Through an administrative message, the service revoked a previous policy that could grant Marines undergoing the involuntary separation process eligibility to remain in the military before a separation board made its final decision.

“The authority to grant service extensions to Marines undergoing involuntary 
administrative separation processing under the purview of reference (a) is rescinded,” the message said.

President Donald Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 27, 2025, expelling transgender service members from the military based on the administration’s argument that they could not “satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.”

A Pentagon memo published soon after urged transgender service members to voluntarily separate under the new policy, incentivizing their departure by offering twice the amount of pay they would receive through involuntary separation pay.

Transgender troops previously told Military Times that the separation process was far from voluntary and that they were being forcibly kicked out because of their gender identity.

Service members who opted out of voluntary separation entered into the involuntary separation process and were allowed the opportunity to argue for their retention before a military board.

The New York Times reported on Oct. 23 that some boards had begun to rebuke the Trump administration’s sweeping exclusionary edict and vote to retain transgender service members.

Once a service member is voted to be retained by a board, Navy Secretary Hung Cao must sign off to make the retention official.

But for service members whose service contract was set to expire before the board made its decision, and thus before the Navy Secretary could sign off on it, an extension waiver was previously offered that allowed them to continue serving while their retention was approved.

The new Marine Corps policy established Friday ends the possibility of this extension and means some service members who otherwise would be allowed to continue serving will instead be kicked out of the military.

Staff Sgt. Damien Contreras, whom The New York Times profiled in its piece about the changing tides of separation boards, is set to be a casualty of the new policy.

Contreras opted for involuntary separation after the transgender military ban went into effect and argued his case before a military separation board on Aug. 28. 

He was informed the following day that the Marine Corps had elected to retain his service.

After roughly ten years in the Marine Corps, Contreras service contract was set to expire on Nov. 7.

So not long after, Contreras submitted an application for an extension waiver to the Marine Corps’ Manpower and Reserve Affairs office, while he awaited the final sign-off from Cao that would allow him to remain in the military.

The Manpower office officially received his application on Oct. 14, Contreras said.

The goal was to re-up his contract afterward, continue serving for at least another decade and retire as a Marine.

But each time Contreras, his attorney or his chain of command would check in with the Marine Corps’ Manpower and Reserve Affairs office, they were told the paperwork was processing and not approved yet.

This Friday, Contreras saw the new policy banning extension waivers.

Less than 30 minutes later, he received an email from his attorney, with a forwarded email from the Manpower and Reserve Affairs office that contained a denied request for an extension waiver.

Barring other intervention, Contreras will be removed from the military on Friday, despite his desire to remain.

“It’s just another brick wall that’s been put up to find a new way to force us out faster,” Contreras said.

Transgender service members are currently suing the U.S. military under Talbott v. USA for discrimination in an attempt to halt the ban and restore troops’ rights to remain in the military.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled on June 1 that the Pentagon’s transgender military ban was unlawful, upholding a previous preliminary injunction that sought to allow transgender service members to continue serving.

Several weeks later, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a motion to certify Talbott v. USA as a class action lawsuit.

Once the preliminary injunction was mandated, a class action certification would mean all transgender service members would receive the same protections as the plaintiffs in Talbott v. USA and allow all currently serving transgender service members to remain in the military.

Despite these developments, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has not technically mandated the preliminary injunction yet, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has not officially certified Talbott v. USA as a class action lawsuit.

The Trump administration’s transgender military ban is thus still in effect.

Sailors and U.S. Navy mental health professionals told Military Times that long wait times to see a provider, along with an insurmountable caseload for therapists and misguided treatment, stressed a system that was never built to handle the mental toll of extended military operations in contested environments.

Navy therapists are trained to provide consistent care, but that approach is often unattainable on a ship with so many sailors in need of assistance.

“The practice does not really match the [needs] of the ship that needs quick response, quick triage and longer sessions,” said one Navy mental health professional who was aboard an aircraft carrier during an extended deployment.

Several individuals who spoke to Military Times were granted anonymity for fear of reprisal from the U.S. military.

Service members can sometimes wait weeks for an appointment, a timeline that does not align with at-sea environments that require quick crisis management, according to the mental health professional.

