Is America Better Yet? ·

Transgender Military Ban: If Standards Are the Standard, Why Remove Qualified Troops? — Is America Better Yet?

Pete Hegseth used a slur for transgender people while promising a merit-based military. Court records show decorated transgender troops already met the standards. So what, exactly, is being tested?

Roberto Zapatero

— 8 min read
Share

The Pentagon says the policy is about merit and readiness. Decorated transgender service members and federal court records raise a harder question: what happens when proven performance no longer decides who stays?

By Roberto Zapatero
Independent Forensic Investigative Journalist, Is America Better Yet?
Published: August 30, 2026
Living Record: current through August 30, 2026

When a federal judge reviewed the record of U.S. Navy Commander Emily “Hawking” Shilling, the question was not whether she could do the job.

At the time of the March 2025 ruling, Shilling had been a naval aviator for 19 years. She had flown more than 60 combat missions, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, logged about 1,750 hours in high-performance Navy jets, served as a test pilot and earned three Air Medals. The court said the Navy had already spent about $20 million training her. It also found no claim and no evidence that Shilling had harmed unit cohesion, military readiness or lethality, or that she was mentally or physically unable to continue serving.

Shilling is transgender.

Under the 2025 policy, transgender status is not written as the formal medical test. The policy instead makes a current diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria, or symptoms consistent with that diagnosis, generally incompatible with military service, subject to narrow waivers. It also requires service members to follow standards tied to their sex.

A federal appeals court later concluded, at the preliminary-injunction stage, that the policy went further than a medical rule and targeted transgender service members more broadly. That was a judicial conclusion in ongoing litigation, not a final ruling on the ultimate merits.

That leaves a basic military question:

If a service member meets the military’s standards, follows lawful orders and performs the job, what military purpose is served by ending that career because of a gender-dysphoria history?

What Adam Mockler put on the screen

This story came back into focus after Adam Mockler, host of Mockler HQ, stopped during an August 25 video to address a new remark from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.

Mockler’s video was about a broader set of political stories. But when Hegseth’s speech appeared on screen, Mockler broke from the main subject and challenged the language. He described the term Hegseth used for transgender people as offensive and argued that rhetoric aimed at demeaning a group does not build cohesion.

IABY checked the underlying clip against the government’s own record.

The U.S. Department of War published the official transcript of Hegseth’s August 24 speech in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. In a passage about rebuilding the “warrior ethos,” Hegseth said:

“No more trannies, just training.”

The next words in the official transcript described the military as “colorblind, gender neutral, merit-based.”

Those two parts of the same statement deserve to be examined together. If the standard is merit, then the evidence should show whether an individual can meet the mission. If the standard is readiness, the evidence should show whether that individual is ready.

Mockler did not prove what the military policy does or why it was adopted. His commentary did something useful instead: it surfaced a fresh statement by the nation’s top civilian military leader that made the underlying record worth checking again. IABY followed that lead into the executive order, Pentagon guidance, court findings and earlier military integration decisions.

What the policy actually says

President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14183, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” on January 27, 2025. The order says military success requires readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity and integrity. It directs the military to treat gender dysphoria and gender identity policies as matters affecting those goals.

The administration’s stated case is not simply that it dislikes transgender identity. Its written rationale raises military questions about medical readiness, deployability, physical standards, privacy, unit cohesion and uniform rules.

Those are legitimate subjects for military policy. The unresolved issue is whether the government has shown that a broad exclusion tied to gender-dysphoria history is a better measure of military fitness than the individual service member’s actual performance and readiness.

In February 2025, the Department of Defense issued implementing guidance stating that a current diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria, or symptoms consistent with the diagnosis, is incompatible with military service. After the Supreme Court allowed implementation to proceed while litigation continued, the department began voluntary and involuntary separation procedures for affected service members, with limited waiver provisions.

That is the government’s policy. The court record shows why its application has become controversial.

The court record makes the question concrete

Shilling was not the only decorated service member challenging the policy.

In the Washington case, the seven active-duty transgender plaintiffs had 115 years of combined military service and more than 70 medals. The district judge emphasized that the government had not shown that Shilling herself was unable to serve effectively.

The U.S. Supreme Court did not decide whether the policy was constitutional when it acted on May 6, 2025. The Court stayed the Washington preliminary injunction while the appeal continued. Three justices would have denied the stay. That order allowed the policy to operate during litigation; it was not a final merits ruling approving the policy.

A separate case produced a major appellate ruling this year. On June 1, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit addressed Talbott v. United States. Judge Robert Wilkins wrote that the government had not contested that the currently serving plaintiffs, who collectively had earned more than 80 commendations, had served honorably and posed no threat to national security.

