About 1,000 service members who volunteered to leave the military after the Trump administration unveiled its transgender troops ban will now have their separations processed after the Supreme Court paved the way for the ban to take effect, the Pentagon said Thursday evening.

The Pentagon is also reopening the window to choose voluntary separation following this week's Supreme Court ruling, giving active-duty transgender troops who want to leave until June 6 and reservists until July 7 to come forward, or face involuntary separation later.

"As the president of the United States clearly stated in Executive Order 14183, 'Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,' Jan. 27, 2025, expressing a false 'gender identity' divergent from an individual's sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service," Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in a Thursday memo^[1] that directed the military to resume implementing the transgender ban.

Read Next: Osprey Safety Investigation Stalls in Congress, Angering Gold Star Families^[2]

While a Thursday statement from Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said "approximately 1,000 service members who have self-identified as being diagnosed with gender dysphoria will begin the voluntary separation process," the Pentagon on Friday said it was not able to provide a more specific number of troops being separated.

Meanwhile, two lawsuits against the ban continue. In a filing Friday, lawyers for transgender troops in one of the lawsuits pointed to Hegseth's memo as further evidence the ban is discriminatory.

"The directive restates the unsupported assertion that 'expressing a false "gender identity" divergent from an individual's sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service,' further corroborating the district court's finding that the transgender military ban was motivated by animus against transgender people as a group," Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, wrote in a letter to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court ruled the Trump administration can enforce^[3] its transgender military ban while lower courts still consider lawsuits against the policy.

Two appeals courts are still weighing whether to keep in place injunctions that were issued by federal district courts, meaning the policy could still be blocked again. But the Supreme Court ruling paused the injunctions while those deliberations are ongoing, allowing the Pentagon to start separating troops in the meantime.

Under the Pentagon policy, troops with a history of gender dysphoria, who "exhibit symptoms" of gender dysphoria or who have transitioned to their gender identity are now disqualified from service.

The policy, which was issued in February to implement Trump’s January order, also outlined a way for transgender troops to choose to leave the military before they are kicked out. Service members who voluntarily separate are eligible for separation pay^[4] that is twice as much as they would receive if they later get booted, according to the policy.

The original deadline for service members to elect voluntary separation was in March, but the injunctions upended that timeline.

Troops who want to self-identify as being transgender now have until June 6 -- in less than a month and during LGBTQ+ Pride Month -- to come forward if they are on active duty and July 7 if they are in the reserves.

The approximately 1,000 troops who Parnell said will immediately begin the voluntary separation process are troops who came forward in March.

The number of troops the Pentagon claims chose to separate represents about a quarter of the 4,240 active-duty and reservist service members who defense officials earlier this year said have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria is the medical term for the feeling of distress caused by someone's gender identity not matching their birth sex.

Not every transgender person is diagnosed with gender dysphoria, but the Pentagon has said it does not track whether someone is transgender so a gender dysphoria diagnosis in a service member's medical record is the department's best way of determining whether they are transgender.

Defense officials at the Pentagon have not been able to say what specific processes are in place to prevent non-transgender troops from saying they are transgender as a way to leave the military. Similarly, it's not clear how officials will track down trangender troops who have not been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and choose not to come forward.

One official, however, said those answers may come when the individual services eventually release their specific policies.

After the voluntary separation window closes in June for active duty and July for reservists, the Pentagon will begin involuntary separations, Hegseth's Thursday memo said.

A defense official told Military.com those separations will be based on a review of medical records. They added those reviews have not begun yet.

Related: Ban on Transgender Troops Can Be Imposed During Lawsuits, Supreme Court Says^[5]

It started when Jennifer Glick, an Army^[1] criminal investigator, was told her nearly 2-year-old daughter Evie had tripped, fallen and hit her head at the Navy^[2]'s Ford Island, Hawaii, child development center in late summer 2022.

Glick and her military husband were getting ready to leave Hawaii the following year when she said the Navy Family Advocacy Program called with troubling news: Evie may have been physically abused at the CDC. But that was all they were told, Glick told Military.com^[3] in a recent interview, and when they requested details of the alleged abuse, videos and information on how and whether the incident was being investigated, they got few answers.

The case provides yet another revelation after Military.com reported^[4] over a year ago that nearly a dozen families were stonewalled by the military from getting basic information about alleged abuse of their children. The report triggered outrage from Congress^[5] and an immediate inspector general probe^[6]. That IG report, released on Monday^[7], found that inconsistent military disclosure policies could potentially leave parents in the dark about reports of their children’s abuse or neglect.

Read Next: Tweaks to Army's Physical Fitness Test Are Relatively Modest^[8]

Evie began to show troubling signs of social withdrawal: thumb-sucking that has lingered far past when a child was supposed to stop the habit, which led to a speech issue, and aggression. She had never been a good sleeper when she was a baby, Glick said, but after day care at Ford Island, she would lie in her crib and stare listlessly, holding on to a blanket for comfort.

"Was she conditioned to do that?" Glick said. "It scares me. Was she hurt as a baby? Was she smothered? We'll never know, because no one has answered for it."

The IG report recommended that the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness revise and reissue policy requiring all military branches to uniformly identify, notify and report child-abuse allegations to parents; “maintain all notification” documentation of child-abuse allegations; and that each service should update its own policies in line with the Pentagon's policy.

The under secretary agreed with the recommendations, as did the services, according to the report, and the Pentagon said it will issue an updated and revised policy by Sept. 30. The IG report did not address specific information, such as videos, to be made available to parents concerned about abuse allegations at a CDC, a main point of frustration for parents.

