Medical technician prepares to draw blood from a sailor

The Defense Department said Thursday it will lean on commanders and existing medical screenings to find any service members whom it wants to discharge over the Trump administration's ban on transgender people serving in the military.

After the Supreme Court lifted its hold last week over the military's plan to separate transgender troops, the department said that about 1,000 service members had already voluntarily come forward to be separated in the first phase of the policy. Meanwhile, a legal fight over the ban is still winding its way through the lower courts[1].

Despite the unresolved legal challenge, defense officials now say that they plan to utilize the military's regular health screenings and order commanders to identify potential trans people in their units to begin the removal process for anyone who does not volunteer.

Read Next: Navy Officer Charged with Murdering Wife Last Year in Japan Hotel[2]

"The primary means of identification for the involuntary process will be through medical readiness programs," a senior defense official told reporters Thursday, specifically referring to the Periodic Health Assessment, or PHA.

The PHA is essentially an annual health screening that all service members have to undergo to assess their readiness for deployment[3] and service.

The official said that, going forward, part of the self-assessment questionnaire for the PHA "will require the attestation whether or not a service member has a current diagnosis or history of or exhibits symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria."

The official spoke to reporters anonymously as a condition of the interview.

Gender dysphoria is a specific medical diagnosis of a psychological condition in which a person feels that their birth sex doesn't line up with their gender. The Pentagon has been using the diagnosis as a way to identify someone as being transgender even though officials acknowledge that not all transgender people receive the diagnosis.

This distinction, however, has not stopped leaders like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from making statements like "No More Trans [at] DoD" on social media[4].

A new memo released Thursday[5] also said that "commanders who are aware of service members in their units with gender dysphoria, a history of gender dysphoria, or symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria will direct individualized medical record reviews of such service members."

Defense officials have not been able to offer many other details on how the policy will work or whether they are placing any safeguards to prevent it from being abused either by commanders or troops.

Since even involuntary separations over the policy currently come with a payout, it is not clear what would prevent troops from using it simply as a way to leave service early. According to officials, an E-5 with 10 years of service would receive more than $100,000 of separation pay if they volunteer. Yet that same person would get around $50,000 if they were involuntarily kicked out.

Online, service members have argued and cited anecdotal evidence that many troops used the COVID-19 vaccine mandate in that manner. As of April, just over 100 of more than 8,000 service members discharged over the pandemic-era policy have returned to service, despite having the option since 2023.

When asked what safeguards were in place to prevent commanders from abusing the power to direct medical screenings of troops for gender dysphoria, the senior defense official simply said that they trusted commanders to do the right thing.

"This policy, like many others, will rely on their qualifications, discernment and judgment in how to interpret and apply the guidance," the official said, adding that Pentagon leaders were "confident and comfortable with commanders implementing the policy."

The hope among officials at the Pentagon is that most troops who are affected by the policy will simply volunteer to separate, driven largely by the promise of a much larger payout. That would spare the Pentagon from having to consider some of the broader and longer-reaching implications of the policy.

"They will be afforded a very significant, voluntary separation pay," the senior defense official said. "They receive a covered permanent change of station[6] move to their home of record, and they'll be given an honorable characterization of discharge, provided that there's no other misconduct in the file that's prompting the separation, so that they will be treated well through the process."

Yet, ultimately, since PHAs are conducted annually, the senior defense official acknowledged that it could take time to screen every single service member.

"It's not practical to move everyone in a unit through at one time," they said.

The official stressed several times that "this policy will treat anyone impacted by it with dignity and respect," but other officials at the Pentagon weren't able to square that promise with how trangender troops were discussed by their commander in chief.

President Donald Trump's executive order announcing the ban[7] declared that "adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual's sex conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one's personal life" and "a man's assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member."

"For the sake of our nation and the patriotic Americans who volunteer to serve it, military service must be reserved for those mentally and physically fit for duty," the order added.

Related: Pentagon Moves Out on Transgender Ban After Supreme Court Ruling[8]

© Copyright 2025 Military.com. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Military.com, please submit your request here[9].

