...
By Sophie Clark
Live News Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The judge overseeing the case against the Defense Department's firing of transgender service members revealed that the military spends eight times more on erectile dysfunction medication than on gender affirming care.
While discussing military spending with the Defense Department (DoD) attorney for the ongoing Talbott v Trump case, Judge Ana Reyes said the DoD spends approximately $5.2 million annually on medical care for service members with gender dysphoria.
Comparatively, the DoD spends $42 million a year on medication for service members with erectile dysfunction.
Read More on Politics
The US District Judge asked: "It's not even a rounding error, right?"
DoD attorney Jason Manion said: "If it's a cost per service member, it does matter."
Manion has been contacted for comment via email.
...
Why It Matters
The DoD's new policy on transgender service members would impact approximately 2,000 troops. The US military is already experiencing recruitment struggles, and plaintiffs in Talbott v Trump argue that transgender service members have already been invested in by the government and have proven they meet readiness standards, so they should not be removed from their posts.
A military scholar told Newsweek on background that without diverse recruitment the military will not be able to reach its retention goals or recruit top talent.
What To Know
This back and forth about Viagra spending was part of a larger contentious hearing between Reyes and DoD attorneys.
At one point, attorneys had to admit to Reyes that they had never read articles which were included as evidence. Reyes then said they had "cherry picked" and "egregiously misquoted" studies put forward by the Pentagon on transgender people decreasing the lethality of the military.
In response to this Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law) and one of the lead attorneys representing transgender service members in this case told Newsweek: "DoD's submission of articles and analysis that they haven't read is consistent with the shameful way this administration has been carrying out this purge. Not only is there no evidence before the Court that supports terminating committed service members from the military, the only evidence submitted by the government shows how valuable these troops are."
Reyes brought up Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's statement that transgender people "lack warrior ethos, are liars, lack integrity, are not humble, are selfish and can't meet physical mental fitness requirements."
Reyes then questioned an attorney for the DoD - whose name has not yet been made available to Newsweek - asking: "You would agree with me that calling people liars and lacking integrity and not able to meet rigorous standards for discipline is insulting -- yes or no, or you can't say?"
The attorney responded: "Maybe." They added that exact language was not used in the executive order or Hegseth's directive.
The exact wording of the executive order is: "A man's assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member...military service must be reserved for those mentally and physically fit for duty."
Reyes continued: "So, people with gender dysphoria can't be honest, humble, or have integrity. You think that's demeaning to people with gender dysphoria?"
The attorney responded: "I can't answer that question."
She pressed further, stating that the assertions that transgender people experience higher rates of suicidal ideation are due to increased discrimination, not, as the DoD argued, because of inherent mental health problems associated with being transgender.
Transgender troops make up less than one percent of the military, yet the government is currently pouring resources into court cases to defend their firing, as well as removing paid and trained service members from their duties.
The case is ultimately a Fifth Amendment case over lack of due process. The troops suing the DoD claim they were fired without cause and were not offered equal protection under the law.
It was brought by active-duty service members Nicolas Talbott, Erica Vandal, Kate Cole, Gordon Herrero, Dany Danridge, Jamie Hash, Koda Nature, and Cael Neary.
Major Vandal has received a Bronze Star "for heroic or meritorious achievements or service while engaged against an enemy of the United States," and ENS Danridge was awarded one Sailor of the Year award during his service.
It was brought against Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as president of the United States; the United States of America; Peter B. Hegseth, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; Mark Averill, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Army; The United States Department of the Army; Terence Emmert, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Navy; the United States Department of the Navy; Gary Ashworth, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Air Force; The United States Department of the Air Force; Telita Crosland, in her official capacity as director of the Defense Health Agency; and the Defense Health Agency.
The DoD told Newsweek: "As a matter of policy, the Department does not comment on ongoing litigation."
...
What People Are Saying
The White House executive order on transgender troops: "Consistent with the military mission and longstanding DoD policy, expressing a false 'gender identity' divergent from an individual's sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service. Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual's sex conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one's personal life. A man's assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member."
Talbott v Trump plaintiffs' complaint: "The executive order invokes no study of the effectiveness of transgender service members over the past four years, of their ability to serve, or of their integrity and selflessness in volunteering to serve their country, and the directive's stated rationale is refuted by substantial research and testimony, as well as by years of capable and honorable service by transgender service members without issue."
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law, a lead attorney representing transgender servicemembers in this case told Newsweek: "These service members are among the finest across the service branches. They have served tours of duty, received commendations, and saved lives. This country is weaker, made more fragile, without them. I wish people across the country could spend time with the incredible men and women who dedicate their lives every day in service of the Nation.
"I have heard from all across the military that what matters when you are in a foxhole is that the person next to you will do everything to save you. It doesn't matter whether they are transgender or not. When you put on the uniform, differences fall away. What matters is their courage, their commitment, and their willingness to sacrifice for their fellow service members and for the ideals that our nation represents. What matters is that they stand ready to defend our freedom."
What Happens Next
The plaintiffs have asked for a declaratory judgement that the president's ban is "unconstitutional," and to serve "a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the categorical exclusion of transgender people from military service."
Levi told Newsweek: "We are committed to challenging this unfair, unconstitutional, and harmful ban. But we are also hopeful that the Court who heard the case yesterday will protect American values of equality and fair treatment."
Judge Reyes said she will likely have a ruling by next week, although the possibility of an appeal means her ruling will not be the "last stop in this train's journey."
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines