Fired Trans Troops Sue Air Force
Transgender members of the Air Force sue over losing retirement pay
By KONSTANTIN TOROPIN
WASHINGTON (AP) — A group of 17 transgender members of the Air Force are suing the U.S. government over what they say is the military’s unlawful revocation of their early retirement pensions and benefits.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court Monday, comes several months after the Air Force confirmed that it would deny all transgender service members who have served between 15 and 18 years the option to retire early and would instead separate them without retirement benefits.
It is just the latest in a series of legal challenges to the Trump administration’s policies that have sought to push transgender troops out of the military since the early days of his second term. The U.S. Supreme Court in May, however, allowed the ban on trans troops to be enforced while legal challenges proceed.
According to GLAD Law, one of the advocacy groups that helped bring the lawsuit, service members affected by the policy will now face a loss of up to $2 million owed for their service over the course of their lifetimes in addition to the loss of health insurance benefits.
Michael Haley, a staff attorney with the group, said the revocation of the early retirement benefits was part of “the general cruelty in attacking transgender people.” He noted that many of the plaintiffs had received orders allowing their retirements and that some had even begun the process of getting out of the military.
The system has corrected an error. But by changing standards a group is suddenly unfit to serve. Is it fair to award the good-faith service of those adversely affected by denial of earned benefits normally bestowed after honorable service? I’d say they have a case. Thanks to a Usual Suspect for the link.
Category: Big Pentagon, Guest Link
I’d say, sure, give them healthcare benefits. BUT!!
It has to be the same healthcare benefits the rest of us regular GIs get, no special privileges;
VA for healthcare, stand in line, wait for an appointment (weeks, months, you know, like Canadia), you get what the bureaucrat gives you; all the regular non-care like the rest of us get.
(all of the above said with tongue firmly planted in both cheeks)
They have an extremely good case I believe, they were allowed to serve and did so honorably for those 15-18 years as none of them were dismissed or discharged for cause prior to this change in policy. That would mean there is nothing about their service that was sub-standard that resulted in their current separations other than the policy change.
If they fulfilled their end of the bargain, and if the military has a history of allowing people between 15-18 years of service an early retirement option the military will be hard pressed in a court of law to defend denial of benefits as anything other than the petty act of yet another feckless bureaucracy.
Understand my thoughts on this are based solely on the notion they were allowed to serve, not whether they should have been allowed to serve. Because they were allowed they should receive the benefits that every other honorably serving member would receive for the length of time they did serve.
As my father used to say, if you’re word ain’t worth shit neither are you.
Absolutely true, but did they have the opportunity to get within standards, and were they sufficiently warned what’d happen if’n not?
I’m glad there’s a court case and I’m looking forward to sanity prevailing.
I remember when Stop Lost shanghaied people, then the courts and much public opinion told those within MSO to “read gooder”. This is just like that situation, ‘kidnapping’ young men to force them to war but this is more like “don’t wear that dress, Tommy”.
Hear! Hear!!
Fook off.
They knew they were DEI lower standard politically protected when they joined.
“Is it fair to award the good-faith service of those adversely affected by denial of earned benefits normally bestowed after honorable service? I’d say they have a case.”
Knock off the DEI bullshit.
You don’t know what it means. Or what the policies even did.
Tell me in YOUR OWN WORDS what DEI means. I triple-dog dare you. Your words. Not pre-approved, scripted, liberal/progressive/antifa/BLM talking points.
DEI is nothing more than the new discrimination. A reverse application of democrat’s Jim Crow laws. It places a higher value on a person based on their skin color, sex, gender orientation, sexuality, or any myriad of things other than what should actually matter. And what matters is ability, skill, work ethic, and productivity. DEI helped no one except the people running DEI programs. No other human beings benefitted from it, and companies suffered from being forced to kneel before the DEI altar. The Biden administration is the biggest example ever of the failures of DEI. Nobody in that administration, starting with Joe himself, was brought on board based on any kind of real, tangible, quantifiable skill, talent, ability, or experience.
Your turn.
He won’t respond cuz he is busy chairing a double dutch-rudder Antifa circle jerk. The pantifa boyz from Portland are still in town from that Turning Point riot at Bezerkely.
I know what the policies did because SEC Army Fanning, chosen by Obama for the box he checked, stood in front of my class at Carlisle and said “you send me a command select list that’s not diverse enough, I’m sending it back.” That’s verbatim.