Read more

Then Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. James Slife

Social media accounts have been spreading a claim that a former top official in the Air Force[1] who was fired by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth earlier this year was charged with treason and sentenced to be hung by the military.

It isn't true.

Real Raw News -- a website that has been called out for spreading misinformation[2] -- wrote on May 8 that former Air Force Vice Chief of Staff[3] James "Jim" Slife was "convicted of treason and sentenced to hang to death" by the Navy[4] Judge Advocate General's Corp and the Office of Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay[5], Cuba. Snippets of the article were then spread on multiple social media accounts, Snopes reported[6]. The fictitious report added that Slife's capital punishment was set for May 12.

Read Next: 'They Don't Care About My Kids': Marine Families Take Military to Court After Child Abuse at Yuma Day Care[7]

A spokesperson for the Office of Military Commissions told Military.com that the claim was inaccurate, and an expert on misinformation said the article is a sad example of how bogus stories can spread on the internet.

Ronald Flesvig, a spokesperson for the Office of Military Commissions-Convening Authority, told Miltiary.com in an emailed statement that the commission was established at Guantanamo Bay to "try alien, unlawful, enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States" and that it would never be used against an American citizen.

"The Military Commissions has never tried a case against U.S. Air Force Gen. James Slife or any U.S. citizen," Flesvig said. "Under the Military Commissions Act of 2009 and USC 948 Section 10, the commission cannot try cases against U.S. civilians."

The Department of the Air Force also told Military.com that the claim being spread online was inaccurate. A number listed for Slife in public records did not return a phone call or text messages seeking comment.

Military.com reported Feb. 21 that Slife had been fired from his position alongside the Navy's top officer, the then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and several top judge advocates general for the service branches.

No reason has been given by the Pentagon for the public firings. Slife was criticized by Republicans for past concerns he raised as the head of Air Force Special Operations Command about racism in the ranks following the 2020 police killing of George Floyd, a Black man, which caused protests, riots and outcry across the country.

Shortly after the firing, Real Raw News published an article[8] titled "Army[9] CID Arrests former Air Force Vice Chief of Staff James C. 'Jim' Slife After Trump Fires Him." The author claimed that led to Slife's fictitious sentencing this month.

Notably, the Joint Chiefs chairman was fired by Trump, while Slife and other service leaders were fired by Hegseth.

Kris Goldsmith, an Iraq combat veteran as well as the CEO and founder of Task Force Butler, a nonprofit that trains veterans to research and counter extremism, told Military.com in an interview that the author of the Real Raw News story, "Michael Baxter," had his real identity revealed in a 2021 Poynter story[10].

Goldsmith called the author of the piece "a predator" who finds enjoyment in "getting people upset." He added that it's important to call out that behavior.

"Americans need to start talking about sources of disinformation this way," Goldsmith said. "This guy is not doing this simply to spread false narratives. He's doing it because it's clickbait, and he earns ad revenue from it."

Snopes[11] reported that sections of the Real Raw News article were picked up on Truth Social[12], X and, mostly, on Facebook[13].

In Real Raw News' "About Us" section[14], it notes the content is "for informational and educational and entertainment purposes," adding that "this website contains humor, parody and satire. We have included this disclaimer for our protection, on the advice on [sic] legal counsel."

Related: Fired: Joint Chiefs Chairman, Top Navy Leader, Air Force Vice Chief, Service Judge Advocates General[15]

© Copyright 2025 Military.com. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Military.com, please submit your request here[16].

Read more

James O'Keefe waits to be introduced during a news conference

WASHINGTON — A former FBI agent and Pentagon contractor has sued the founder of a conservative nonprofit known for its hidden camera stings[1] over secretly recorded videos showing the contractor criticizing President Donald Trump to a woman he thought he had taken on a date.

Jamie Mannina says in his lawsuit that he was misled by a woman he met on a dating website who held herself out as a politically liberal nurse but who was actually working with the conservative activist James O'Keefe in a sting operation designed to induce Mannina into making “inflammatory and damaging” remarks that could be recorded, “manipulated” and posted online.