The Navy also deploys a limited number of personnel who assist thousands of sailors onboard a ship, a ratio that worsens wait times, therapist burnout and effectiveness of care.

The heavy administrative burden on providers frequently buries them in paperwork, which they say adds to disillusionment about whether the job even makes a difference. Retention of mental health professionals is degraded in turn, according to sources.

In August, Military Times reported that two sailors attempted to jump overboard from the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln during a deployment that, at the time, was stretching into its ninth month.

At a town hall meeting in San Diego, California, that month, military family members expressed concern to Navy officials over food shortages and declining morale eroding the mental health of the ship’s crew.

The service said at the time that the ship had five chaplains, one clinical psychologist, one clinical social worker, three behavioral health technicians and an embedded integrated prevention coordination counselor.

The Navy reportedly reassured families at the August meeting that more mental health professionals were being sent to the ship.

But a sailor aboard the Lincoln during the deployment said that an onboard resiliency counselor left six months into the deployment for personal reasons and had not been replaced by the time the ship arrived in Thailand for a port call three months later on Sept. 2.

Beyond capacity

Deployed resiliency counselors, or DRCs, are licensed civilian mental health clinicians embedded onboard ships during deployments to provide additional mental health resources to service members.

After the Lincoln DRC’s mid-deployment departure, 5,000 service members on ship were left with two licensed mental health clinicians.

But according to the Navy, the ratio of service members to therapists was in keeping with its evaluation of sailor needs.

The service had observed deployments over the last two decades to identify resources to devote to ships, according to Cmdr. Katie Pierce, a Navy operational psychologist who works on the Navy’s suicide prevention team.

“Approximately 1,600 to 2,500 personnel — one mental health person can handle,” said Pierce, who spoke at a suicide prevention media roundtable in Washington on Thursday.

But psychologists and DRCs aboard ships are often beyond capacity, sources told Military Times, with some bumping weekly hours from 40 to 90 to address needs.

Even when mental health professionals saw sailors, the bottleneck of other waiting patients meant sailors were not getting needed treatment.

Getting an appointment with a provider could take weeks, if not months, according to sailors who served aboard the USS Harry S. Truman and USS Abraham Lincoln during extended deployments.

“Unless you say you’re suicidal, you have to wait weeks for an appointment with the military mental health providers,” said the Lincoln sailor, who served during its recent deployment to the Middle East.

“The healthcare and mental healthcare of the Navy is abysmal,” said the Truman sailor, who deployed aboard the aircraft carrier during its 2024 deployment to the Red Sea.

The Truman’s eight-month deployment was extended twice amid combat operations against the Iran-backed Houthi rebels.

“There is not enough staff for the 3,000 to 5,000 personnel on board,” the sailor said. “It may take months to get an appointment, and when you are seen, you have, at maximum, two issues you can speak to your provider for.”

Sam Rodriguez, a former sailor who worked on shore in the medical evacuation unit at Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, Virginia, said a majority of personnel who come through that unit do so for mental health reasons.

Receiving mental health care in a timely fashion on shore was difficult as well, Rodriguez said. It was not uncommon for sailors to wait 54 days for an initial appointment.

The issue, however, extends beyond wait times.

“The mission of mental health in the military is really like, ‘How can we get you back to the mission?’” Rodriguez said. “Not ‘How can we take care of you?’”

Set up to fail

While sailors have access to various mental health professionals on board an aircraft carrier, each provides different levels of care, sources said.

Some ships feature a clinical social worker who provides ongoing care but not clinical assessments. Navy psychologists assist service members dealing with suicidal ideation, as well as service members who need psychiatric help. DRCs are independent contractors who work for the Navy and deal with sailors in need of clinical therapy.

The Navy currently employs 34 DRCs, 81% of the billet’s capacity, a service spokesperson said. DRCs, however, do not deal with service members experiencing suicidal ideation, the Navy mental health professional said.

Administering treatment also differs between roles.

Psychologists are Navy employees who work to return the sailor to their job, one source said. DRCs, meanwhile, work through psychological issues that may impact mental health, according to the Lincoln sailor and a former civilian psychologist for the Navy.