Dude (and I use that word loosely) was himself a DEI select who was publicly stating qualities other than merit were more important. That’s DEI. Call me crazy, I want our commanders to be the best, and I don’t care what color they are, as long as you select them for their merit.
Given the command select list came out late that year because Fanning got knee deep in it, we know what the policies did; they removed some people and inserted others. That’s DEI in action.
Have someone read this to you.
https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2025/11/13/new-us-to-designate-antifa-a-foreign-terrorist-network-n3808865
No one cares what you think. You’re a domestic terrorist.
Fuck alllllllllllll the way off.
DEI is affirmative action on steroids, and it’s a social justice dogshit concept.
Your past VP, SCOTUS appointee, and the press secretary for the last administration are all examples of it…all proving to abysmal failures.
I would give them the option of finishing out out their time in the gender in which they were born, or leave voluntarily. If they stay, which I doubt, and serve out their time honorably they deserve retirement bennies. If to” want stay “identifying as a transgender”, then you don’t get early retirement benefits because you are leaving on you own volition. If some non-trans trooper decides “Fuck it, I’m outta here after 16 years” because of policy changes…
Treat them like the democrats treated the vaxx common sense folks in the military.
The democrats showed us the way.
And, NO, we don’t have to be gracious.
Your daddy, the PotUS, won’t call you “Sparkles McGoo” so you leave in a fit over your unwillingness to {checks notes} follow an order?
TL,DR: the nation sidestepped threats from rainbow zips in the wire.
As misguided as the trans folks are, if they served within the published regulations and guidance, and that guidance changed, the right thing is to give them something. I’m sure there is some precedent for this and don’t think the Dem-led COVID abortion is the right one.
Pretty sure the desire to play like they’re ladies wasn’t service connected (even though they’re USAF), so there should be nothing for that… (Mostly kidding, the USAF is okay, but statistics can be very telling.)
Wouldn’t call these DIE hires, they are people who joined, decided to change their lifestyle, was told (whether or not the service did so erroneously) their lifestyle was acceptable (hence within contract.) When the standard was changed, they knew they had to get out – as someone with a medical discharge, I know service isn’t guaranteed BUT: “He noted that many of the plaintiffs had received orders allowing their retirements and that some had even begun the process of getting out of the military.” Can’t have it both ways, “you’re allowed to retire” and “I lied – no you can’t” don’t coexist. If they have it in writing that they were able to retire or started retiring, they indeed should have a valid suit. In a perfect world when Airman John Doe decided he wanted to be Airman Jane Doe in violation of the standards he/she/it should have gotten out THEN, but our ‘esteemed’ Pentagon of the time let them stay… and I think legally we are stuck with the consequences. Just MY my thoughts.
I think this is an accurate assessment of the legal aspect of the case.
I disagree with the transpeople’s lifestyle. But more than that, I fully disagree with the government cheating anyone of any early retirement pay that was earned.
Fair is fair, and they abided by their contract … or were tolerated enough for them to accrue time in service. That’s on us.
The US Government should “man up” and make them whole. [I could riff off of that phrase, but won’t.]
I agree rgr1480
If a member went for early retirement but prior to failed the PT test and was administratively separated, they don’t get squat since they could not maintain standards.You can serve 19 years 11 months and still get booted. Until that sweet 214 is in your grasp, you are subject to the government. Back after DADT was passed, several members tried this very thing to get their retirements. It did not work then, it will not work now. Many of us experienced the time of Stop Loss and how many tried to finagle that situation to no success.
What a fascinating compare and contrast between the left and the right.
Re: Transgender SMs: I don’t agree with their choices, but if the government made them a bargain, it needs to uphold it’s end of the deal.
Re: COVID refusals: Fuck you. Here’s your OTH. Hope you enjoy “a winter of severe illness and death.”
What did the DSM say about gender dysphoria, compared to DOD, 15–18 years ago?
15-18 years ago, gender dysphoria was a disqualifying factor within the DOD.
Making things worse, the DSM became garbage because…too many reasons to explain in this forum.
DOD fucked up because science NEVER changed, but policy did.
Now here we are…
15-18 years means they likely joined under don’t ask don’t tell but also likely spent most of their time pushing the alphabet agenda, should probably have a special board to determine performance and period of honorable service