Clips from their January conversations were spliced together to make it appear that Mannina was “essentially attempting to launch an unlawful coup against President Trump,” and an article released online with the videos defamed Mannina by painting him as part of a “deep state” effort with senior military officials to undermine Trump's presidency, according to the lawsuit filed Wednesday in federal court in Washington.

Mannina does not deny in the lawsuit making the comments. He says his words were taken out of context and were misrepresented in a description of the video that was posted on YouTube.

O'Keefe founded Project Veritas in 2010 but was removed from the organization in 2023[2] amid allegations that he mistreated workers and misspent funds. He has continued to employ similar hidden camera stings as part of a new organization he established, O'Keefe Media Group, which also is named in the lawsuit.

O’Keefe told The Associated Press that Mannina “voluntarily” offered up the comments in the recording and that it was important for the public to hear Mannina's remarks. O'Keefe pointed out that the District of Columbia only requires the consent of one party, not both, for a conversation to be recorded. O'Keefe said the lawsuit was an “attack on the First Amendment” and that he was prepared to fight it in an appeals court if necessary.

“He said what he said. We did not take him out of context. The words that we reported came out of his mouth,” O’Keefe said, adding, “We stand by our reporting.”

The lawsuit includes claims of defamation, false light, fraudulent misrepresentation and violations of the Wire Tap Act. Though the lawsuit acknowledges that the city's consent law for recording conversations, the filing asserts that the law nonetheless prohibits “the interception and recording of a communication if it was for the purposes of committing a tortious act.”

A recording that O’Keefe released shows Mannina being asked at one point by the woman, whose name was not disclosed in the lawsuit, about his “overall assessment of Trump.”

“He’s a sociopathic narcissist who’s only interested in advancing his name, his wealth and his fame,” Mannina can be heard saying. Asked in the recording whether there was anything he could do to “protect the American people,” Mannina replied that he was in conversation with some retired generals to explore what could be done.

The lawsuit was filed by Mark Zaid, a prominent Washington lawyer who routinely represents government officials and whistleblowers. Zaid himself sued Trump last week after the president revoked his security clearance[3].

“Lying or misleading someone on a dating app, which no doubt happens all the time, is not what this lawsuit seeks to address,” Zaid said in a statement to The Associated Press. “The creation of a fake profile for the specific purposes of targeting individuals for deliberately nefarious and harmful purposes is what crosses the line.”

The complaint arises from a pair of dates that Mannina had in January. During their first date, the lawsuit alleges, the woman expressed her distaste for Trump and repeatedly pressed Mannina on his political views and about his work with the government. Mannina told her that included working as a “spy catcher” several years earlier when he was an FBI counterintelligence agent.

The lawsuit says Mannina and the woman met for lunch the following day, and as they left the restaurant, a man with a microphone approached Mannina and said, “Jamie, you’re a spy hunter, you say. Well, I’m a spy hunter, too, but I’m evidentially a better spy hunter than you.” The man was O’Keefe, the lawsuit says.

The complaint says Mannina was swiftly fired from Booz Allen, where he worked as a contractor, after O'Keefe contacted the press office and presented at least parts of the videos.

O'Keefe then released a video on his organization's YouTube channel titled, “Pentagon Advisor Reveals Conversation ‘to Explore What We Can Do’ to ‘Protect People from Trump.’"

The lawsuit says the O'Keefe Media Group painted Mannina in a false light by misconstruing his words and his title, including by referring to him as a “Top Pentagon Advisor” when he was actually just “one of a countless number of defense contractors.” It says that characterization was intended to support "fabricated claims that Mr. Mannina was essentially attempting to launch an unlawful coup against President Trump.”

The lawsuit does not directly say why Mannina was targeted, but it does note that in 2017, when he was working at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, he published three articles in the Huffington Post and The Hill newspaper that were critical of Trump.

© Copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's plans to slash the number of senior military leaders[1] across the services would cut more than 120 high-ranking officer jobs in the active duty and National Guard, including as many as nine top general slots.

