SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Thanks. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us. We appreciate your time. Last week, the Supreme Court granted a stay of the preliminary injunction issued in Shilling v United States, and that allows the Department of Defense to implement its policy concerning service members with a current diagnosis or history of or exhibiting symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria.
So, that happened last week. Since then, the Secretary of Defense, and the official performing the duties of Under Secretary of Defense, have issued guidance directing the halt of accessions by individuals that are impacted by this policy as well as separating from service members currently serving that are also impacted by the policy.
As President Trump stated in his January executive order expressing a false gender identity divergent from an individual's sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service. Therefore, the department is moving forward with implementing its guidance to separate individuals impacted by this policy either through a voluntary or involuntary separation process.
In the Secretary of Defense's guidance, he extended the deadline for the voluntary identification and separation to June 6th for those impacted by the policy that are in the active duty. And the Secretary also extended the voluntary identification deadline to July 7th for currently serving service members impacted by the policy serving in the reserve component.
I want to clarify something about that policy. I have seen some news coverage that has misunderstood the impact of those deadlines. The June 6th for active duty and the July 7th deadline for the reserve component are not the deadline by which service members who have voluntarily identified themselves must be separated from service.
Those are the deadlines by which they must identify themselves voluntarily to be eligible for the voluntary separation process, which will likely for them include, as long as they qualify, the voluntary separation pay, which is significantly more generous in amount than the pay received for those that go through the involuntary identification and separation process.
So, as long as the service member identifies themselves voluntarily by June 6th for active duty or July 7th for the reserve component, military departments must begin the separation process within 30 days of that identification. And then the separation process will move through the normal course of events and take some time. That is distinct from having to be separated from the military by June 6th or July 7th, which is not the import of the policy.
During that voluntary separation period, the military departments will begin the process of identifying service members impacted by the policy using medical readiness programs and guidance. They will not act on any of that identification during that period because any service member impacted by the guidance still has the option to voluntarily identify by those deadlines that I stated earlier. This is simply the military departments beginning the process to identify any additional service members that may elect not to identify themselves during the voluntary identification period.
Commanders who are aware of service members in their units who meet the criteria of this policy will direct individualized medical record reviews. Any individuals who meet the criteria of the policy and do not voluntarily identify themselves and go through the voluntary separation process will be processed involuntarily unless they are granted a waiver.
And as I mentioned previously, there is also an involuntary separation pay available for any service members that go through that process. The department encourages currently serving service members that are impacted by the policy to elect to do the voluntary identification and voluntary separation process, which may afford certain benefits not available to those who go through the involuntary separation process.
Regardless of the means of the separation, the Department is committed to treating all service members impacted by the policy with dignity and respect and remains committed to protecting both their privacy and their medical data. The Department remains focused on implementing Secretary Hegseth's guidance to restore the warrior ethos, rebuild the military and restore deterrence. Thank you. We'll take some of your questions now.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Before I call on the first reporters, please limit your questions to one question and one follow up. We'll start with Lita, AP.
Q: Hi, good morning, thank you. I wanted to check on the numbers and on this involuntary separation. Can you give us a bit more detail on how the military departments will identify the service members? Will they be going through medical records? How exactly is that going to happen?
And then the quick follow up is on the numbers. There was 4,240, I believe is the number that you all thought or put out in December about those with gender dysphoria. Is that still accurate or do you have updated numbers? And is the 1,000 who self-identified still accurate or do you have updated numbers? Thank you.
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Thank you for the question. I'll address the numbers first. Yes, as you mentioned, the Department has cited a previous study that estimated approximately 4,200 service members with gender dysphoria. I have not seen a more recent study the department is relying on. So, that would be the most recent study that we would rely on. And of course, that may not be current as of today because service members are entering and departing service in the normal course of events all the time.
So, I think that would be a good estimate of the number the department would expect to be in service. And then we don't have an updated number on those that have elected to participate in the voluntary identification process. I would point you back to the estimate that previously we had noted we had about 1,000 service members, approximately, across the department that had elected to voluntarily self-identify.