“If you’re going to be an active-duty psychologist, then you have to be really committed to the Navy’s mission — less about treating individual people and more about maintaining force health,” the civilian psychologist said.

Carriers also offer other channels for less involved psychiatric care, according to the Navy mental health professional.

Embedded integrated prevention coordinators, or non-therapist educators, can provide classes and workshops. Additionally, psych techs — enlisted sailors who have undergone some psychology training — assist with triage. Onboard chaplains administer basic counseling.

Beyond resource availability, the roles themselves are often hampered by bureaucratic headaches that make mental health careers less appealing, sources told Military Times.

Deployed resiliency counselors, for example, are intended to upload patient notes to the Fleet and Family Support Management Information System, the Navy mental health professional said. But spotty internet connectivity at sea often yields a mountain of backlogged paperwork that must be completed upon returning to shore.

That process can take months, the Navy mental health professional said.

Commander, Naval Installations Command, was evaluating methods to make that process more efficient, a Navy spokesperson said.

The two Navy mental health professionals who spoke to Military Times said the current mental health system on aircraft carriers positioned neither professionals nor service members for success during extended combat deployments.

Therapists and psychologists face a demand signal during military operations that overburdens them, they said, with too many patients and not enough time to treat them.

Sources also discussed a culture that, during an extended combat deployment, diminished mental health priorities, rendering the methods the military psychologists were trained on ineffective.

As civilian therapists, DRCs were trained to operate like onshore, civilian clinicians, according to the Navy mental health professional who deployed aboard aircraft carriers.

A typical work week as a civilian hovers around 40 hours, but sticking to that routine is nearly impossible aboard an aircraft carrier, where the goal is to help as many sailors as possible.

“The volume on an aircraft carrier is so much greater, and the need is so much greater,” the Navy mental health professional said. “[They] have to maintain the standard of practice while … also [having] a volume that is incredibly needy.”

The mental health professional said the current model was not adequate to address thousands of service members.

Unless dealing with a sailor experiencing suicidal ideation, the trained treatment for military psychologists more closely resembles therapy offered at a primary care facility, the civilian psychologist said.

There, a provider might inquire about sleep and negative thoughts without digging into underlying issues, the psychologist added.

“It’s not going to be adequate for people who are struggling with more severe depression or trauma.”

The newest iteration was designed with feedback from service members to provide lightweight material and an updated fit for future field training and military operations.

“Equipment must evolve continuously to outpace near-peer technological advancements and deliver peak capabilities to the Fleet Marine Force,” said Todd Towles, clothing and equipment team lead.

The next-generation combat utility uniform also incorporates a crotch gusset to increase comfort and durability, as well as more sizing options for a wider variety of body types.

The Marine Corps is currently in the testing and user evaluation phase of the rollout.

On Aug. 4 and 5, the service issued the recently produced uniforms to command staff, drill instructors and recruits from three platoons in Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island.

Participants will wear the uniforms and provide their honest opinion at the end of a limited user evaluation period.

The service also recently modernized how service members can access the guide for uniform standards.

A new mobile app lets Marines check proper regulations for their outfit and grooming.

Service members can toggle between different uniform categories, with descriptions that explain what activities those uniforms are allowed to be worn for.

The 31st MEU, made up of approximately 2,200 service members, arrived at White Beach Naval Facility, Okinawa, Japan, after a six-month deployment to the U.S. 5th Fleet and 7th Fleet areas of operations. There, the ARG-MEU helped to enforce a U.S. Navy blockade along the Strait of Hormuz.

“The team adapted, never lost sight of the mission, and performed flawlessly under the most dynamic circumstances,” U.S. Marine Corps Col. Chris Niedziocha, commanding officer of the 31st MEU, said in a statement.

The Tripoli ARG includes America-class amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli, San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship USS New Orleans and Whidbey Island-class dock landing ship USS Rushmore.

The Tripoli ARG and 31st MEU deployed from the Tripoli’s homeport in Sasebo, Japan, in early March and arrived in the U.S. Central Command area of operations on March 27.

Prior to participating in Operation Epic Fury, the ARG-MEU participated in Exercise Iron Fist 26 alongside Japanese Self-Defense Forces.

