Broken Promises: How the DoD Is Stripping LGBTQ Troops of Service, Rights, and Retirement
Near-Retirement Troops Are Being Forced Out for Who They Are
Booted Before the Finish Line: How the Pentagon’s Return to Exclusion Strips Veterans of Service, Rights, and Retirement
By Wilbur Brower
Introduction
For decades the United States military has been an all-volunteer force that promises—explicitly and implicitly—lifetime benefits for those who complete the long, often dangerous journey of service. Yet in 2025 a series of Pentagon and White House directives reversed years of inclusion for lesbian, gay, and particularly transgender service members, producing a stark and painful consequence: trained, fit, and near-retirement troops are being forced out of uniform and, in some cases, denied the retirement pay and benefits they expected to receive. This exposé documents how those policies came to be, evaluates the legal and policy rationales offered by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the executive branch, contrasts those rationales with independent studies and court findings, and explains the human and institutional consequences—both for individuals and for national security.
A Brief History
From exclusion to partial inclusion (1993–2011): 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' barred openly gay and lesbian service members until Congress repealed it in 2011, permitting openly gay and lesbian troops to serve.
Policy upheaval around transgender service (2016–2021): Under the Obama administration, DoD moved toward allowing qualified transgender individuals to serve openly. The Trump administration announced restrictions in 2017 that were litigated heavily and partially enjoined in federal courts.
Biden-era reversal, then later reinstatement (2021–2025): President Biden rescinded the prior ban and the DoD published inclusive guidance. In 2025, a new executive order and Pentagon directives reinstated exclusionary rules; the Supreme Court allowed enforcement of that ban while litigation continues.
Current Reality
Recent reporting and Pentagon memos show that service members diagnosed as transgender or identified as transgender under the new policy are being separated, and in some cases were initially promised—but later denied—early retirement or prorated retirement benefits. Multiple media outlets report that Air Force/Space Force members who were told they could take a temporary early retirement authority (TERA) option were later informed that their applications were rejected; some were offered lump-sum separation payments instead of continued service or retirement pay.
DoD Justifications
Military readiness and unit cohesion: Officials argue that exclusion protects unit effectiveness, citing concerns about training, medical readiness, or disruptions tied to gender-transition processes.
Medical cost and logistical burden: Some defenders point to potential medical costs and administrative burdens of gender-affirming care as a reason to restrict service.
Deference to military judgment: The executive branch often invokes broad deference to military planners and commanders, arguing that personnel decisions are within the military’s purview for national security reasons.
Evidence Against Justifications
Courts have been skeptical: Federal judges and appellate panels have repeatedly required concrete evidence that exclusionary policies actually serve military readiness.
Independent studies find minimal readiness impact: RAND Corporation and Congressional Research Service concluded transgender service has limited impact on readiness or costs.
Medical cost arguments are overstated: Gender-affirming care costs are modest relative to DoD’s total healthcare budget.
Legal and Ethical Problems
Property and contract expectations: Forcing separation before retirement vesting can be seen as depriving a property interest without due process.
Equal-protection concerns: Targeting by gender identity raises constitutional issues.
Breach of trust: Revocations of retirement eligibility damage the military’s credibility, harming retention and recruitment.
Perception
Among affected service members: Widespread sense of betrayal and discrimination.
Among military leadership: Some see it as restoring discipline.
Public and international: Risks U.S. reputation for merit-based service.
Human Consequences
Loss of pension, TRICARE eligibility, family stability, and mental well-being. Abrupt policy shifts amplify the harm.
Policy Analysis
Political cycles drive instability. Lack of evidence-based policymaking leads to harmful reversals. Talent loss undermines readiness.
Recommendations
1. Congressional statutory protections for retirement and non-discrimination.
2. Immediate DoD safeguards against retroactive separation.
3. Evidence-based policymaking with transparent data.
4. Legal remedies for harmed individuals.
5. Cultural integration programs.
Summary
The DoD’s exclusionary policies against LGBTQ service members near retirement undermine trust, ignore evidence, and harm national security. The justifications—readiness, cost, and deference—are unconvincing in light of empirical data and legal precedent. The consequences for individuals are severe, and the damage to military cohesion and reputation could be long-lasting.
References
“ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging Trump’s Transgender Service-Member Ban.” American Civil Liberties Union, 2017–2018, www.aclu.org/cases/stone-v-trump.
“Air Force Denies Retirement Benefits for Some Trans Troops.” Air & Space Forces Magazine, 7 Aug. 2025, www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-retirement-benefits-transgender/.
“Biden Administration Overturns Transgender Exclusion Policy.” U.S. Department of Defense, 2021, www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/article/2482048/biden-administration-overturns-transgender-exclusion-policy/.
“Department of Defense—Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Resources.” U.S. Department of Defense, defense.gov/Spotlights/Dont-Ask-Dont-Tell-Resources/.
“Questions Remain, Litigation Continues, over Military Service by Transgender Persons.” Congressional Research Service, 2018, everycrsreport.com/files/20170830_IN10740.pdf.
“Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’” Human Rights Campaign, 2011, hrc.org.
“Reuters: US Supreme Court lets Trump’s transgender military ban take effect.” Reuters, 6 May 2025, www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-lets-trumps-transgender-military-ban-take-effect-2025-05-06/.
Karnoski v. Trump. Lambda Legal, lambdalegal.org/case/karnoski-v-trump.
Karnoski v. Trump. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2019, cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/06/14/18-35347.pdf.
Kheel, Rebecca, et al. “The Thin Evidence Behind Trump’s New Ban on Trans Service Members.” Vox, 2025, www.vox.com/politics/397158/trans-military-ban-executive-order-trump.