We will continue to compile numbers as we go forward now that we're again able to implement the policy following the Supreme Court's granting of the stay. And so, we'll hope to have updated numbers to share at a later date for participation. Now turning to your other question regarding the process for identification for involuntary separation.
First, I want to highlight that any service member impacted by the policy is fully able and welcomed and encouraged by the department to participate in the voluntary separation process, which would simply require a voluntary identification by June 6th in the active duty and July 7th by the Reserve component. So, we hope they elect to do that.
For those that elect not to voluntarily participate, the primary means of identification for the involuntary process will be through medical readiness programs. Individual medical readiness programs are a long-standing program and policy in the department. They are not new. They are not tied specifically to the implementation of this policy.
The Department has long, in response to the need to ensure that service members remain qualified and fit for duty, used incremental medical evaluations that are done periodically, traditionally and annual health screening and assessment. And we will continue to use the individual medical readiness program to ensure that service members are qualified for service.
Due to the implementation of this guidance concerning gender dysphoria, that means that being qualified through the Individual Medical Readiness Program will now include ensuring that service members that are qualified for service, do not have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
So, that's what – the primary means the department will use. As service members continue to cycle through periodically their individual medical readiness requirements, that will be one of the factors that's evaluated to ensure that they are fit and able to serve.
MODERATOR: Konstantin, military.com.
Q: Thank you. Thanks for doing this. So, in reading the memo, I see that it says commanders who are aware of service members in their units with gender dysphoria, a history of gender dysphoria or symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria will be evaluated basically. The phrase symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria. Is there – I mean, to me, that strikes me as a fairly broad phrase that could easily be abused. I mean, are there any safeguards in place here to prevent misuse of this policy?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Thanks for the question, Konstantin. The department has long granted broad discretion and authority to commanders. We empower commanders and they require empowerment to be effective in their duties because they interact with service members at the lowest tactical level. And so, this policy, like many others, will rely on their qualifications, discernment and judgment in how to interpret and apply the guidance.
We are confident and comfortable with commanders implementing the policy. And in this guidance, we also direct commanders that they must protect the privacy of protected health information that they receive under this policy, and that is consistent with the direction and guidance that they already have concerning both access to the medical records of their service members and the safeguards and responsibilities that they carry both by law and departmental policy.
And that is also consistent with what we expect and require of commanders generally to ensure that their service members are fit and capable for duty, whether it's under this policy or any other qualification where they may have concern that that service member requires medical intervention or is not able to perform their duties.
Q: Sure, I appreciate that, but I mean, I guess, nothing in that answer sort of seemed to address the possibility of a commander using this policy to, for example, direct a medical screening for a service member that they feel exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria as a, for example, a retaliatory measure.
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Yeah, I would highlight, Konstantin, that the department relies on commanders' judgment and faithfulness in executing their duties. And any negative action that they would take to one of their assigned service members that would be retaliatory would be completely unacceptable regardless of whether it concerned this policy or any other policy? The duties and responsibilities that they owe to each of their service members are not unique to this policy and extend far beyond this policy as well. Thank you.
Q: Thank you.
MODERATOR: Luis Martinez, ABC.
Q: Hi, thank you. Quick question. You mentioned the medical readiness program has been used in the past pretty frequently. Can you just give us an example of previous cases so we can kind of explain it? And can you tell us when you look at the MRP, kind of go into Konstantin's questions, does that mean that the commander has to initiate the request of a certain individual to get access to their medical records? Is that what you're saying? So yes, please, first example. And then the sequencing? Thank you.
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Thank you. I'll try to deal with both of those in turn. So, first of all, I'm going to deal with the second question, which is how is this initiated. The individual medical readiness program is just executed on a rolling basis and service members come up periodically to be recertified for their fitness for duty and commanders don't have to initiate that for individual service members.
