On June 14, 2025, as President Donald Trump attended a military parade in Washington to mark both his 79th birthday and the Army’s 250th anniversary, a much less celebratory event was unfolding for some military families across the country. Just days earlier, a trio of military families filed a federal lawsuit in Maryland, challenging a Trump administration policy that has abruptly cut off gender-affirming healthcare for transgender dependents of servicemembers. The case, Doe v. Department of Defense, highlights a contentious and deeply personal battle over healthcare rights, executive authority, and the promise made to those who serve.
The controversy began in March 2025, when, according to AP and Law&Crime, a sub-agency within the Department of Defense (DoD) implemented a series of executive orders issued by President Trump. These orders instructed TRICARE, the military’s health insurance plan, to stop covering procedures and services associated with the “treatment of gender dysphoria” for individuals under 19 years of age. The policy also prohibited military clinics and hospitals from providing ongoing medical care to transgender children, adolescents, and young adults, regardless of where the care was delivered.
For nearly a decade, military families had relied on the military health system to provide gender-affirming care for their transgender children and young adults. According to the lawsuit and reports from GLAD Law and LGBTQ Nation, this care included puberty-blocking medications and hormone therapy, provided both at military medical treatment facilities and through TRICARE’s pharmacy coverage. The policy reversal, however, brought this care to a sudden halt.
The impact was immediate and profound. The plaintiffs—using the pseudonyms Diana Doe, Nathan Noe, and Parker Poe—describe how their families were thrust into financial and emotional turmoil. “Their prescriptions have been cut off without notice,” the lawsuit states, as reported by Law&Crime. “Their trusted doctors at military hospitals have been forced to abandon them. Plaintiffs' families now face significant, and in some cases crushing, out-of-pocket costs or the prospect of watching their family member's health deteriorate without the medications that kept them healthy and stable. This is not an abstract policy shift—it is an immediate and devastating disruption of essential healthcare that affects the physical and psychological wellbeing of Plaintiffs and other young people throughout the country.”
Sarah Austin, a staff attorney at GLAD Law, underscored the magnitude of the reversal, calling it “a sweeping reversal of military health policy and a betrayal of military families who have sacrificed for our country.” She added, “When a servicemember is deployed and focused on the mission, they deserve to know their family is taken care of. This Administration has backtracked on that core promise and put servicemembers at risk of losing access to health care their children desperately need.” (GLAD Law, LGBTQ Nation)
The lawsuit, filed on September 8, 2025, in the Maryland federal district court, is represented by attorneys from GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law), the National Center for LGBTQ Rights (NCLR), Brown Goldstein & Levy, LLP, and Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman, a Joe Biden appointee. The plaintiffs are using pseudonyms to protect their privacy and safety, a step not uncommon in cases involving sensitive medical and identity issues.
According to the complaint, the policy change not only violated the expectations of military families but also ran afoul of established medical standards. “Under accepted protocols, physicians do not prescribe puberty-blocking medications or hormones to adolescent minors unless they have obtained informed consent from a parent and assent from the minor,” the filing explains. The sudden withdrawal of care, the plaintiffs argue, is inconsistent with these standards and places young people at risk.
The personal stories at the heart of the lawsuit bring the issue into sharp relief. One section of the complaint details the experience of Nathan Noe, who, as early as elementary school, felt uncomfortable being seen as a girl and identified as a boy. Nathan’s parents became increasingly aware of his distress and, as puberty approached, sought medical advice. Nathan and his family had relied on TRICARE and military doctors for years, but now face the prospect of losing access to the medications that kept him healthy and stable. Similarly, Diana Doe and Parker Poe, the other plaintiffs, have seen their care interrupted without warning—Diana and Nathan at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, and Parker at another facility where his testosterone therapy was suddenly no longer covered.
The legal arguments advanced by the plaintiffs are multifaceted. They contend that the DoD’s policy change unlawfully modified the scope of medical care provided to military families, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA requires federal agencies to provide explanations for major policy shifts and to allow for public input through notice-and-comment rulemaking. The lawsuit alleges that the DoD “failed to offer any explanation at all” and did not consider “all relevant factors” before making the change. This, the plaintiffs argue, renders the policy “arbitrary and capricious” under the APA.
Additionally, the lawsuit claims that the administration’s actions exceed the scope of existing law. Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that last year’s appropriations bill only barred TRICARE from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization”—not all forms of gender-affirming care. The Trump administration’s broader prohibition, they contend, violates both the letter and the spirit of the law. “The Executive Branch cannot usurp Congress’s legislative authority on its own mandate; any legislative authority wielded by the Executive Branch must have been delegated within the confines of the Constitutional limitations protecting the respective spheres of government,” the complaint reads.
Attorneys and advocates for the families have been outspoken in their criticism of the administration’s actions. Shannon Minter, legal director at NCLR, called the directive “illegal” and part of a “dangerous trend” of the administration ignoring legal requirements and abandoning military families. Sharif Jacob, a partner at Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, said, “The president’s order prevents military hospitals from providing transgender youth with the care their doctors deem necessary and their parents have approved. Today, we have filed a lawsuit to put an end to this order and the agency guidance that implements it.” Liam Brown, another attorney on the case, added, “We will not stand by while those who serve are deprived of the ability to care for their families.” (GLAD Law)
The broader context for this legal battle is a series of executive actions by the Trump administration targeting the rights of transgender Americans, including efforts to bar transgender individuals from military service and to roll back protections in other areas of federal law. While the administration and its supporters have argued that such measures are necessary to maintain order and fiscal responsibility in the military, critics see them as part of a discriminatory campaign that undermines both the welfare of military families and the values of the armed forces.
As the case moves forward, it will test not only the legal boundaries of executive authority but also the nation’s commitment to those who serve. For the families at the center of the lawsuit, the stakes are intensely personal—and the outcome could have lasting implications for military healthcare policy, civil rights, and the promise made to every servicemember: that their families will be cared for at home, even as they serve abroad.
