Donald Trump’s Presidency

Donald Trumps presidency has brought a plow of controversy with it. His constant tweeting, his blunt statements, and his act-now-think- later on mentality break gain him both(prenominal) praise and criticism since the moment he announced he would run for coupled States chairwoman. One act that has stirred up a lot of mixed emotions is President Trumps announcement of a eject that would celebrate transgender individuals from comp cardinalnt in the force.This forbiddance, which was first announced via President Trumps twitter identifying system in late July, will override an Obama-era plan that was previously in place specific checkly in solely(a)y to tot allyow transgender individuals to serve in the military (Davis, 2017). peradventure what is the most frustrating development of this fling for m any(prenominal) people is the circumstance that it was revealed shortly after President Trump decl argond his great watch over for members of the LGBT community and in ten -spottions to protect their individual rights and freedoms during his presidential campaign. small-arm legion(predicate) rent cited discrimination as the reason behind this act, President Trump and his stave have ensured the public that this expatriate is purely for national security reasons, and he wanted to assure the LGBT community that this is not a betrayal (Cooper, 2017). This toss outish has been a hotly debated topic for quite a while. plot of land both the Trump administration, supporters of the ban, and those opposed to the ban all have valid arguments, any integrity who is unbidden to fight and die for his or her country and its freedoms should have the opportunity to do so. This statement holds especially true for Americans be drift the United States was founded on this very principle. While the military shouldnt pay for gender reassignment surgeries and treatments, recruitment options should be open to all Americans, including transgender individuals.There be ma ny reasons why this is accept fitting, including the detail that transgender people argon already serving in the military, transgender individuals provide little to no rumpus of military activities, and the transgender ban is currently being scrutinized in court for its constitutionality. winning all of this into consideration, its hard to see a reason why transgender individuals shouldnt be allowed to fight for the freedom our country provides.Its difficult to argue that transgender individuals shouldnt be allowed in the military simply because there ar already transgender people serving in the military today. In incident, as of 2016, there are an estimated 6,630 dynamicly serving transgender individuals in the military and anywhere from 2,030 to 7,160 individuals serving in reserves. along with these numbers, an estimated 150,000 transgender individuals have served since the year 2012, which is most 21% of all transgender adults in the United States according to UCLA resear chers.In contrast, only 10% of the general non-transgender population has served (Hamblin, 2017). The fact that a higher partage of transgender individuals has served in the United States military compared to those who do not identify as transgender should serve as an eye-opener to many. After all, progressive military utility poses many risks, especially during times of conflict or war. In fact, several American and British armed forces members in Afghanistan were asked about the threats that they faced.The statistics, which are represented by the above image, are quite shocking. about half of all individuals interviewed said that they saw at least one person killed while actively serving. One in every sextuplet people witnessed a faithful friend being injured or killed. One in four were injured by an IED, three in four experienced long-range attacks with rockets or mortars, and half had been attacked at close range with machine guns (Gee, 2017).The point of these statistics is that serving in the United States military can be dangerous, and if such a high dower of transgender adults are willing to serve in the United States military and risk injury, they shouldnt be denied the aptitude to do so. The decision to serve in the United States military should be respected regardless of any drama created by gender. on with the fact that transgender Americans have already proved that they are willing to realize the same sacrifices as their military comrades, a large majority of transgender individuals cause little to no rumpus of military activity while serving.In fact, as far as disruption of military activity is concerned, transgender individuals who could possibly be disrupting military activity by getting reassignment cognitive process account for less than 1% of all available members. The actual number of all individuals estimated to have surgical treatments while actively serving was between 25 and 130 individuals hardly enough to cause any mean ingful intervention to military activities (PBS, 2017).In regards to this same issue of military disruption, eighteen different countries were examined in a study to determine if transgender service members cause any noticeable problems. Overall, the study didnt find any readiness or coherency implications involving transgender individuals. Many countries revealed concerns about bullying issues at one point, but it was later determined that simple policy changes were able to deal with this issue (PBS, 2017).If separate countries are able to work around the minor difficulties that transgender individuals may pose, past why cant the United States as well? Surely if this situation is able to work for other countries, it can for Americans as well. along with this information, President Trumps proposed ban has received statutory criticism as well.There are concerns that this ban would violate the Constitutional rights of those individuals affected by the ban. One example of the leg al obstacles that this ban has faced occurred in August of 2017. Two gay rights groups filed a lawsuit to ban the ban before it could be instated. This lawsuit was filed on behalf of quintet transgender women who are openly and actively serving in the military, for they