Judge rejects Trump administration bid to dismiss transgender Air Force troops’ retirement lawsuit

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to knock most of the transgender service members out of a lawsuit over military retirements that the Air Force approved and then abruptly revoked.

In a 10-page ruling Wednesday, U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Elaine D. Kaplan, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, denied the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss, allowing all 17 plaintiffs to continue pursuing claims that the government unlawfully stripped them of retirement pay and benefits after promising they could leave military service with early retirement.

The decision keeps alive one of the most unusual legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s transgender military ban. Unlike the constitutional lawsuits contesting the ban itself, this case asks whether the government can revoke retirement orders it had already issued to transgender troops after deciding to expel them from the armed forces.

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

The Justice Department argued that most of the plaintiffs had no right to sue because they were still serving on active duty when the lawsuit was filed and therefore had not yet suffered the financial injury required to bring a claim for retirement pay.

Kaplan disagreed, writing that the government had blurred the line between whether the court has jurisdiction and whether the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail.

“The government’s arguments conflate the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims with the establishment of this Court’s jurisdiction,” she wrote.

The plaintiffs allege that after Trump’s 2025 executive order targeting transgender military service, the Air Force invited troops with 15 to 18 years of service to apply for early retirement under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority. Their requests were approved, and official retirement orders were issued with retirement dates in the fall of 2025. Weeks later, after new Pentagon leadership took over implementation of the policy, those orders were rescinded and replaced with offers of voluntary separation pay — worth far less than military retirement.

Kaplan concluded that the service members had plausibly alleged they were entitled to retirement pay under federal law and that any dispute over how continued active duty service affects the amount they may recover is a question for the merits of the case, not a reason to dismiss it.

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

After oral arguments earlier this month, two plaintiffs told The Advocate that the revoked retirements had already reshaped their lives. The Advocate is withholding their names because they remain in military service. One service member, who has served for more than 15 years and supports a family, said the uncertainty made it “impossible to make any kind of contingency plan for moving forward.”

“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,” they said. They called the government’s reversal “a pretty devastating betrayal.”

Another plaintiff described retirement as more than a pension. It was the ceremony, recognition and orderly conclusion of a military identity built over years of service. “To have us go out with a whimper as opposed to a bang is not right,” the service member said. “More so than just being trans folks, we are military. We are serving.”

The judge identified one technical issue affecting 11 plaintiffs whose scheduled retirement dates had not yet arrived when the lawsuit was filed in November 2025. Rather than dismiss those claims, however, she granted the plaintiffs permission to file a supplemental complaint reflecting that all of those retirement dates have since passed. The supplemental filing is due on August 4.