tournament, but after that, he said the physical effects started to wear off. He then made seven birdies and signed for a one-under 69, finishing tied for 12th in an impressive comeback. 'It was probably more just a little bit flustered. I was fine after the second shot on two. And then it was – I felt good so I went about my day and got it back to under par,' he said. The golfer said he will be limiting his intake of the supplement in future, calling the events of the day a 'pretty crazy story.' 'I don't think I'll be taking too much creatine in the future. I will take it, but not in the amount that I probably did on the golf course, which wasn't probably a healthy amount.'
