The left is throwing a fit over the Supreme Court siding with President Trump on his authority to ban transgenders from military service. As expected, they’re scrambling to push the narrative that having transgender troops doesn’t affect readiness, lethality, or unit cohesion. But their argument relies on cherry-picked studies tailored to fit their agenda and conveniently ignores hard evidence that backs up Trump’s decision as both justified and necessary.
That tension exploded on CNN Tuesday night when contributor Scott Jennings unapologetically defended Trump’s policy during a heated panel discussion. Jennings’ straightforward, constitutionally grounded defense of the ban triggered a meltdown among the other panelists, who resorted to emotional appeals and wild hypotheticals — proving they weren’t prepared for an honest, fact-based debate.
The discussion followed breaking news that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled the Trump administration could immediately implement its ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, reversing lower court injunctions. The policy targets individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria, requiring their separation from the armed forces.
“Alaina” Kupec, a transgender activist and former naval officer, kicked off the segment by insisting there’s “no evidence” transgender troops negatively affect readiness or lethality. “If that was the case, we’ve seen transgender people serving honorably for the last several years,” he said. “These are political complaints about military service.”
Host Abby Phillip challenged Jennings: “If they can’t produce evidence that this actually does, in fact, have an impact on readiness — I mean, how is this not then just discrimination?”
This premise, of course, is wrong. The most commonly cited study the left uses to justify transgender military service comes from the RAND Corporation, and that study conveniently didn’t analyze mental health outcomes for transgender service members. Why not? Because nearly a third of transgender service members suffer from moderate to severe depression, many experience anxiety, and the cohort has high rates of suicide. This isn’t a minor footnote; it’s a serious liability in high-stress combat situations where mental resilience is mission-critical. And let’s not forget the other costs; transgender military members often get their transition procedures courtesy of the taxpayers.
The military isn’t a social experiment; it’s a warfighting machine.
President Trump’s ban isn’t discriminatory; it’s common sense, and it’s long past time we return to policies that put military effectiveness over ideology.
Naturally, Jennings fired back at the panel. “It’s the opinion of the Commander in Chief who, according to our Constitution, is the head of the military," he pointed out. "[R]egardless of anyone’s opinion… he has and should have broad latitude to determine how the armed forces should be operated.”
Recommended: Need More Proof That Polls Showing Trump Underwater Are Bogus?
Phillip and other panelists continued pushing hypotheticals, comparing the transgender policy to a potential ban on black Americans. “Are you arguing that someone’s race is the same as someone choosing to become transgender?” Jennings asked bluntly. When Phillip dodged the question, Jennings pressed, “You brought up the hypothetical. I’m asking for clarity.”
Shermichael Singleton attempted to cool the waters, noting that the court’s decision demonstrated deference to presidential authority. But contributor Julie Roginsky doubled down on the absurd hypothetical. “What if the President wakes up tomorrow and says, ‘I don’t want any black people in the military?’” she demanded.
Jennings immediately dismissed the comparison as “ridiculous.”
“That is the opinion of the Commander in Chief, who the Constitution gives broad latitude to run the Armed Forces,” Jennings reiterated. “You’re allowed to have an opinion. You’re also allowed to run for president and become Commander in Chief yourself. But until you do, he’s the Commander in Chief.”
But of course, it’s not mere opinion. Even research that doesn't come from conservative sources has admitted what many already know but few want to say out loud.
Studies like “A Descriptive Study of Transgender Active Duty Service Members in the U.S. Military” (2020), “Mental Health Outcomes Among Transgender Veterans and Active-Duty Service Members in the United States: A Systematic Review” (2023), and “Transgender Older Adults’ Prior Military Service: Mental Health Differences by Gender Identification” (2023) all reveal the same uncomfortable truth: transgender service members suffer significantly higher rates of depression, anxiety, suicidality, and substance abuse. These aren’t fringe findings; they’re consistent, documented outcomes that vary by gender identity but follow the same troubling pattern.
Kupec accused Jennings of suggesting that mere opinion justifies discrimination. “They meet the physical standards, they meet the intellectual standards, they have voluntarily decided to serve their country,” he claimed, conveniently ignoring the poorer mental health of transgender people.
Cherry-picking studies from left-wing organizations doesn’t change reality. Trump is right, and the military shouldn’t be a social justice playground.