feel powerfully that this ban would violate their constitutional rights (Cooper, 2017).Although the lawsuit itself wasnt the cause, the individuals who filed the suit earned at least a temporary victory in late October, for the ban was temporarily blocked in court by a federal official judge (Kheel, 2017). This same judge responsible for the blockage was quoted saying that the ban does not appear to be supported by any facts. along with this, another federal judge reviewed this ban in court and halted the ban altogether (Marimow, 2017).He stated that active-duty transgender service men and women already baffle harmful consequences because of the presidents policy. Some examples of said consequences include being s et asunder as inherently unfit, facing the threat of discharge, the inability to move earlier with long-term health check plans, and the inability to commission as an officer.Due to these 2 federal court rulings, it is clear that there is much to be concerned about regarding the legality of the ban.A third court case was carried out with the subject field Center for Lesbian Rights (NLCR) and the GLBTQ Legal Advocates Defenders (GLAD) as the plaintiffs. They argued that the ban violates the Fifth Amendment rights of all transgender service members, and they pushed for the removal of the ban on funds for gender reassignment surgery (which accompanied the transgender ban).Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly presided over the court. After the case ended, she wrote a 76-page memoranda emphasizing the fact that the plaintiffs Fifth Amendment claim is a strong one that will prove difficult to refute once it reaches the Supreme Court. The fact that this ban has been heavily criticized, and i n some cases acted upon, by not one, not two, but three highly-esteemed judges only serves to prove that this ban is in violation of the Fifth Amendment and is highly discriminatory against transgender individuals who are only laborious to serve their country.This ban has only encountered setback after setback in court, yet the Secretary of Defense is placid being pressured to produce a plan for both carrying out the ban and dealing with currently enlisted transgender individuals. Although President Trump is still pushing for action to be taken, the ban is still being processed through the courts as an appeal is being sought-after(a) after collectible to the decisions made from past cases (Lopez, 2017).Although there are many arguments out there that support the idea of a United States armed services with a transgender ban, they lack substantial evidence, and the evidence that is presented is far from accurate in most cases. President Trumps two important reasons for the ban, di sruption of military service and health and medical cost, are easily discredited when all of the facts are lined out.In regards to disruption of services, its clear to see why this isnt a rule-governed issue for the United States Military.First of all, there is roughly, on estimate, a total of 13,500 transgender individuals serving actively, in the reserves, or in the National Guard. Of these 13,500 transgender individuals, only an estimated 25-130 active members will ever afford long-term surgical treatments that would cause disruption while serving.These numbers, compared with the estimated 1,281,900 total of all active service member, along with the 801,200 estimated to be in reserve, account for far less than even one percent of the militarys total service members (PBS, 2017). So, assuming that the highest estimate of 130 military members undergo surgical treatment while serving, an extremely insignificant fraction of all military members would be incapable of carrying out mil itary duties while recovering.This accounts for .0015% of all available manpower at any given time for the military (PBS, 2017). That percentage is hardly worthy of being referred to as a disruption. The second main reason behind this ban is the possible costs. The President and his staff worry that the medical treatments and surgeries that transgender individuals require is an expensive and unnecessary cost to the United States Military budget.While gender reassignments and other surgeries are certainly expensive, as stated in the previous paragraph, only about 25-130 individuals will even have the operating theater done (PBS, 2017), and the military has historically not been required to pay for these surgeries unless they are proven medically necessary on a case-by-case basis. Along with this information, a study in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2015 found that the total costs for these surgeries and treatments would amount to somewhere between 4.2-5.6 meg dollars, or roughly ten percent of the annual military health care budget.For those that think this is a large amount of money, the annual amount of taxpayer dollars spent on medication for erectile dysfunction alone is over ten times this amount at 84 million dollars annually. Claiming that transgender medical costs are expensive and unnecessary is plain wrong. While not all treatments are medically necessary, several treatments are. Denying transgender individuals from serving in the military due to medical costs would be the equivalent of denying a diabetic the ability to serve it bring ins no sense.President Trump has made a lot of changes since he was elected into Presidency. While his decisions usually at least make some sense, the transgender military ban makes no sense at all. His two main reasons for this ban, which were potential disruption of military activity and medical costs, are backed by little to no evidence, and his ban is coming across as discriminatory both in the public eye and in court so far.Transgender individuals should not be denied the right to serve because they have been allowed to serve (not openly) for several years with little to no problem, they dont cause any disruption or hindrance to military activity, and the ban itself is being reviewed for its potential violation of the Fifth Amendment and discrimination against transgender individuals. All of this effort for a ban that isnt necessary should be spent on something more useful to America.