Sailors and Marines helped transport 800,000 pounds of cargo, conducted more than 1,600 hours of combat aviation missions without an accident and refueled more than 300 aircraft ashore and underway.

During the first Navy blockade, which began April 13 and ended June 18, U.S. military forces redirected over 140 compliant ships and disabled nine non-compliant ships.

The blockade ended briefly after the U.S. and Iran signed a 60-day interim Memorandum of Understanding to pause military operations as peace talks were underway, but the U.S. renewed the blockade on July 14 after a ceasefire between both sides failed.

As troops look toward a future when their service might be welcome once again, individuals affected by the policy told Military Times that the year and a half time period upended their lives.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said in a June 1 ruling regarding Talbott v. USA that the Pentagon’s transgender military ban was unconstitutional and that the 30 enlisted plaintiffs involved in the case could continue to serve.

That ruling, which upheld an earlier preliminary injunction and is set to go into effect July 16, applied only to those plaintiffs.

Shortly after, on July 1, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a motion to certify Talbott v. USA as a class action lawsuit, meaning the protections would extend to all transgender service members enlisted in the military.

But not yet.

Before more than the 30 can rejoin, the certification must be complete and the district court must extend the preliminary injunction to the class. The timing of those actions remained uncertain Wednesday.

The U.S. government can fight the ruling and attempt to stall it by petitioning for a rehearing or asking the Supreme Court to intervene, but as of Wednesday, neither have happened.

Transgender civilians looking to enlist are still barred from joining the military.

Cast out

Though transgender troops were optimistic after the June 1 ruling about the future of their service, their path to get right back where they started — being allowed to do their jobs — was grueling.

Military Times spoke with 10 transgender service members who described how the forced separation process and the ensuing administrative leave pipeline pushed them into a perilous mental space.

With their lives on hold, these service members felt depression, anxiety and disillusionment over why an institution to which they had pledged their lives suddenly cast them out, swiftly and seemingly without regard for their psychiatric and professional well-being.

Service members also felt betrayed that the Defense Department used their “gender dysphoria” diagnosis to justify their separation. The term was assigned to service members during previous administrations as a medical diagnosis that allowed them to serve openly as transgender and receive gender-affirming care.

The DoD declined in an email to Military Times to comment on the situation.

Life in limbo

In 2025, after 15 years of service, one transgender U.S. Navy lieutenant was envisioning full retirement, a deserved pension and the health benefits that came along with it.

Just five more years.

Instead, they found themselves at the psychiatric ward at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center after checking themself in for suicidal ideation, something they said was abnormal for them.

Eventually, they regained their footing, but the effects were lasting.

“My mental health has just been a dumpster fire,” said the lieutenant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intimate psychological struggles. “This trans ban has made me a completely different person.”

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 27, 2025, that paved the way for the ousting of any transgender service members with a history of “gender dysphoria.”

Sweeping DoD policy followed shortly thereafter, with service members given the opportunity to either apply for voluntary separation — which incentivized service members through bonus pay to leave on their own accord — or wait for likely involuntary separation through the new policy.

A Feb. 26, 2025, Pentagon memo said that troops with a history of gender dysphoria have medical, surgical and mental health constraints “incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”

Service members saw it as a thinly veiled attempt to get rid of them.

Some transgender service members — the Pentagon has declined to say how many — were placed on administrative “absence,” or Permissive Temporary Assigned Duty (PTAD).

The administrative leave process, which had no precedent in the military for medical conditions, paid service members to not work and barred them from serving while they awaited their separation date.

The lieutenant was able to medically retire on May 22 after their mental health decline triggered a medical board review that deemed them eligible. They spent 16 years in the Navy, just four shy of the 20 they had aspired to serve.

Petty Officer Second Class Jaylen Joubert, a sailor who served about three years, said he was denied administrative leave altogether.

Joubert’s gender dysphoria diagnosis was given to him in October 2024, and his gender-affirming care was set to begin in February 2025. The transgender military ban executive order halted the process.