That is just an ongoing task and responsibility that is performed throughout the force. So, that will continue as regularly scheduled for all service members for things – including this policy and far beyond this policy. Just generally unit commanders ensure that service members comply with policies and requirements, including any policy changes such as this policy change and that's not a new role for them.
Now your other question about examples of how does the Individual Medical Readiness Program work. One of the main things the Individual Medical Readiness Program is assessing is the continued eligibility for service of a service member as well as their deployability.
So, for example, if a service member is going through an annual periodic health screening, any condition that would be identified that would mean they were either not eligible to deploy or not eligible for further service would prompt corresponding action by the department to determine the way forward for that service member. And it will be the same with this policy as it's implemented through the Medical Readiness Program.
MODERATOR: Okay, Ellee Watson, CBS.
Q: Hi. Thanks for doing this. Broad question. What is your message to the service members who have been serving for years and are past their point of transition and have been serving the country honorably? And why not grandfather those service members in?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Thank you, Ellie. First of all, I'd like to highlight that the department is grateful for the service of every service member past and present, particularly in an era with decreasing propensity to serve. So, the department is certainly grateful for their service. For individuals impacted by this policy, the president and the secretary have been clear that a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria is inconsistent with future service.
However, throughout this process, beginning with the invitation to voluntarily identify, the department fully intends to treat everyone impacted by the policy with dignity and respect. They will be afforded a substantial voluntary separation pay.
MODERATOR: Okay, everyone, can you hear us? Okay, we're going to start from the top.
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Thank you, Ellee. Pardon the interruption. So, returning to your question, I first want to highlight that the department is grateful for the service of every service member, both past and present, particularly in a time of decreasing propensity to serve. But along with that, the Department maintains a focus on its mission, which requires ensuring that everyone that continues to serve remains eligible and able to serve.
And so, the Department is always faced with difficult decisions about when a service member no longer remains eligible for further service and I proudly served in the Army. For each of us there is a time when our service comes to an end. And for some people that's when they're deemed not eligible to continue to serve.
This policy will treat anyone impacted by it with dignity and respect. For anyone that elects to voluntarily identify, they will be separated as any other separation process would go, giving them the time they need to transition to civilian life. They will be afforded a very significant voluntary separation pay.
They will be receiving a covered permanent change of station move to their home of record, and they'll be given an honorable characterization of discharge provided that there's no other misconduct in the file that's prompting the separation. So, they will be treated well through the process. And again, I'd highlight the department thanks them both for volunteering to serve their country and for serving their country through the time of their careers. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Did you have a follow up, Ellee?
Q: Just – other elephant in the room is still being litigated. So, I know it's a hypothetical, but if eventually the court rules that this is not a legal ban, are there any plans for that possibility?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Thank you, Ellee. I won't speak to any future litigation; I'll avoid speculation on what might occur in the future. We're focused here today on the Supreme Court's granting of the stay and the corresponding implementation of the department's policy presently. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Helene, New York Times.
Q: Hi, thank you. So, you said at the beginning of this that the department remains focused on implementing the Secretary's guidance to restore the warrior ethos. Can you tell me what gender dysphoria has to do with not restoring the warrior ethos? What does one have to do with the other? I don't get it.
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Thank you, Helene. So, what I highlighted at the start is that the department remains focused on the Secretary's expressed priorities for the Department. So, each of those is distinct from one another. Right now, I'll just discuss, with respect to this policy, the impact on readiness, which is that the President and the Secretary have both been clear that a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is inconsistent with future service.
And so, that comes with a corresponding task to ensure that our service members remain eligible to serve under the current policy. So, given this guidance, the implementation requires some steps to ensure that those who go forward in service remain eligible to meet the high standards of the department. And the Department requires high standards to ensure that the force is ready to fight and win the nation's wars as called upon. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Did you have a follow up?
Q: I'm sorry, I'm not getting this. You're saying that – you are just stating that the medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria is inconsistent with future service. Why? Can you put – can you cite why?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Yeah, thank you, Helene. So, today we're focusing on the implications and the details of the implementation of this policy. We did a previous backgrounder where we did field questions about the reasoning and data behind the President and the Secretary's decisions.
