Judge presses Trump administration over revoked retirements for transgender Air Force troops

A federal judge on Tuesday appeared doubtful of the Trump administration’s argument that most of the transgender Air Force and Space Force members suing over revoked retirement orders have not yet been harmed.

The question before U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Elaine D. Kaplan was narrow but consequential: Can the government promise retirement to service members it is forcing out, take that promise back, and then argue that they must wait for an even more concrete injury before a court can hear their claims?

Government claims transgender troops haven't been harmed

Kaplan repeatedly pressed a Justice Department attorney on that position during a brief hearing in Washington, D.C., in a lawsuit brought by 17 transgender service members whose early retirement orders were issued by the Air Force in June 2025 and rescinded two months later.

The government is seeking to remove 16 of the plaintiffs from the case, arguing that they were still on active duty when the lawsuit was filed and therefore were not yet entitled to retirement pay.

Kaplan seemed unconvinced that this was truly a jurisdictional defect rather than a dispute over how damages should eventually be calculated.

“What they’re seeking is money that they are claiming is presently due to them because of the fact that their orders were illegally, they say, rescinded,” Kaplan told the government’s lawyer.

She also asked where the service members were supposed to go if her court dismissed their claims while they remained on active duty.

“I don’t know if another court would have jurisdiction at this time over it,” Justice Department attorney William Rayel acknowledged.

Under the government’s theory, many of the plaintiffs would have to wait until the military formally separated them without retirement, then return to court with a new claim for lost retirement pay.

That position leaves the service members in a legal and personal limbo created by the same government now asking the court to disregard it.

The Justice Department argues that active-duty service members cannot claim retirement pay while they are still receiving military pay. It also contends that some plaintiffs could ultimately qualify for more generous benefits if they reach 18 years of service or receive disability retirement.

The plaintiffs say that misses the point. The Air Force told them they would be removed because they are transgender, invited them to apply for early retirement, approved those applications and issued official orders with fixed retirement dates. Then, shortly before those retirements were supposed to begin, the military revoked them.

Their attorney, Eli Segal, told Kaplan that the injury was not speculative. The promise had already been made, relied upon, and withdrawn.

The lawsuit, led by retired Air Force Master Sgt. Logan Ireland, argues that the Air Force violated its own regulations when it rescinded the orders. The service members are seeking reinstatement of their retirements, restoration of associated benefits, and compensation for any retirement pay they lost.

The case will continue regardless of how Kaplan rules on the dismissal motion. The government has conceded that at least one plaintiff has a claim the court can hear, and the circumstances of several others, including Ireland, have changed since the lawsuit was filed.

Still, Kaplan’s ruling will determine whether most of the plaintiffs can now pursue their claims together or must wait until the government finishes removing them from the military.

Related: Air Force rescinds early retirement approvals for transgender service members kicked out by Trump

‘A pretty devastating betrayal’

Outside the courtroom Tuesday, two plaintiffs described an injury that is difficult to reduce to a future pension calculation.

The Advocate is withholding their names for safety reasons. One plaintiff, who has served for more than 15 years and supports a family with two children, said the government’s uncertainty has made it nearly impossible to plan for life after the military.

“It’s just taking it day by day, still showing up to work, still doing what I’m supposed to do until I’m told otherwise,” the service member told The Advocate.

They described what the limbo has done to them. “It’s incredibly nerve-racking, to say the least,” the plaintiff said. “Sleeping is impossible, but I still have to hold it together because I have to provide for my family, and I have to make sure I’m doing right by my subordinates.”

The plaintiff called the revocation of the retirement a “pretty devastating betrayal.”

After more than 15 years in uniform, military service had become inseparable from their sense of self. The retirement order offered a painful but legible ending. Its removal replaced that ending with an indefinite suspension. “Being in the military for so long, it’s become a huge part of who I am,” they said. “So it has had some effects of, ‘Who am I? What am I doing with my life?’”

The service member said being transgender had never hindered their work. “We’re no different from cisgender individuals, and being trans has not affected my ability to serve,” they said. “I would say it’s actually improved my ability to serve because I finally accepted who I am.”

Another plaintiff said the government had stripped away more than financial security. It had taken the rituals through which the military recognizes a career completed with honor.

The service member had begun preparing for retirement after being told their time in uniform was ending. A former officer who had played a meaningful role early in their career planned to preside over the ceremony marking the conclusion of their career.

Then the retirement orders vanished. “Shock, dismay, upset, betrayal,” the plaintiff said. The party was canceled. The food was given away. A retirement decoration intended to commemorate an entire career had to be reconsidered.

“One of the benefits of a retirement is the dignity and the pomp and the circumstance that comes along with the retirement,” the service member said. “The retirement party, the celebration of a career seen to its fulfillment. To have us go out with a whimper as opposed to a bang is not right.”

The plaintiff said the administration’s treatment of transgender troops obscures a basic truth about the people being expelled. “More so than just being trans folks, we are military,” they said. “We are serving.”

The promise at the center of the case

Related: Transgender Air Force members sue Trump administration over revoked retirements

Michael Haley, an attorney with GLAD Law who, in conjunction with the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, represents the plaintiffs, said after the hearing that the dispute turns on whether the country will honor commitments made to people who have spent years serving it.

“The retirement benefits, the health benefits, all that is part and parcel of what we as a country promised them in return for the incredible sacrifices that they are willing to take on to protect us,” Haley told The Advocate.

The administration’s contention that the plaintiffs have not yet been harmed, he said, ignores the significance of issuing formal retirement orders and then withdrawing them. “Having this promise made to you by your country and then having that promise taken away from you, whereas of a certain date you were supposed to be retired, you were supposed to be earning money in retirement — that is real harm,” Haley said.

He declined to predict Kaplan’s ruling but noted that her questions exposed the weakness in the government’s effort to portray the dispute as premature. “You heard in her questioning some skepticism about this idea that there’s not been any harm,” he said.

The lawsuit grew out of the Trump administration’s ban on transgender military service, which generally disqualifies people with gender dysphoria or a history of the diagnosis.

Related: DOJ tells court transgender troops must be fired before suing over revoked retirements

Air Force guidance issued in May 2025 allowed transgender service members with 15 to 18 years of service to request retirement under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority as an exception to policy. The Air Force approved the 17 plaintiffs’ applications and issued their orders the following month. By August, the promises were gone.

Kaplan did not rule from the bench Tuesday. Her eventual decision will determine whether the government can force most of the plaintiffs to remain in the military, deny them the retirements it approved and insist that the courthouse doors remain closed until their losses become even harder to undo.

For Haley, the stakes extend beyond this group of plaintiffs. Current and prospective service members, he said, are watching to see whether the military’s promises mean what they appear to mean.

“They want to know that the government is going to follow its own rules,” Haley said. “These are folks who have done everything that the government has asked them to do.”