After expressing frustration to his commanding officer for being denied PTAD, he said he was involuntarily separated on April 17, 2026, due to conditions not amounting to a disability, but related to mental health and mental turmoil.

A loss of direction

Senior Master Sgt. Jamie Hash joined the military to be a part of something bigger than herself.

In 2025, with 13 years in the U.S. Air Force already under her belt, she had planned to serve at least 20 years and retire. So when Trump rolled out the ban and DoD policy ensued, she decided to reject the voluntary separation process and fight to remain.

“I don’t want to leave based on something that’s not specific to my performance or capability,” Hash said.

She has been on administrative leave since June 2025, and the leave has impacted her professional goals.

Hash had been awarded a prestigious three-year legislative fellowship in summer 2024 that allowed her to work as a liaison between the Defense Department and Congress, but the opportunity was jeopardized with the ban.

Though technically enrolled in the fellowship program, she wasn’t allowed to show up and take advantage of any its resources or perform any duties during her forced leave.

This loss of direction and purpose was commonplace for many.

For Master Sgt. Sabrina Bruce, who served in the Air Force for eight years and the Space Force for four, the military provided a second lease on life, as well as a support network that made her feel whole.

She’d realized her worth. But now that community was gone.

“Joining the military was the best thing that ever happened to me,” said Bruce. “Before the military, no one saw potential in me.”

Depression and suicidal thoughts plagued her for several months during the administrative leave process, which finally ended in December 2025 when she officially voluntarily separated.

Army Maj. Erica Vandal, who separated on Jan. 1, after nearly 15 years of service, described the administrative leave process as a “state of limbo.”

Vandal said she was still figuring out who she was as a person outside of the military. She was currently filling the void with advocacy work, she said, and continuing to search for something that fulfilled a sense of purpose similar to what the military offered.

Nicolas Talbott, the lead plaintiff in Talbott v. USA — the high-profile case challenging the ban — joined the Army National Guard in March 2024 and commissioned as a second lieutenant.

It took him nearly a decade to enlist after legal battles and the shifting policies of different presidential administrations, including both of Trump’s.

Talbott told Military Times that serving his country was the best job he’d ever had, combining every field of study he was passionate about: national security, counter terrorism and high-stakes environments that require precise decisions.

But after serving less than one year, his future in the military was once again cast into doubt.

“Stuck in a constant state of limbo has become the norm for me,” Talbott said.

The process wasn’t only grating for his mental health, but difficult for those around him too, including family members. They’d witnessed him work hard for everything he’d gotten, and then they watched as he found himself in what they viewed as an unfair situation.

Grooming, uniform standards

Several service members described administrative leaves and separation processes that felt designed to disrespect and humiliate them, as it barred them from donning the uniform they’d worn since their transitions.

The military made them adhere to the grooming standards of their gender assigned at birth during retirement ceremonies and graduations from prestigious military schools, they said.

U.S. Space Force Col. Bree Fram officially retired on Dec. 31, 2025, after serving for nearly 23 years. She opted to voluntarily separate once she realized the Trump administration would no longer allow her to serve.

Fram was the first openly serving transgender service member to be promoted to the rank of colonel. Despite the momentous achievement, she wasn’t allowed to wear her uniform during her retirement ceremony on Jan. 8, 2026.

Inexplicably, the DoD changed her military records on Dec. 1, 2025, to reflect her gender assigned at birth, not her actual gender, Fram said. Had she walked across the stage in the female uniform she’d been wearing for years, she would’ve been brought up on charges because it would now violate Uniform Code of Military Justice regulations barring opposite-gender uniforms.

Instead, she wore a business suit.

“These were the uniforms that we bled into, that we sweat into, that we were denied even that small dignity of wearing,” Fram said.

Her service dress uniform and boots were placed on a table off to the side as she walked across the stage.

About two weeks before her gender was denied publicly, she dealt with what she said was another slight. She was summoned to the Pentagon by a lieutenant general deputy chief of space operations.

In the meeting, which lasted 15 minutes, the lieutenant general told Fram that the official support she’d requested for her retirement ceremony — which included an honor guard and a band, both very common for ceremonies — would not be granted because there were concerns it would have the appearance of being political.

