By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Private Policy and Terms of Use.
Second Lieutenant Nic Talbott, Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill, Air Force recruit Clayton McCallister
“Mr. Secretary, do not implement this ban," the Illinois senator wrote in a letter to Pete Hegseth.
On the eve of the most sweeping purge of transgender personnel in modern U.S. military history, Sen. Tammy Duckworth, a Democrat representing Illinois, is leading a last-minute attempt to halt what she and 22 other Senate Democrats call a “foolhardy,” “cruel,” and politically motivated expulsion of thousands of qualified service members.
Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate's email newsletter.
In a scathing letter delivered Thursday to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Duckworth—an Iraq War veteran and double amputee who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee—denounced the Trump administration’s May 15 implementation memo as “not leadership” but a corrosive directive that “punishes those who have volunteered to serve.”
“Servicemembers’ privacy is being invaded, their livelihoods are being threatened, and they are being used as a political tool to appeal to a minority of Americans,” the letter states. “This policy will harm our armed services’ operational readiness and lethality.”
Related: Pete Hegseth is trying to force this transgender soldier out of the military. He won't leave voluntarily
The ban, authorized under Executive Order 14183, takes effect Friday, following a May 6 U.S. Supreme Court decision that lifted nationwide injunctions issued in Shilling v. United States and Talbott v. United States. The Court’s unsigned ruling allowed the Pentagon to proceed with discharges while litigation continues. It did not explain its decision.
The Department of Defense’s guidance—signed by Hegseth—orders commanders to review the medical records of any service member suspected of having a diagnosis or symptoms “consistent with gender dysphoria.” Those flagged must voluntarily resign by June 6 or face administrative discharge. Most will receive an official separation code, stating their continued service is “not clearly consistent with the interests of national security.”
The policy has been condemned by a growing number of military leaders, medical associations, and civil rights groups as both discriminatory and strategically self-defeating.
In their letter, Senate Democrats demand answers from Hegseth: What will be the cost? What evidence justifies the claim that trans troops harm national security? What studies were conducted before implementation?
“To date,” they write, “your DoD has failed to produce any meaningful evidence to suggest otherwise, much less to prove that transgender servicemembers threaten national security. Using this discharge code is not only cruel; it’s stupid.”
Related: Meet the transgender Army lieutenant who is challenging Donald Trump's military ban
Duckworth’s cosigners include Sens. Tammy Baldwin, Richard Blumenthal, Cory Booker, Chris Coons, John Fetterman, Ruben Gallego, Adam Schiff, and others.
The letter follows a similar outreach effort Duckworth led in April. On Wednesday evening, at the Equality PAC National Pride Gala in Washington, D.C., U.S. Navy Commander Emily “Hawking” Shilling—the lead plaintiff in Shilling v. United States—stepped to the microphone. A combat aviator and test pilot with nearly 20 years of service, Shilling addressed the crowd as both a decorated officer and a transgender American.
“This fight for the right to serve frightens me more than combat,” she said. “But fear is a compass. And I know all of you—whether you want to or not—have a little bit of fear. That compass tells us where we need to go. So we go there. We stand. We lead.”
Shilling now leads SPARTA, a nonpartisan organization of more than 2,400 transgender service members and veterans. Many of its members are now at risk of losing their jobs, benefits, and future careers—not for misconduct or underperformance, but for their identity.
Related: This trans Air Force recruit wants to jump out of planes to save others. He's suing Trump to serve
The Department’s memo reinstates the ban on gender-affirming care for active-duty personnel and explicitly directs branches to bar affected individuals from future enlistment or reentry. Discharged personnel will be excluded from job transition programs, such as SkillBridge, and their separation codes may limit post-service employment opportunities in national security or defense.
Critics have likened the policy to the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” era—only worse. Unlike DADT, the current ban contains no grandfather clause, no review board, and no path back. Critics argue that it requires commanders to proactively identify and remove troops, transforming units into surveillance hubs and eroding trust into suspicion.
And unlike its 2017 predecessor, which was reversed by the Biden administration in 2021, this version is more sweeping, less transparent, and legally unmoored, they argue. The Supreme Court’s stay is not a final ruling, but it removes all practical barriers to enforcement.
Related: Transgender Army officer Erica Vandal was born into military service. Now, she's suing Trump to stay in
“This is not about readiness,” attorney Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights previously told The Advocate. “It’s about fear. About punishing people for who they are, not how they serve.”
For Duckworth, the ban is not just a policy failure—it’s a betrayal.
And in the final line of the senators’ letter, one message stands above the rest:
“Mr. Secretary, do not implement this ban.”
