As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have witnessed firsthand how policies affecting transgender service members impact our military readiness.
In 2016, the country made a commitment to transgender Americans, allowing them to serve in the military as transgender people. Many relied on that promise, taking the military at its word. There are brave transgender men and women serving today who held up their end of the bargain.
They transitioned during military service and continue in the military serving with distinction and meeting the rigorous standards applied to all who wear the uniform.
When President Trump announced in 2017 that transgender people would be banned from service, the 2018 Mattis Policy was developed to carry out that ban. And let’s be clear about what that policy actually did. Although it allowed a small group of transgender service members who had already transitioned to continue serving, it barred anyone else who came after them from doing so.
No other transgender person in service was permitted to transition and live as transgender in the military. No transgender person who had transitioned could newly join the military. It was a ban on transgender individuals serving as transgender individuals.
In 2021, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin reversed that ban, allowing transgender people to serve if they meet the military’s rigorous standards. Now, as Trump promises again to prohibit transgender people from serving, we must not be fooled if the military comes forward with another version of the Mattis Policy. Any policy that prevents transgender people from serving as transgender people — whether through an outright ban or through requirements to serve in one’s birth sex — is a ban, plain and simple.
The suggestion that transgender service members could simply serve in their birth sex fundamentally misunderstands what it means to be transgender.
While every transgender person has, at some point, lived in their birth sex — as everyone has — the point of gender transition is to live in a different sex. That’s what makes someone transgender: living in, or seeking to live in if one could, a sex different from their birth sex. Requiring service in one’s birth sex requires a transgender individual to suppress being transgender — echoing the goal of discredited conversion therapy practices.
The cost to our nation’s defense of a ban is substantial and multifaceted. First, we lose qualified service members who are meeting and exceeding our standards. These are pilots, cyber specialists, medical professionals and leaders at every level — individuals in whom we have invested millions in training and development. This investment isn’t just financial; it represents years of specialized training intended to build the next generation of military leadership.
But the damage runs deeper than the immediate loss of talent. When we depart from merit-based standards, we undermine the very foundation of military excellence. Our service members strive for excellence not just because it’s in their warrior DNA, but because they operate within a system that has historically rewarded contribution based on performance.
When we institute blanket bans based on a service member’s identity, we don’t just hurt the directly affected individuals — we erode the motivation and trust of every service member who believes in the fundamental fairness of our military.
The impact on recruitment and retention cannot be overstated. My work on the Armed Services Committee has shown that young Americans are acutely aware of how we treat their peers. When we tell qualified individuals they cannot serve as transgender people, even though they meet all standards, we send a message that resonates far beyond the transgender community. Non-transgender young Americans increasingly choose not to serve in an institution they perceive as unfair or unprincipled.
In an era where ensuring the nation’s security turns on our meeting recruitment goals, we cannot afford to alienate talented individuals who are eager to serve their country.
Perhaps most critically, discriminatory policies strike at the heart of military readiness itself. A military that does not reflect the society it serves risks becoming insular and self-protective rather than focused on its core mission of national defense. This shift from protecting our nation to protecting its own institutional biases is the antithesis of readiness and lethality. Our military’s strength has always come from its ability to draw from the full spectrum of American talent and experience.
We cannot return to policies that ban transgender service while claiming to do otherwise. Our military’s effectiveness depends on its ability to attract and retain the best qualified individuals, regardless of personal characteristics. Any policy that undermines this principle — that suggests discrimination can coexist with excellence — fundamentally misunderstands what makes our military strong.
The choice before us is clear: We can maintain a military that rewards merit and builds strength through inclusion, or we can embrace discrimination and watch our readiness erode. The safety and security of our nation, as well as the preservation of our national values, rests on us choosing merit and strength over class-based exclusions.
Gil Cisneros represents California’s 31st District and is a member of the House Armed Services Committee