The officer then reminded Fram that she was still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which Fram found unusual.

“I took this very much as a warning or a veiled threat, to be be silent, to not talk about these things,” Fram said.

Army Infantry Major Kara Corcoran has served for over 18 years and is currently involved in the involuntary separation process.

In May 2025, she graduated from the School of Advanced Military Studies after completing an esteemed one-year master’s degree program that trained her to become an operational planner.

But she was informed by her chain of command that senior leadership had prohibited her from crossing the stage with her peers during graduation unless she adhered to male regulations and standards, in keeping with the new DoD policy.

“Cruelty was the point,” Corcoran said of the rule.

She was given an option to have a separate ceremony, or just be given her diploma instead.

She borrowed an old friend’s male uniform, cut her long hair into a pixie cut the day before the graduation ceremony and walked across the stage.

“You’re not gonna take away something I’ve earned,” Corcoran said. “If you think that cutting my hair is going to affect my identity, you don’t understand the strength and resilience of transgender service members.”

Bait and switch

Nearly all of the transgender service members who spoke to Military Times transitioned after joining the military, but in order to begin gender-affirming care, they had to receive a diagnosis of “gender dysphoria” from a doctor.

Gender dysphoria is defined by the Mayo Clinic as a “feeling of distress that can happen when a person’s gender identity differs from the sex assigned at birth.” But the clinic also notes that while some transgender people experience gender dysphoria, others feel comfortable with their bodies and gender identities.

“Not all transgender or gender diverse people experience gender dysphoria,” the clinic says.

The diagnosis was now being used to cast out transgender troops.

Many of the service members who spoke to Military Times said they either never had gender dysphoria but agreed to the diagnosis as a way to receive gender-affirming care, or they had experienced the feeling in the past but had not after transitioning.

Using the diagnosis against them was an unfair bait and switch, many said.

Staff Sgt. Athena N. Knight served in the U.S. Marine Corps for 14 years and opted for voluntary separation. She was honorably discharged on June 30, 2026.

Knight said she never had clinical gender dysphoria and didn’t meet the criteria for the ban.

“I don’t have gender dysphoria, I’m just transgender,” Knight said.

She was given the diagnosis under Defense Department Instruction 1300.28 “In-Service Transition for Transgender Service Members,” but explained it was because it provided the only path to receive necessary gender-affirming care.

The difference was similar to the distinction between someone being depressed and clinically depressed, Knight said. They’re not the same.

Someone could experience symptoms of gender dysphoria and not have clinical gender dysphoria.

Using gender dysphoria to expel someone from the military not only confused the service members it affected, but it also didn’t make sense legally, advocates said.

“There’s not one other medical condition that results in automatic discharge from the military,” said Shannon Minter, who works for the National Center for Lesbian Rights and is the lead attorney in the Talbott v. USA case.

Master Sgt. Logan Ireland, who’s served for 15 years in the Air Force, said he’s never felt dysphoric about his gender.

But based off DoD policy under the Trump administration, he faced separation despite wanting to continue serving.

Ireland initially applied for retirement after the Air Force extended the possibility of early retirement for transgender service members with 15 to 18 years of service.

He received retirement orders from the Air Force in June. But then, several months later, the Air Force issued a memorandum saying his application for early retirement was denied. Voluntary separation was offered, but Ireland didn’t want it at that point.

He is suing the Trump administration with other service members from the Air Force and Space Force over what they say is a loss of early retirement benefits.

“I had to get the diagnosis of gender dysphoria in order to continue serving in the military authentically as male,” Ireland said. “So for me it was a checkbox.”

Even though he had the diagnosis, it was easily curable through hormones and living as his authentic self, which he said he was doing.

“I’m a male,” Ireland said. “I live happily, healthfully as a male. There’s zero issue with me having a gender dysphoria diagnosis in a past medical history, because it’s already been corrected.”

Question of return

The Talbott v. USA ruling is set to go into effect Thursday, but if the class action is certified, it remains unclear what the protections mean for service members who voluntarily separated but want to return now that the ban was ruled unconstitutional.

Regardless, transgender troops have expressed mixed feelings about returning to an organization that rejected their service to their country.

