Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Transgender members of the Air Force sue government over losing retirement pay
AP via NBC ^ | Nov. 15, 2025 | AP staff writers

Posted on 11/15/2025 1:04:12 PM PST by Salman

WASHINGTON — 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.

...

(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda

1 posted on 11/15/2025 1:04:12 PM PST by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salman

As much as I hate to say this, I believe they have a case. They did their time and they served. What they served I’ll never know but they served.


2 posted on 11/15/2025 1:07:49 PM PST by albie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salman

Dear God, how many are there, and how in hell were they admitted to the force to begin with? Sick.


3 posted on 11/15/2025 1:13:08 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew (/s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salman

Their rights are under the UCMJ.


4 posted on 11/15/2025 1:16:10 PM PST by jacknhoo (Luke 12:51; Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: albie

If they didn’t get over 18 years, they get nothing.


5 posted on 11/15/2025 1:35:05 PM PST by xone ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salman

They were allowed to enlist openly in 2016. What kind of retirement can they even possibly qualify for?


6 posted on 11/15/2025 1:35:11 PM PST by skr (1 Peter 1:15 - But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salman

I have little regard for trannys. But inasmuch as the Air Force hired them , they should receive any and all benefits coming to them


7 posted on 11/15/2025 1:38:47 PM PST by kenmcg (ti hi o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skr

Probably some that served as a normal and then decided to go trans.


8 posted on 11/15/2025 1:45:29 PM PST by gunnut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gunnut

The Air Force should be suing them for the cost of any surgeries and meds they received for their tranny treatments.


9 posted on 11/15/2025 1:55:37 PM PST by angry elephant (Been with Trump since huge 2016 Washington state rally in May.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Salman

I don’t agree with transgender persons serving in the military. That being so I also believe if they did serve and met the terms of their recruitment agreement they are entitled to whatever other service members leaving service are due.


10 posted on 11/15/2025 2:07:58 PM PST by lastchance (Cognovit Dominus qui sunt eius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salman

42% of them won’t make it to retirement.


11 posted on 11/15/2025 2:33:40 PM PST by Mr. Blond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: albie

I think you’re right. If there was no barrier to them serving, and they did the same grunt work as any non-trans person, then they shouldn’t be denied it.

Whether you’re opposed to LGBTQ+ people being involved anywhere in the military at all, this is a very basic principle of military service. If people are not dishonorably discharged, and they have served, and they’re now being actively encouraged to quit the service for no reason other than political optics and it’s especially poor if their pensions ever had any opt-in or salary sacrifice option.

It’s one thing to think they shouldn’t be serving on the front line, or on a ship/sub for months at a time, or in Special Forces where an all-male unit cohesion and morale imperative is a valid concern.

But a lot of the stuff the Forces do these days, even in combat operations, is work on bases and in back offices.

Also, if the pension had any opt-in or salary sacrifice option, there needs to be a very clear justification for taking that away from people who’ve served, especially if they’ve served in exactly the same ways as the men and women next to them who aren’t being pressured to quit the service and who aren’t going to lose their pensions.


12 posted on 11/15/2025 3:40:42 PM PST by MalPearce ("You see, but you do not observe" - Holmes to Watson, A Scandal in Bohemia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: albie
As much as I hate to say this, I believe they have a case. They did their time and they served. What they served I’ll never know but they served.

Can't they just un-tr00n themselves?

13 posted on 11/15/2025 3:44:08 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: albie
Need more details. There is a new retirement system, new to me anyway, that allows for a 15-year retirement. It was after I left, so I am not sure it was enacted, but I thought it had been. Also, 18 years is under Title Code 10 "sanctuary." Unless you violate the UCMJ they have to allow you to retire at 20 years. As I said, we need more details than just lawyers pontificating. It is possible they were not eligible, or they had not actually made it to 18 years etc.

However, if they were eligible, they should be retired.

14 posted on 11/15/2025 4:13:52 PM PST by OldGoatCPO (No Caitiff Choir of Angels will sing for me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: albie
They did their time and they served.

No; they did not serve twenty years. It is a privilege to retire earlier than that.
15 posted on 11/15/2025 4:20:40 PM PST by af_vet_1981 ( The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981

Bill Clinton downsized to the point where my buddy got credit for 20 years after serving 19. He’ll always have a soft spot in his heart for that man. He was a republican.


16 posted on 11/15/2025 4:42:17 PM PST by DIRTYSECRET
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET

Yeah, It was a RIF. We had them 33 years ago in the Army. Soldiers were being released with severance pay and no penalty for getting a bonus. It was just business for the Army. They had too many soldiers after the fall of the USSR.


17 posted on 11/15/2025 4:50:20 PM PST by Pol-92064 (tax)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blond

Retrannyment


18 posted on 11/15/2025 5:20:21 PM PST by Old Yeller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: albie

No


19 posted on 11/16/2025 3:36:33 AM PST by mrmeyer (You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him. Robert Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: albie

If you think about it, they’ve likely served the vast amount of time in the closet, so to speak, and didn’t make their autogynephilia known until just recently when it was allowed and encouraged by recent perverted administrations.

They should be credited time in good faith.


20 posted on 11/17/2025 6:03:28 AM PST by fwdude (Why is there a "far/radical right," but damned if they'll admit that there is a far/radical left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson