In a pair of decisions that have sent shockwaves through the LGBTQ community and beyond, both the federal judiciary and the U.S. military have recently imposed significant restrictions on the rights and benefits of transgender Americans. Within the span of a week in early August 2025, a federal appeals court upheld Oklahoma’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, while the U.S. Air Force announced it would deny early retirement benefits to transgender service members forced out under the Trump administration’s military ban. These rulings, rooted in recent Supreme Court decisions and executive policies, have ignited fierce debate over the balance between legislative authority, individual rights, and the role of discrimination in public policy.
On August 6, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals made headlines by unanimously upholding Oklahoma’s Senate Bill 613—a law passed in 2023 by the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by Governor Kevin Stitt. The law makes it a felony for healthcare professionals to provide puberty-blocking drugs and hormones to minors whose gender identity does not align with their biological sex. According to reporting by Nexstar Media, the law’s passage followed a 2022 measure that froze pandemic relief funding for OU Health unless Oklahoma Children’s Hospital agreed to suspend gender-affirming care for minors, highlighting the state’s increasingly aggressive stance on transgender healthcare.
The law was challenged by five families of transgender children and an Oklahoma City physician, who argued that it violated constitutional rights and was enacted with discriminatory intent. Represented by Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the ACLU of Oklahoma, the plaintiffs pointed to what they described as political interference in medical decisions and a disregard for the well-being of transgender youth. Their legal battle, however, ran into a significant roadblock when a Tulsa federal judge declined to halt the law in 2023, noting that “transition-related care for young people is an area in which medical and policy debate is unfolding,” and that the state “can rationally take the side of caution before permitting irreversible medical treatments of its children.”
The legal landscape shifted further after the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti, which upheld a similar Tennessee law. The high court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines that Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors does not constitute sex discrimination, a finding that dramatically lowered the bar for judicial scrutiny of such laws. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, asserted that the law “distinguishes based on a treatment’s medical purpose, not sex,” and urged deference to legislative judgments regarding children’s healthcare.
Relying heavily on this precedent, the 10th Circuit’s three-judge panel—comprising appointees from both Republican and Democratic presidents—concluded that Oklahoma’s Senate Bill 613 was “functionally indistinguishable” from Tennessee’s law. Circuit Judge Joel M. Carson wrote, “Here, like in Skrmetti, both groups include transgender minors, so there exists a ‘lack of identity’ between transgender status and the medical diagnosis excluded under SB 613. And like Tennessee’s SB1, under SB 613, a minor’s ability to receive medical treatment under SB 613 does not turn on the minor’s transgender status—it turns on the minor’s medical diagnosis.”
The court further emphasized that “this remains a novel issue with disagreement on how to assure children’s health and welfare,” and concluded, “We will not usurp the legislature’s judgment when it engages in ‘earnest and profound debate about the morality, legality, and practicality’ of gender transition procedures for minors.” In a nod to the heated nature of the controversy, Judge Carson acknowledged the deep divisions at play but maintained that legislative caution does not, in itself, violate constitutional principles.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond celebrated the ruling, posting on X, “For years, radical left activists pushed the lie of ‘gender transition’ procedures for minors. The truth is much simpler: there is no such thing.” The plaintiffs’ attorneys, meanwhile, called the decision “devastating,” declaring in a joint statement, “Oklahoma’s ban is openly discriminatory and provably harmful to the transgender youth of this state, putting political dogma above parents, their children, and their family doctors. While we and our clients consider our next steps, we want all transgender people and their families across Oklahoma to know we will never stop fighting for the future they deserve and their freedom to be themselves.”
Just as the legal fight over healthcare for transgender youth reached a new crescendo, the U.S. Air Force announced a policy shift with equally profound consequences for transgender service members. On August 4, Brian Scarlett, the senior civilian acting as the Air Force’s assistant secretary for manpower and reserve affairs, issued a memo reversing early retirement approvals for transgender personnel with 15 to 18 years of service. The move denies these individuals access to retirement benefits under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA), which had previously allowed some members with more than 15—but fewer than 20—years of service to retire early with prorated benefits.
As reported by Air & Space Forces magazine and corroborated by the Associated Press, about a dozen transgender service members had been told they could retire early, only to have those approvals rescinded. Scarlett’s memo cited President Trump’s executive order banning transgender military service, which labels transgender identity as a mental disorder incompatible with military discipline and readiness. The new policy forces transgender service members to accept a lump-sum “voluntary separation” payment—similar to what junior troops receive if they leave before qualifying for retirement—or face expulsion without benefits. The financial impact is severe, with the difference between retiring and separating potentially costing a service member hundreds of thousands of dollars over a lifetime.
The Air Force’s statement to the Associated Press claimed that those members “had not been approved for TERA, but were ‘prematurely notified’ they could retire before the decision was reversed.” This explanation, however, contradicted information provided to Air & Space Forces magazine, raising questions about the consistency and transparency of the Air Force’s communications. The policy shift follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2025 decision allowing the Pentagon to implement the transgender service ban, even as legal challenges continue in the courts. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced in May that transgender service members could voluntarily separate with a large, one-time payout by June 6 or risk expulsion and the loss of any accrued benefits.
The human toll of these policies has been swift and deeply felt. Master Sergeant Logan Ireland, a 15-year Air Force veteran with a deployment to Afghanistan, told the Advocate he felt “betrayed and devastated by the news.” Ireland recounted learning of his early retirement denial on August 6, when his chain of command, “with tears in their eyes,” delivered the message. “This is a core part of who I am, and now it’s just being ripped from me,” he said. “So being allowed to still retire was a way for me to find closure and was a way for me to look at the Air Force and say, ‘you know what? Despite this policy, they’re trying to do right by some service members and allowing us to retire early.’ But now I feel like I was just betrayed by the same service that once celebrated who I am.”
Advocates and legal experts have condemned the Air Force’s actions. Jay Brown, chief of staff at the Human Rights Campaign, called the policy “cruelty for cruelty’s sake,” while attorney Shannon Leary predicted lawsuits challenging the move, describing it as “arbitrary on its face and cruel.”
As legal battles continue and affected individuals weigh their next steps, these developments underscore the profound and immediate impact that legislative and administrative decisions can have on the lives of transgender Americans—whether they are seeking healthcare for their children or closure after years of service in uniform. The story is far from over, but for many, the consequences are already painfully clear.