Transgender Service Members Allegedly Denied Promised Separation Pay After Forced Military Exits

A group of Democratic lawmakers want answers from the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth following reports that roughly a dozen transgender service members never received separation pay following their forced exits from the military.

The concerns stem from the Trump administration’s efforts to purge the U.S. Armed Forces of transgender individuals. President Donald Trump issued an executive order on the first day of his second term, effectively prohibiting transgender, nonbinary and gender-nonconforming individuals from service, receiving support and implementation from the Department of Defense.

The latest inquiry from Democratic members on various House committees, in the form of a letter addressed to Hegseth, cites a recent Washington Post report that DOD has allegedly failed to pay the promised separation pay to at least 12 transgender service members who were separated from the military due to Trump’s ban.

“This is unacceptable and appears to be another broken promise by this administration to those who have served. … Under the trans military ban, the services have been forced to ignore the sacrifice, years of service, and contributions by transgender service members,” the letter reads. “Some service members were approved—and then rejected for—early retirement benefits.

“As we fight a war in Iran that has resulted in nearly 800 troops being injured, the Pentagon continues to waste valuable time and resources on scouring through service members’ confidential medical records in order to identify transgender service members for separation.”

Some of those negatively affected, according to lawmakers, include an Army National Guardsman with 3-year-old twins who is waiting for a $130,000 check; an Air Force major who flew search-and-rescue helicopters and was supposed to receive $340,000; and a Texas National Guard who is owed more than $66,000.

Military.com reached out to the Pentagon for comment.

Military.com previously reported how even though the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay in response to legal challenges to the ban of an estimated 4,200 active-duty transgender members, multiple active lawsuits continue to be heard by various federal judges.

They include Talbott v. USA, which halted the immediate discharge of trans members, and Ireland v. US, which centers on Air Force Master Sergeant Logan and 17 other transgender service members from the U.S. Air Force and Space Force who filed suit to preserve their salaries and retirement benefits.

The letter was signed by House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel Ranking Member Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, Congressional Equality Caucus (CEC) Co-Chair Rep. Sarah McBride, House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Ranking Member Rep. Adam Smith, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Ranking Member and CEC Chair Rep. Mark Takano, HASC Member and CEC’s Transgender Equality Task Force Co-Chair Rep. Sara Jacobs, HASC Member and CEC Co-Chair Rep. Eric Sorensen, and CEC Co-Chair Rep. Everton Blair.

What Information Lawmakers are Seeking

Lawmakers in their letter cited 10 U.S.C. § 1175a and DoDI 1332.44, which authorize and establish procedures for voluntary separation pay and benefits, as well as 10 U.S.C. § 1174 and DoDI 1332.29 which authorize and establish procedures for involuntary separation pay.

They also quoted the DOD’s own guidance from February 2026 regarding the implementation of the ban, which stated that “service members eligible for voluntary separation pay will be paid at a rate that is twice the amount the service member would have been eligible for involuntary separation pay” and that “service members separated involuntarily pursuant to this policy may be provided full involuntary separation pay in accordance.”

They’ve issued an Oct. 14 deadline for Hegseth/DOD to respond to the following requests:

• Provide calculations for service members in every branch who were separated from the U.S. military between Jan. 20, 2025, and Sept. 23, 2026, and were eligible for separation pay—including the average and median number of days it took following their separation for service members to receive their separation pay in full, whether they were separated by Trump’s executive order or not.
• Anonymized data for every service member who was eligible for separation pay and has been separated pursuant to the executive order, including whether they were voluntary or involuntary separated; the total amount of separation pay they were owed; the amount of separation pay they have received; the date each payment was received; the number of days between their date of separation and when they received their first payment of separation pay; and the number of days between their date of separation and when they received their separation pay in full.
• A copy of all guidance and communications relating to the processing of separation pay for service members separated pursuant to Executive Order No. 14183 and its implementing regulations.

“Let us be clear: we strongly oppose the underlying transgender military ban,” the lawmakers wrote. “The House of Representatives recently rejected, on a bipartisan vote, an attempt to codify this ban into law, and we hope the courts will permanently block this ban from being carried out against any transgender person who would and could be serving but for this ban.

“In the meantime, transgender service members should receive the separation pay they are owed in a timely fashion—and we urge you to ensure this is handled expeditiously.”

Another Recent Transgender-Based Legal Ruling

On Tuesday, a judge ruled from the bench in favor of the Ireland plaintiffs, finding that the Trump administration is not permitted to have this case heard by a board of hand-selected Air Force officials instead of in a court of law.

In response to the ruling, National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter called it “unconscionable” for the government “to steal retirement benefits from service members and their families after years of sacrifice for our country, including multiple deployments.”

GLAD Law’s Michael Haley added that plaintiffs have been waiting almost a year since they should have retired “and received the benefits they earned through years of dedicated, honorable service.”

The Ireland case moves forward in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C. Legal counsel for the plaintiffs said the next step is for the government to produce the administrative record underpinning its decision to rescind the retirements issued by the secretary of the Air Force—whose own policy allows a retirement order to be rescinded only when there has been an error, mistake, fraud, etc.

The attorneys said that none of which the Air Force has ever claimed applies specifically to the Ireland case.