The Trump administration is trying to purge transgender service members from the military—but it can’t even say how many trans troops are currently serving.
Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate's email newsletter.
In a Saturday court filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, government lawyers admitted that the Department of Defense does not track service members by gender identity, meaning officials have no concrete data on how many trans troops are in the military. Instead, they relied on a 2016 RAND study, which estimated between 1,320 to 6,630 transgender personnel—numbers nearly a decade old.
Related: What Trump and Hegseth’s trans military ban means from the woman who helped lift the first one
“The Department of Defense does not track service members or applicants by gender identity and has no means of searching for the requested information,” government lawyers told the judge in the filing.
The admission came as part of Talbott v. Trump, a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s January 27 executive order banning transgender people from serving in the military. The case is being brought by GLAD Law and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. The administration’s justification for the ban has been riddled with unsubstantiated claims, with officials arguing that trans troops pose a threat to unit cohesion, honesty, and integrity—while failing to back up these assertions with data or evidence.
According to the court document, the government roughly estimated through medical records that the Department of Defense provided gender-affirming medical care to at least 1,892 active-duty service members between 2016 and 2021.The filing also contradicts another central Trump talking point—that gender-affirming care is a financial strain on the military.
Lawyers admitted that the Pentagon spent just $52 million over nearly a decade—a tiny fraction of the military’s $918.1 billion budget in fiscal year 2024 alone. The government’s filing concedes: “[The amount] is but a small fraction of DoD’s overall budget.”
Related: HRC, Lambda Legal sue to stop Trump’s transgender military ban
Yet, Trump’s executive order claimed gender-affirming care was a drain on resources and “incompatible” with military service. The administration’s filing contradicts that claim.
Another glaring admission? The administration failed to name any other mental health condition—besides gender dysphoria—that disqualifies someone for “honesty, humility, and integrity,” which the ban cites as justification.
When pressed to provide an example, the government had no answer. Instead, it vaguely referenced “psychiatric and behavioral disorders” without citing a single specific case. The lack of evidence raises serious doubts about why gender dysphoria, the medical condition transgender people suffer before receiving treatment, is being uniquely singled out while other treatable conditions do not trigger an automatic ban.
NCLR legal director Shannon Minter expressed confidence in the group's case. “On March 12, Judge Reyes will consider this and other information as GLAD Law and NCLR pursue a preliminary injunction to stop this harmful ban from going into effect and ensure that transgender troops who meet every qualification to serve can continue their commitment to serving our country," Minter told The Advocate in a statement.
Lambda Legal CEO Kevin Jennings reacted forcefully to the administration’s admissions in a Saturday evening interview with The Advocate. “This is proof that the trans military ban is a solution in search of a problem,” Jennings said. “If trans people’s presence was somehow disruptive to the military, they would have the data to prove it—and they don’t. This proves that this order is motivated by animus rather than reason.”
Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign filed a similar lawsuit, Shilling v. Trump, also challenging the executive order. LGBTQ+ rights organizations have been at the forefront of challenging the administration’s anti-LGBTQ+ policies, including the military ban. The organization is also suing the administration over its recent executive orders gutting diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programs and banning federal support for gender-affirming care. “Bigotry is rarely rational or fact-based,” Jennings added. “By their own admission, there are simply no facts on the ground to justify this ban.”
Jennings questioned why the administration is taking action against trans troops when it has no evidence that they are a problem. “If you can’t prove something exists, then why are you taking this action?” he asked.
Sarah Warbelow, vice president of legal at the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, echoed this sentiment, slamming the Trump administration’s justification for the ban as baseless and harmful. The organization, together with Lambda Legal, challenged the ban.
“The Trump administration's unlawful ban on transgender servicemembers has never been about facts or reason. It's always been about discrimination and punishing courageous members of our military purely because of who they are,” Warbelow said in a statement to The Advocate. “Regardless of numbers, here’s what we know: every transgender servicemember puts on the same uniform, takes the same oath, and meets the same rigorous requirements as every other person in our armed services. We know that they serve in positions crucial to our national security, and that banning them from the military will harm our military readiness and national security. And we know that this ban is unconstitutional.”
Meanwhile, the administration is trying to discredit the judge overseeing the case. On February 21, the Justice Department filed a judicial misconduct complaint against U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, accusing her of “hostile and egregious misconduct.” The complaint—filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals—alleges Reyes used “WTF” in court and pressed a DOJ lawyer about his religion.
The administration has framed its trans military ban as necessary for military readiness, yet it has presented no new studies or data to support that claim. In 2018, top military leaders testified that trans service members had no impact on cohesion, morale, or readiness.
Groups like SPARTA Pride—which represents transgender troops—have emphasized that transgender personnel serve in critical roles across the military and that banning them will only weaken the U.S. Armed Forces.
“The problem is not trans troops—it’s the Trump administration’s bigotry toward patriotic trans service members,” Jennings said. “They are attacking them based on animus.”
Editor's note: This story has been updated to clarify that GLAD Law and NCLR brought this case and to include remarks by NCLR legal director Shannon Minter.
