US Navy And Marine Boards Recommend Keeping Trans Troops Despite Pentagon Policy
Military review boards in the United States Navy and Marine Corps are recommending that transgender service members remain in uniform, despite a Trump administration policy designed to remove them.
In a surprising development for transgender rights in the US military, nine of 12 Navy and Marine Corps separation boards examined by the New York Times have recommended retaining transgender personnel.
The findings suggest that some serving military members are unwilling to recommend the dismissal of experienced colleagues solely because they are transgender.
However, the recommendations are not final decisions, and senior military officials retain the power to overturn them.
Nine Of 12 Boards Recommend Keeping Trans Service Members
According to the New York Times, the Navy has conducted nine separation hearings involving transgender personnel, with seven boards recommending they remain in service.
The Marine Corps has held three hearings, with two boards also recommending retention.
In the third Marine Corps case, the board recommended discharge but reportedly added a written statement explaining that its members unanimously believed the Marine should remain because of his service record and specialist skills.
The findings represent a notable departure from the outcomes in other branches of the US military.
In the Army and Air Force, review boards have overwhelmingly recommended discharging transgender personnel.
The Pentagon has not released comprehensive official figures, meaning the available results represent a relatively small number of reported cases rather than the military’s overall position.
Why Are Transgender Troops Facing Discharge?
The separations stem from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in January 2025, followed by Pentagon guidance restricting transgender military service.
Under the policy, service members with a current or previous diagnosis of gender dysphoria, or symptoms meeting its diagnostic criteria, are generally considered ineligible to continue serving unless they meet narrow waiver requirements.
The administration argues the restrictions are necessary to protect military readiness, operational effectiveness and medical standards.
However, LGBTQ+ advocates and affected service members argue the policy unfairly targets qualified personnel, regardless of their performance, experience or ability to fulfil their duties.
Transgender service members were initially offered financial incentives to leave voluntarily. Those who remained could face involuntary separation proceedings.
For personnel contesting their discharge, administrative review boards provide an opportunity to present their cases.
These boards typically consist of three serving military members, who are required to assess whether the individual falls within the Pentagon’s restrictions.
Their ability to consider military achievements, exemplary service records or specialist expertise is heavily constrained.
Despite those limitations, some Navy and Marine Corps boards have recommended allowing their transgender colleagues to remain.
One Marine’s Service Record Made A Difference
Among those affected is Marine Staff Sergeant Damien Contreras, whose experience was detailed by the New York Times.
Contreras, a supply and logistics specialist stationed in Hawaii, had served for approximately a decade, completed three overseas deployments and received favourable performance assessments.
After being placed on paid leave while awaiting discharge, he appeared before a Marine Corps review board in August 2026.
The board examined his record and ultimately recommended retaining him.
According to the newspaper, its members crossed out part of a pre-written findings document referring to his history of hormone treatment and instead indicated that he remained qualified for military service.
His case illustrates the tension between the Pentagon’s eligibility rules and the professional assessments of colleagues familiar with transgender personnel’s military contributions.
However, even a favourable recommendation does not guarantee that Contreras or others in similar circumstances will be permitted to continue their careers.
Can The Pentagon Overturn These Decisions?
Yes.
The review boards make recommendations, rather than final determinations.
The civilian secretaries overseeing the military branches have authority to reverse recommendations that transgender personnel remain in service.
A Pentagon memorandum issued on 8 October 2025 also expanded commanders’ authority to override retention decisions involving transgender service members.
This means a service member may successfully argue their case before a panel of military colleagues and still ultimately face discharge.
Former Air Force lawyer Rachel VanLandingham, now a professor at Southwestern Law School, told the New York Times that she believes the recommendations indicate discomfort with the process among some board members.
She suggested they were unwilling to endorse what they viewed as an unfair outcome.
However, the individual board members have not publicly explained their reasoning, and the military branches have declined to discuss the results while litigation continues.
Pete Hegseth’s Anti-Trans Remarks Add To The Controversy
The board recommendations come amid continued criticism of US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s public statements about transgender personnel.
During a speech at Marine Corps Base Quantico on 30 September 2026, Hegseth used a derogatory slur for transgender people while describing the types of personnel he believed should no longer serve.
He concluded that section of his remarks with the phrase “Just warriors.”
The comments reinforced the administration’s position on transgender service, although the policy itself had been established more than a year earlier.
Critics argue that excluding transgender personnel based on their gender identity or medical history, rather than demonstrated performance, risks removing experienced and capable military professionals.
The New York Times reports that doctors, lawyers, pilots and nuclear technicians are among those affected by the wider separation policy.
Legal Challenges Could Still Change The Policy
The future of transgender military service in the United States is also being contested in federal courts.
On 1 June 2026, a divided US federal appeals court upheld a preliminary injunction protecting the current service members involved in Talbott v USA, finding that the policy was likely unconstitutional as applied to them.
However, the court narrowed the scope of the injunction, and its ruling has not yet taken effect because the appellate court has not issued its formal mandate.
The Trump administration subsequently petitioned the US Supreme Court to review the decision.
As of 28 October 2026, that petition remains pending, with a response due on 2 November.
The legal proceedings mean there is still considerable uncertainty for transgender personnel fighting to remain in uniform.
What Does This Mean For LGBTQ+ Communities In New Zealand?
The developments in the US provide a contrast with the approach publicly outlined by the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF).
In Aotearoa, the NZDF operates its Pride in Defence programme, which supports LGBTQ+ inclusion and aims to create a professional environment where personnel can serve without unnecessary barriers.
It also supports Overwatch, a personnel-led LGBTQ+ network offering connection, support and opportunities to raise concerns about inclusion.
Although New Zealand maintains its own military medical and recruitment requirements, the NZDF’s stated approach emphasises inclusion and respectful treatment.
For rainbow communities in Aotearoa, the situation in the United States raises wider questions about workplace discrimination, equal opportunity and whether gender identity should determine a person’s ability to continue a career.
The nine favourable recommendations are not proof that the US military as a whole opposes the Pentagon’s policy.
They do, however, demonstrate that some of the personnel responsible for reviewing transgender colleagues’ service records are reaching conclusions different from those anticipated by the administration.
For the transgender service members whose careers remain uncertain, those recommendations offer a measure of support — even if the final decisions are still beyond the boards’ control.