At this preliminary stage, Wilkins concluded that parts of the policy were arbitrary and based on animus toward transgender people. The court kept preliminary protection in place for the named current service members while lifting it for the plaintiffs seeking to enter the military.

Again, that is not a final nationwide judgment on the merits. It is important because it shows that federal courts are testing the administration’s stated readiness rationale against actual military records, not merely against political arguments from either side.

We have heard the cohesion argument before

The histories are not identical, and they should not be treated as if they are. But the military has faced earlier disputes in which leaders had to decide whether discomfort with a group should control policy or whether performance standards should control.

When “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ended in 2011, repeal did not mean abandoning readiness or discipline. Federal law required certification that repeal could be implemented consistently with military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention. Defense Department guidance continued to require dignity, respect, good order and discipline.

The same basic issue appeared when combat positions were opened to women. In December 2015, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced that all military occupations would open to qualified women beginning in 2016. The department acknowledged concerns that some service members believed integration could hurt combat effectiveness. Its answer was not to pretend that differences or implementation problems did not exist. It emphasized standards, ability, force effectiveness, deliberate implementation and no quotas.

The lesson is narrower than a historical analogy: military inclusion has repeatedly been tested against mission performance, standards and evidence. Personal discomfort by itself has not been treated as a substitute for those measurements.

That leads to a practical question for any professional force. Suppose one qualified service member meets the applicable standards, while another objects to serving beside that person. Which problem should military discipline address?

The answer cannot be assumed in advance. But neither can the objecting member’s discomfort be treated automatically as proof that the qualified member is the readiness problem.

What the evidence says, and what it does not

In 2016, after a Defense Department request, the RAND Corporation studied the likely effects of allowing transgender people to serve openly. RAND estimated that the effect on health costs and overall readiness would be small. Its review of foreign militaries found no significant effect on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness or readiness in the countries it examined.

That study has limits. It relied partly on estimates, older medical assumptions and a small body of foreign-military experience. It does not prove that every medical case is simple, that every service member is deployable, or that military standards should never differ by sex or medical condition.

But it does matter to one narrower claim. The evidence available then did not show that being transgender, by itself, made effective military service impossible. The later court records provide concrete examples of transgender troops who accumulated combat missions, promotions, specialized training and commendations while serving.

Mockler’s segment did not establish those facts. It pointed toward a question. The primary records are what give the question weight.

So who is failing the standards test?

Hegseth says the military should be focused on lethality, training and merit. Those are measurable ideas.

Shilling’s combat record is measurable. Flight hours are measurable. Medals, qualifications, deployments, medical readiness and disciplinary records are measurable. So are the costs of recruiting and training replacements.

A slur is not a readiness standard.

The administration may ultimately persuade courts that its policy rests on lawful military judgments entitled to substantial deference. The plaintiffs may ultimately prevail in showing that the policy unlawfully substitutes group-based exclusion for individual fitness. Those legal questions are still being fought.

What can already be tested is simpler: when officials say the military is returning to merit, are they applying merit to the individual standing in front of them?

Commander Emily Shilling’s record makes that question difficult to avoid.

Watch IABY for updates. Subscribe free to get new reporting by email.

Sources

Reporting and verification note

IABY treated Adam Mockler’s video as a lead and commentary source, not as proof of the underlying claims. Hegseth’s wording was checked against the government’s official transcript. The policy descriptions were checked against the executive order and Defense Department guidance. The service records and legal status were checked against court orders and dockets. Historical comparisons were checked against Defense Department and RAND records.

This is a Living Record. Material new rulings, corrections or documentary evidence will be dated and added without erasing earlier versions.

Artificial intelligence was used to assist with research organization, drafting, editing and verification. AI-generated material was not treated as evidence. Factual claims were checked against identifiable sources before publication.

Roberto Zapatero (IABY) remains responsible for the reporting, writing, sourcing, editorial judgment and final published text. AI assistance does not replace source records, human review, principal article writing or independent verification.

Copyright: © 2026 Roberto Zapatero / Is America Better Yet? All rights reserved.

If you have military records, policy documents or firsthand information that materially adds to this reporting, IABY welcomes documented corrections and evidence. Please keep discussion civil and protect private information about service members who have not chosen to make it public.

This reporting also depends on people who help IABY check records, track sources and solve the technical problems that make independent publishing possible. Their work often happens out of sight, but it matters on every page.

Roberto Zapatero
Independent Forensic Investigative Journalist
Is America Better Yet?

I write for you,

— Roberto

isamericabetteryet.org

Read more