Right now, the department is fully focused on executing those guidancesfrom the President and Secretary, which are very clear, and state that service members with those diagnoses are no longer qualified for military service and must be separated either through the voluntary or involuntary identification process. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Courtney Kube, NBC.
Q: Thank you. OK. These are a couple of quick ones, OK. I just want to be clear. When you talk about the periodic readiness process, are you talking about the combat fitness test once a year? Is that what you mean by the periodic readiness process, that kind of thing?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Thanks, Courtney. So, individual medical readiness is distinct from the fitness test. Fitness tests are part of assessing continued readiness. But what we're talking about with respect to this policy is the Department's established individual medical readiness program. And that the main aspect of that that is relevant here is the department's periodic health assessment known as a PHA. And that's a routine screening to ensure that the service member's health is still consistent with future service.
And so, that process is distinct from physical fitness and evaluations of physical fitness, although those are another aspect of readiness that just don't have specific application with respect to the implementation of this policy. I think you had something else?
Q: Yeah, so this is – I just want to be – I'm struggling a little bit with the readiness thing with the part of this. So, this is like basically every year they do their PHA and if somebody – that is the place where theoretically people who do not self-identify would be identified. Is that because they will be asked the question at that? I mean, so is that now – now that will be part of your PHA is you will be asked, do you have gender dysphoria or not? That's how this will happen?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Thanks, Courtney. The periodic health assessment includes a self-assessment questionnaire that's prior to discussing with a medical provider your status. And so, part of the self-assessment questionnaire for the PHA going forward will require an attestation whether or not a service member has a current diagnosis or history of or exhibits symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria. And that's consistent with the other aspects of the questionnaire, which are asking any questions that would be relevant to a determination of whether the service member remains fit to serve.
Q: And just one more thing on the PHA. Is that given to the same time every single year or is it – is every service member given it on June 1st of every year? Or is it – I'm trying to figure out if there's a possibility that people who do not self-identify could still serve for another six months or eight months or 10 months before they are essentially outed by the PHA?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Thanks, Courtney. I would highlight upfront that the department's guidance is not that service members will remain authorized to continue to serve with disqualifying conditions until identified through any other means. The Department's policy is effective right now, which is that if you have a current diagnosis of gender dysphoria, you're not eligible for further service.
There are multiple methods of implementing that guidance. The voluntary identification, the involuntary identification and the corresponding separations. PHA is administered on a rolling basis. And because of medical capacity, it's not practical to move everyone in a unit through at one time, for example.
And so, as individuals come up on their incremental due date, so to speak, then they go in individually and conduct their – they do their self-assessment questionnaire and then they're screened by a provider. And so, those dates would vary by the service member depending on the last date that they completed a PHA.
MODERATOR: Natasha, CNN.
Q: Hi. Thank you. So, despite what the Secretary has posted repeatedly about trans being out at DOD and this policy being focused at transgender individuals, it actually seems very narrowly tailored to the gender dysphoria diagnosis. But not all transgender people actually experience gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is a very specific clinical diagnosis and not all transgender people experience it. So, does this leave open the possibility that transgender individuals who do not experience gender dysphoria can continue to serve since this seems so narrowly tailored to that?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: I would point you back to the guidance, which is very explicit about the definition of those who are impacted, and that's the individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of or exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria. That's the limit of this policy. That's the scope of the implementation of the policy. I won't speculate further about individual cases. That is what defines and drives this policy and that's what the Department is moving forward with implementing.
Q: So, this is not explicitly directed at transgender individuals. It is explicitly directed only at those who experience or have symptoms of or have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria only?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Yeah, I'll quote from it again, it is explicitly directed at service members with a current diagnosis or history of or exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria, yes.
Q: Thanks.
MODERATOR: Okay, thank you. We're going to go with Patty, Task & Purpose.