“I don’t think I’ll get back in uniform unless something drastic happens,” Knight said.

She expressed concern about having to return the money she was given by the military as an incentive to voluntarily separate. She also wasn’t sure about going through a potentially complicated reenlistment procedure, given the disability rating she received upon exiting the service.

The Navy lieutenant who sought help at Walter Reed said they didn’t want to rejoin the military after it turned its back on them. But at the same time, serving another four years would get them to 20 and allow them to receive a significant upgrade in retirement benefits.

As of last week, they were considering all their options.

Corcoran was unequivocal in her commitment to returning — if given the chance.

“I want to finish out my 20 years and do my job, and be able to be a productive teammate,” Corcoran said. “The whole point of why I joined the military was to serve my country.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a motion to certify Talbott v. USA as a class action lawsuit several weeks after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said in a June 1 ruling that the Pentagon’s transgender military ban was unlawful.

The June ruling only allowed the plaintiffs in that case to continue serving, meaning all other transgender service members are currently still banned from the military. But if the class action lawsuit goes into effect in two weeks along with the June ruling, the protections won in Talbott v. USA would extend to all transgender service members currently serving.

“The protection afforded to our plaintiffs should be available to all transgender servicemembers and their families,” said National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter. “We know that this ban is discriminatory, rooted in animus, and irrationally excludes highly decorated servicemembers who have deployed around the world and given everything to our country.”

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 27, 2025, stating that service members with a history of “gender dysphoria” have medical, surgical and mental health constraints “incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”

Transgender troops previously needed a gender dysphoria diagnosis in order to receive gender affirming care while in the military and, as a result, many transgender service members have the term in their medical record.

Approximately 4,240 transgender individuals are serving in the military have a gender dysphoria diagnosis, both on active duty and in the reserves, according to an Associated Press report.

The Defense Department rolled out a sweeping “voluntary separation” policy last February that attempted to incentivize transgender military service members to separate from the military by offering more money than they’d otherwise receive for involuntary separation.

Service members who Military Times spoke to at the time said the move was anything but voluntary, as they wanted to continue to serve and saw the policy as a way to kick them out.

Transgender service members have either been voluntarily or involuntarily separated or are in the process of being separated, with some on paid administrative leave.

The National Center for LGBTQ Rights and GLAD Law filed a lawsuit against Trump on Jan. 28, 2025, alleging that the ban was unconstitutional because the policy was based on animus.

The lawsuit eventually shifted so that the plaintiffs were suing the U.S. government.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a nationwide preliminary injunction on March 18, 2025, blocking the discharge of transgender service members, which the newly enacted Defense Department policy called for.

The U.S. government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which ultimately ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor over a year later on June 1, 2026.

The government has 45 days after the June 1 ruling to file a petition for rehearing.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit can either accept or deny that request.

The government can also ask the entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to rehear the case, which would comprise 11 active judges, as opposed to a three-judge panel, like the one that decided the June 1 ruling.

If the government went that route, the ruling of that rehearing would go into effect seven days after the decision.

The Trump administration could also ask the U.S. Supreme Court to issue an emergency stay to stop the preliminary injunction and class action lawsuit from going into effect.

The government hasn’t filed as of Wednesday.

Lance Cpl. Armando Ortiz Canseco, 21, was serving aboard the amphibious transport dock ship USS Anchorage during training between the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit and Makin Island Amphibious Ready Group when he disappeared.

“On behalf of the Marines and sailors of the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, I extend our deepest condolences to the family and loved ones of Lance Cpl. Ortiz Canseco,” Col. Richard Alvarez, the commanding officer of the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, said. “He earned the title of United States Marine and served his country with honor and commitment.”

The U.S. Navy began a search and rescue mission on Thursday but shifted to search and recovery operations on Friday, signaling the likely possibility that he had died.

The search and rescue efforts encompassed assets from the Navy, Coast Guard and Air Force and traversed 2,400 square miles over 43 hours with three surface ships and 12 aircraft.

Canseco, originally from Minnesota, enlisted in the Marine Corps on April 3, 2023.

He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, at Camp Pendleton, California, before transferring to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment.

