Federal judge questions government’s move to revoke transgender Air Force retirements

A federal judge on Tuesday signaled doubt about the Trump administration’s argument that most transgender Air Force and Space Force members suing over revoked retirement orders have not yet suffered a legal injury.

U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Elaine D. Kaplan focused on a narrow but significant question during a brief hearing in Washington, D.C.: whether the government can approve retirement for service members it is removing, take back those orders and then argue that the plaintiffs must wait for a more concrete harm before the court can hear their case.

The lawsuit was filed by 17 transgender service members. Their early retirement orders were issued by the Air Force in June 2025 and rescinded two months later.

The government is asking that 16 of the plaintiffs be removed from the case. It argues that they were still on active duty when the lawsuit was filed and therefore were not yet entitled to retirement pay.

Kaplan appeared unconvinced that the issue was one of jurisdiction rather than a dispute over damages that could be sorted out later.

“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money that they are claiming is presently due to them because of the fact that their orders were illegally, they say, rescinded,” Kaplan told the government’s lawyer.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 turn if her court dismissed their claims while they remained on active duty. Justice Department attorney William Rayel acknowledged, “I don’t know if another court would have jurisdiction at this time over it.”

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.

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

The plaintiffs say that misses the core problem. According to their filings, the Air Force told them they were being 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 to begin, the military revoked them.

The plaintiffs’ attorney, Eli Segal, said the injury was already real because the promise had been made, relied on and then withdrawn.

The case is led by retired Air Force Master Sgt. Logan Ireland. It argues that the Air Force violated its own regulations when it rescinded the orders. The plaintiffs 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 decision will determine whether most of the plaintiffs can pursue their claims together now or must wait until the government completes their removals from the military.

Outside the courtroom

Two plaintiffs described the human cost of the dispute after the hearing. 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 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 said.

They said the situation has been exhausting and has affected basic daily functioning. “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 said.

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

After more than 15 years in uniform, the service member said the military had become inseparable from their identity. The retirement order, they said, provided a painful but clear ending; taking it away replaced that ending with an indefinite pause.

“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 plaintiff also 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 taken more than financial security. It had also stripped away the rituals that mark a military career’s end.

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 had planned to preside over the ceremony.

Then the orders were withdrawn. The plaintiff described the reaction as “Shock, dismay, upset, betrayal.” The party was canceled, the food was given away and a retirement decoration meant to recognize a full 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 added that the government’s treatment of transgender troops overlooks who they are beyond their gender identity.

“More so than just being trans folks, we are military,” they said. “We are serving.”

What the plaintiffs say is at stake

Michael Haley, an attorney with GLAD Law who, along with the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, represents the plaintiffs, said the case is about whether the government will honor commitments made to people who spent years in uniform.

“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 said.

He said the administration’s argument that no harm has occurred ignores the effect 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.

Haley declined to predict how Kaplan will rule, but said her questions showed skepticism toward the government’s effort to treat the matter as premature.

“You heard in her questioning some skepticism about this idea that there’s not been any harm,” he said.

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

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 on 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 keep the courthouse closed until their losses become even harder to undo.

Haley said the issue reaches beyond this lawsuit, because current and prospective service members are watching to see whether military promises will be honored.

“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.”