Based on the percentages outlined by Hegseth and his senior staff, 20% of the 44 authorized top active duty general and admiral jobs would be eliminated, along with 10% of the more than 800 one-, two- and three-star positions, according to numbers compiled by The Associated Press.

The cuts — about nine positions among four-star generals and 80 jobs across the other leadership levels — would affect dozens of active duty officers scattered across the five services as well as those who are in joint command jobs, such as those overseeing Africa, the Middle East and Europe. The changes would eliminate 33 senior National Guard positions.

The cuts are part of a broader government-wide campaign to slash spending and personnel[2] across federal agencies that is being pushed by President Donald Trump’s administration and ally Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency[3].

According to Hegseth and others, the intent of the military job reductions isn't to reduce the overall size of the force but to thin out the higher ranks and offset those cuts with additional troops at lower levels. While the overall number of service members may not drop, the salary costs will be lower.

Some Democratic members of Congress have criticized Hegseth's plans as an attempt to politicize the military and oust leaders that don't agree with the Trump administration. The changes also come as the world is roiled by conflicts, including the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, and as the U.S. has troops deployed in Syria and elsewhere.

Shifting leadership responsibilities 

Military officials expect that as various jobs are downgraded — for example from a lieutenant general in charge to a major general or brigadier general — more leadership responsibilities will fall on colonels or Navy captains and other subordinates.

And while many of the job cuts will come through attrition, as senior officers retire or move on, the services say they will have the flexibility to move people into higher priority positions and get rid of less critical posts.

“More generals and admirals does not equal more success,” Hegseth said in a video describing his plan. “This is not a slash and burn exercise meant to punish high-ranking officers. Nothing could be further from the truth. This has been a deliberative process.”

Calling it the “Less Generals, More GIs” plan, he said the department will make “prudent reductions.”

How the cuts will hit the military services 

The Army, which is the largest service, is allowed to have a maximum of 219 high-ranking general officers and is expected to absorb a higher number of the cuts, while the Marine Corps will probably see little impact at the very top. There are only two Marine four-star generals, and the tiny Space Force also only has two.

“The Marine Corps, with our general officers, like our civilians and senior executives, is by far the leanest service," said Lt. Col. Josh Benson, a Marine spokesman. "Due to the already lean nature of the general officers in the Marine Corps, any cuts to Marine general officers will have an outsized impact to the Corps relative to other services.”

He said nearly one-third — or 21 — of Marine generals hold two or three jobs each, and as many as 10 positions are already empty.

Army leaders, meanwhile, have already developed plans to merge or close[4] headquarters units and staff. As many as 40 general officer slots could be cut as a result, officials have said.

The joint jobs would include leaders at regional commands, such as those in Europe, the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East, as well as administrative or functional commands, such as Cyber Command and Special Operations Command.

Under the law, there currently can be no more than 232 of those joint officers, and they're spread across all the services.

It's unclear how many of the cuts those jobs would absorb, versus the slots in each of the services. But officials have talked about merging some commands as the Pentagon reviews its overall leadership structure.

In addition to the joint command jobs, Congress stipulates the maximum number of high-ranking general officers in the services: 219 in the Army, 171 in the Air Force, 21 in the Space Force, 64 in the Marine Corps and 150 flag officers in the Navy.

All combined, the services can't have more than 27 four-star officers, 153 three stars, 239 two stars and 210 one stars.

National Guard review and cuts 

The decrease in the National Guard stems from a review done by Guard leaders last year that identified more than 30 positions that could be cut among the 133 general officer jobs spread out across the government. There are about 30 general officers in the National Guard Bureau headquarters staff, and the rest are assigned to jobs in other federal agencies, including the FBI, CIA and the military commands.

Guard officials described their plan to Hegseth and Pentagon leaders, and it was approved. According to officials, it would result in six jobs cut from Guard Bureau staff and the rest from other military and government posts.

The adjutants general who run the Guard in each state are chosen by and work for the governors and so are not part of any cuts. They are largely one- and two- star officers.

© Copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more

More Articles …