The circumstances surrounding his death are currently under investigation, the service said.

The incident was reported at 11:30 a.m. Eastern Standard Time while the ship was moored at Naval Station Mayport, Florida. Mayport Fire and Emergency Services responded to the scene immediately and extinguished the fire.

“The cause of the incident is being reviewed,” a Navy spokesperson said.

The service members were released shortly after arriving at local hospitals and cleared to return to the Indianapolis the same day.

Earlier this month, a fire broke out aboard the John Lewis-class fleet oiler USNS Harriet Tubman, which is under construction at the General Dynamics NASSCO shipyard in San Diego, California.

The fire was doused with limited damage and no injuries reported.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office released a report in May that said the U.S. Navy needs to do a better of job of mitigating fire risks for ships during maintenance periods.

Between May 2008 and July 2020, there were 15 major fire incidents aboard Navy ships, thirteen of which occurred on those undergoing maintenance.

The jet, assigned to Marine Aircraft Group 11, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, was conducting a routine training exercise when it crashed, the service confirmed.

“The cause of the mishap is currently under investigation,” the Marine Corps said.

The Yakima County Sheriff’s Office received calls around 12:15 p.m. involving a military plane that crashed into a mountain in the area of Rimrock Lake.

A law enforcement officer responded to the scene and helped transport a pilot who’d ejected from the jet to a hospital, where he recovered from minor injuries.

A wildfire was reported in the area shortly after, requiring intervention from the Naches Fire Department, which deployed a helicopter in tandem with the U.S. Forest Service in Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest to subdue the flames.

Local enforcement evacuated campers in the area after the fire broke out.

The 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing would not confirm that the aviation mishap was the cause of the fire.

The Defense Department released data in November 2025 that showed a sizable uptick in aviation mishaps.

The rate of significant accidents per 100,000 flight hours rose 55% in fiscal 2024 in comparison with the four years that preceded it.

Two years ago, Washington state was the site of another tragic military mishap.

In October 2024, two Navy pilots died when their EA-18G Growler crashed east of Mount Rainier.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation on Friday arrested former U.S. Navy Seaman Bareen Dzayee, 25, along with Bisaam Ghafoor, 21, and Elias Shamsaldeen, 21, for allegedly providing over $2,000 to an individual they believed to be an ISIS member.

The trio reportedly believed their money would sanction the purchase of rocket-propelled grenades and drones that would be used to murder U.S. service members.

“Over years, the individuals communicated about several plans to support ISIS, including through the provision of personnel, services and money,” a criminal complaint read. “Through chats, voice calls and multiple messaging platforms, these conspirators pledged allegiance or ‘Bayat’ to ISIS and its leader.”

Dzayee enlisted in the Navy in 2021 and served aboard the USS John McCain from March 25, 2022, to July 19, 2024, when he separated from the service.

Between March 2025 and January 2026, the FBI identified all three suspects as ISIS sympathizers after alarming social media posts.

The posts pledged allegiance to the terrorist organization, promoted violence and discussed weapons and explosives in support of ISIS operations.

A confidential FBI source the suspects believed to be an active ISIS member reached out to Ghafoor and Shamsaldeen in May 2025 and joined a social media group chat in which Shamsaldeen specifically stated his desire to injure U.S. service members, travel overseas to fight for ISIS and “take action” to make his fantasies of violence come true.

Ghafoor, Dzayee and Shamsaldee paid money between March and May of this year to the confidential FBI source. At one point, Ghafoor said it would be “sick” if the contact — who was the FBI agent — wrote Ghafoor’s name on one of the drones.

During the process of sending money to the FBI source, Ghafoor acknowledged that doing so would be treason but stated that he wanted to continue with the transaction, according to the Justice Department.

He also reportedly told the confidential source that he had fantasized about killing a female soldier by beheading and wanted to kill 300,000 Americans.

“For years, the Department of Justice has been encouraging Americans that if they see suspicious activity, they should report it to law enforcement,” U.S. Attorney Ryan A. Kriegshauser for the District of Kansas said in a DoJ release. “That’s because long gone are the days where terrorist threats and attacks are incidents that only take place far away on foreign soil.”