Q: Hi, thank you for taking my question. Can you give us the definition of gender dysphoria that you're going off of, because I think in the memo the additional guidance, that one had been rescinded. So, what is the definition going with?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: In the implementation, the Department cites to the DSM-5 definition, Patty.
Q: And there certain types of providers that can give gender dysphoria diagnosis that are eligible in this?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Sorry, Patty, I don't follow your question. Could you restate?
Q: Like does this have to come from a certain type of provider, the gender dysphoria diagnosis for this to be eligible in this?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: The department's policy is simply concerning those that voluntarily self-identify or involuntarily identify through the process that we outlined for how the department would go about the individual medical readiness program. So, I would just point you to those two processes. One way that we would be informed is if a service member voluntarily identifies themself as being impacted by the policy or alternatively through the department's typical individual medical readiness process including the PHA.
Q: So, it couldn't come through a civilian provider who diagnosed or that is also included?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: I'm not going to speak to hypotheticals beyond just that these are the two methods of identification the Department has laid out.
MODERATOR: Okay, we're going to move on to Heather Mongilio, USNI.
Q: Thank you so much. Given the concerns about recruiting in the past couple of years, is there any concern that this will affect recruiting or make it so that the services can't meet their end strength?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: I'm sorry, I caught the second part of your question about impacts on recruiting. Did I miss something in the initial part of your question?
Q: Oh, no, I was just asking if there's going to be any impacts on recruiting or meeting any strength?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Thank you for the question. So, what we've observed in the first few months of the Trump administration and Secretary Hegseth's time with the Department, his stellar recruiting numbers. All of the active-duty components are currently meeting their fiscal year 2025 recruiting goals and we've been very pleased with the results.
So, what we have seen to date from the period of this administration, the time of Secretary Hegseth being in position as the secretary for the department, we've seen excellent recruiting numbers. The department is very pleased with that result.
Q: And what about retention?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: I don't have anything else to share on retention. I'd focus back to the focus of this call being on the implementation of the policy. I have not seen any retention concerns to date within the Department.
MODERATOR: Okay, we're going to go to Dan Lamothe, Washington Post.
Q: Good morning. Thanks for taking time today. To follow up on I guess mostly on Natasha and Konstantin's question. The difference between symptoms of demonstrating symptoms of and an actual diagnosis can be significant. How does the department plan to I guess delineate between the two? The commanders have discretion here, but is there an appeal process? Is there any kind of look at this on a higher level of P&R or something like that? How will you get at basically assessing beyond just the commander here? Thank you.
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Thanks, Dan. So, for one, when you speak to commanders doing any referrals or commanders becoming aware of a service member that may be impacted by this policy, in cases where the commanders would be making referrals, they are going to be referring the service member to a qualified medical professional who's going to be making those determinations. And the department will rely on the determination of that qualified medical professional.
MODERATOR: Do you have a follow up, Dan?
Q: I don't think so. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Thank you. This is going to be our last question. It's going to be Mike Glenn, Washington Times.
Q: Thanks for this. You've mentioned a couple of times that there would be substantial voluntary separation pay, and significant voluntary separation pay. Do you have numbers of how much separation pay will be, voluntary as well as voluntary? And is that based on rank? Will a major get more than a captain, that sort of thing?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Thanks for the question, Mike. Yes, it's both impacted by rank as well as time and service. So, in some of the previous materials that we've shared to illustrate individual scenarios of what a payout would be for an individual service member, the payments would be different for voluntary and involuntary categories. And I'll give you a couple of examples for reference.
So, for involuntary category separation, an E-5 with 10 years of service, we estimate that that involuntary separation payment would be just under $51,000. For an O-3 with seven years in service that involuntary separation pay would be approximately $62,000. The way the voluntary separation pay is calculated is a multiple of two from the involuntary, so that E-5 with 10 years would be approximately $101,000 and the O-3 with seven years in service would be approximately $125,000. So, those are two of the examples. But yes, it will be dependent both on rank as well as time and service.
MODERATOR: Thanks, everybody, for coming today. You'll be able to find the memo on defense.gov under Publications. Thanks.