As I was leading efforts within the Department of Defense to implement President Obama’s policy allowing transgender service members the opportunity to serve their nation, I knew we were growing a force that was a closer mirror to our society.
I also knew that this was not going to be an easy path. Transgender service members have struggled for some time and I knew that there were those within the military community that would invoke the phrases of tradition.
{mosads}The military is steeped in tradition, and that is something we all revere about this great institution, but it can also be an Achilles’ heel. It was the barrier to blacks, women, gays and now transgender Americans. The White House is preparing to send its guidance for the barrier to transgender service.
Barely off of his fiery Arizona campaign rally — by the way, someone might want to let Trump know he won the election — the president is exercising his next step as divider or baiter in chief.
Whether race baiting with at best confusing comments about neo-Nazis and white supremacists or pitting service member against service member, Trump knows no bounds to his divisive language that has torn apart this democracy in only even months in office.
We are all familiar with the events of Charlottesville, Va., that sparked outrage from across the country and finally from within the Republican Party.
However, what Trump did is only a continuance of what he has been doing. As he spoke from a teleprompter to combat veterans at the American Legion convention, the Trump White House finalized his plans to divide the country yet again.
This time it would be against the front lines of freedom, our service members, because Trump, the vice president and apparently many in his party believe that there is a litmus test to fight and die for your country. The Trump administration will deny transgender persons the opportunity to serve, even if they meet the rigorous standards of the military.
Thankfully, there are leaders within the Republican Party, as well as our military leaders who wear social blinders when it comes to altruistic service. Their advice to Trump, Pence and their administration: Be appreciative of those willing and able to serve.
Often, we liberals are blamed for creating social experiments in the military. The reality is that denying those who meet the standards the opportunity to serve simply because they are not white males is the real social experiment.
What so many others and I have fought for is a military that is reflective of the society that we serve. It is only then, when our military reflects the social, demographic and economic diversity of our nation, that we will greater reflect on conflict and perhaps choose not to enter into another Iraq. It is also from this diverse force that we are strongest against all enemies. I know this first hand, as a combat veteran who also happens to be gay.
And when it comes to the other issue often levied against transgender service members, let’s get the facts straight.
The Pentagon spends far more on Viagra than it will ever spend on transgender surgeries or pharmaceuticals. Today’s force is better trained, better equipped and more diverse than ever before. That is why when Trump calls for “fire and fury” he knows that we are ready and able. Of the millions who serve and have served, the few thousand transgender service members who help us to be ready and able to deliver that fire and fury are soldiers like Jennifer Sims and airmen like Logan Ireland.
This newest policy from Trump to ban transgender service members is one more example of an ongoing campaign to divide our nation and those who wish only to serve. In doing so, he hurts our military readiness and the fabric of our country.
Todd A. Weiler is a former assistant secretary of Defense under the Obama administration and deputy assistant secretary under President Clinton. Weiler led transgender policy initiatives and directed protections for transgender children of military service members. He is a decorated combat veteran and currently consults on military and civilian personnel issues.
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.