Trans Ban Could Cost $18 Billion, According To Trans Military Organization
A potential trans military ban could cost the United States $18 billion in accumulated operational investment, with $1 billion in initial replacement costs.
On Sunday night, The Times reported that Donald Trump plans to ban transgender people from serving in the military, potentially discharging 15,000 transgender service members. Since the news broke, Trump campaign officials have attempted to downplay the report, stating that “no decision has been made.” However, Trump’s previous transgender military ban and the views of Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegseth strongly suggest that some form of restrictions on transgender service members is imminent. Now, Emily “Hawking” Shilling, president of SPARTA, a leading trans military advocacy organization, is highlighting the cost. SPARTA warns that implementing such a ban could cost the government $1 billion upfront and up to $18 billion in lost investments.
That’s because, according to SPARTA, 73% of the 15,000 transgender service members are senior enlisted personnel with 12 to 21 years of experience. SPARTA’s calculations estimate the total operational investment in these service members to be up to $176,000 per year per person, amounting to $18 billion in capital investment. This figure is in addition to the $1 billion estimated by the Palm Center Study as the cost to recruit and train replacements for those discharged under a potential ban.
When asked about potential cost savings, Shilling noted that the healthcare cost per transgender service member is only about $650 annually, amounting to just $8 million in savings each year—a negligible amount compared to the substantial financial losses a ban would inflict.
“The most immediate impact is that transgender people serve in every theater of the world. If it were a fairly fast-moving ban, you would be pulling these individuals out of their units, leaving critical gaps in skill sets, experience, and leadership positions that you’re just not going to be able to fill with equivalent people anytime soon, especially given the shortfalls in recruiting,” says Shilling.
In 2017, Trump issued a memorandum banning transgender individuals from military service, citing a “financial burden.” Though court injunctions initially delayed the ban, it ultimately went into effect in 2019. According to transgender military leaders, many transgender service members were spared removal because they were grandfathered in, provided they obtained a gender dysphoria diagnosis before the ban took effect. However, those unable to secure a diagnosis in time were forced to delay their transitions, leading to a rise in suicides. SPARTA reports that up to 31 transgender service members took their lives during that period.
It remains uncertain whether the Trump administration will issue a full ban on transgender military service or how quickly such a ban could be implemented. While Project 2025 advocates for a total ban, Trump’s Agenda 47 outlines a federal funding ban that could restrict access to transgender healthcare without necessarily resulting in service member removal. Additionally, Trump’s plan to federally recognize only gender assigned at birth raises further questions about how these policies would interact with his ultimate decision on transgender military service.
Trump’s Defense Secretary nominee, Pete Hegseth, signals potentially disastrous policies not only for transgender service members but also for cisgender women in the military. In his recent book, Hegseth explicitly dismisses transgender service members as “a distraction,” writing, “Men who are pretending to be women, or vice versa, are a distraction. It might be your thing, but it’s weird and does not add substantive value to anyone.” He has also decried a “woke” military, argued that women in combat roles weaken the armed forces, and advocated for the dismissal of so-called “woke generals.”
A transgender officer with years of military experience, speaking anonymously about the rumors of an impending transgender military ban, shared that she had recently spoken with several transgender service members deeply concerned about the possibility. When asked about claims that transgender people are a liability to the military, she dismissed the notion outright, stating, “Every trans service member that I have observed performing their job excels at their job, and that’s because we have to… Every trans sailor, every trans soldier, every trans Marine, and airman that I have known has excelled at their job.”
Shilling remains hopeful that transgender service members will be able to continue serving, emphasizing that nothing is finalized until it becomes official policy. “In the meantime,” she says, “nonprofit organizations are exploring every avenue to help,” including job transition assistance, healthcare funding, and legal support.
When asked what message SPARTA would like to convey to policymakers, Shilling says, “The bottom line is that we are deployed, combat-ready volunteers, ready to do the nation’s business of supporting and defending it, and every individual in our country, no matter what their opinions or differences are; we fight as one.”
I can’t understand how the majority of Americans so hell bent on defending their own rights, turn such a blind eye to the plight of people society calls *Trans.
As it'd not be his own money he's wasting, but rather the taxpayers', I don't expect any price tag to be too steep for Chump and the rest of his gaggle of goose-stepping goblins.