“The service members keeping our country safe shouldn’t also have to worry about their kid’s safety,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said in a statement to Military.com^[9] on Thursday. “The inspector general’s report makes clear that it’s Secretary [Pete] Hegseth’s job to fix this pattern of incompetence and ensure military families have access to high-quality, affordable child care. I won’t stop fighting for military families to get the answers and accountability they deserve.”

It wasn't until March -- nearly three years after Evie had supposedly fallen -- when Glick and her husband Matthew, an Army senior noncommissioned officer, began to understand what had really happened at the CDC.

The mother of a child who was abused at the same facility, Kaitlin Kuykendall, had posted a video -- one she herself waited months to receive from the CDC -- on social media showing day-care workers, two of whom were convicted and jailed for assault, abusing then-15-month-old Bella Kuykendall.

And while her face was blurred, Evie was there, too, being hit, shaken and pulled around by day-care workers, Glick said, recognizable by her hair, clothing and gait.

"I've taken it really hard, because I've been able to help a lot of other people in my 20-plus years in law enforcement," Glick said, "but I couldn't help my own child."

Glick's case represents another troubling instance of opacity for the military's child development centers -- facilities at bases around the world charged with caring for children up to the age of 5 -- and parents trying to find out what happened to their children within their walls.

In an August letter from the Department of Defense in response to Warren's office, which Military.com^[10] obtained, the department said policies required child-care facilities to notify parents "either verbally or in writing" about abuse but did not specify a timeline in which those notifications should occur.

The IG report released Monday said the department issued a memorandum in December 2024 requiring child-care staff to notify parents of alleged abuse and neglect no later than 24 hours after staff were made aware of the incident.

Recently publicized policy^[11] revisions from the services following that update still require parents to request video footage of alleged child abuse through the Freedom of Information Act, a transparency law typically used by lawyers and journalists. The IG report said the DoD's current policy "does not include methods of communication, the type of information to provide to parents, how often to provide updates or the methods for tracking and managing parental notifications."

As late as February of this year, the Glicks had requested video footage of Evie's alleged abuse from the Ford Island CDC, but were told to "go through legal and not the CDC," according to emails shared with Military.com^[12].

The Kuykendalls received the IG report with mixed feelings. In one sense, it validated the concerns they had experienced firsthand with the lack of transparency and communication from the military on its policies.

And while "this is a great first step" in recognizing those shortcomings publicly, Jeremy Kuykendall, an Army officer, told Military.com^[13] on Thursday it has not assured them that the cultural, leadership and systemic changes needed to deliver that transparency have or will be fulfilled.

They said they were never interviewed as part of the IG report, the military has not offered an acknowledgment of their plight, and the director of the CDC who oversaw the facilities when the abuse occurred is still in her job position despite the family’s allegations she failed to adequately inform them of Bella's abuse. The base overseeing the facility said policies were properly followed. The Kuykendalls pursued a legal claim against the Navy last year^[14], alleging negligence, poor oversight and mishandling.

"I have zero trust," Kaitlin said. "It just seems everyone's still left in the dark."

Kaitlin said dozens of families have reached out, including the Glicks, whose stories align with theirs after they started "Operation Mei Mei," an advocacy effort to prevent abuse at the CDCs and urge transparency from the military. Glick saw the videos of Evie at Ford Island through Operation Mei Mei's Facebook page, which posts updates on the ongoing CDC abuse issues.

Regarding the CDC director, a spokesperson for Joint Base Pearl Harbor^[15]-Hickam, Chuck Anthony, declined to "address questions about the performance of individual federal employees," citing the Privacy Act, but added that "every review and inspection conducted in the last several years has found CDC management has consistently acted in accordance with established guidelines, procedures and instructions."

Anthony added that mistreatment is “extremely rare” and if uncovered it is met with immediate corrective action. He said CDCs at the base have increased training, “real time observations of trainers in action,” created a position for senior teachers in the classrooms, and instituted random checks of CCTV video.

Military.com^[16] asked Anthony about the Glick case and the perception of mistrust on Thursday afternoon, but did not hear back before deadline.

In an email on Wednesday, Jennifer Glick said she agreed with and is encouraged by the recommendations outlined in the IG report, "but the harsh reality is that they come at a significant cost -- one that should have been avoidable."

"My hope is that this report serves as a catalyst for lasting cultural and procedural change within the Department of Defense," Glick said. "Safeguarding vulnerable individuals should always remain an uncompromising priority, with proactive systems and clear lines of responsibility in place to ensure such failures do not happen again."

Related: 'Betrayal': Family of Toddler Abused at Navy Day Care Launches Claim that Service Negligently Mishandled Their Case^[17]

The Trump administration's ban on transgender troops will be allowed to take effect after the Supreme Court on Tuesday paused a lower court's block against the ban.

In a brief order, the Supreme Court said it was granting the Trump administration's emergency application to stay a preliminary injunction issued by a federal court in Washington state.

The order doesn't end the court battle against the ban, but will allow it to take effect while an appeals court more thoroughly considers the Trump administration's request to nullify the injunction.

Read Next: Investigation into Gaza Pier Mission Finds Funding Cuts, Poor Planning Hindered the Operation^[1]

The order offers no details on the court's reasoning, but notes that the three liberal justices -- Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson -- dissented.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted on social media after the ruling that there will be "No More Trans @ DoD." The Defense Department offered no further comment on Tuesday afternoon.

In January, President Donald Trump ordered the Pentagon to craft a policy that reflects the administration's position that being transgender is "not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member."

The resulting Pentagon policy, released in February, said troops with a history of gender dysphoria, who "exhibit symptoms" of gender dysphoria or who have transitioned to their gender identity would be disqualified from service. On paper, the policy allows transgender troops to apply for a waiver to avoid being discharged, but advocates say the criteria for a waiver are impossible to meet.

Trump's order and the Pentagon policy were almost immediately hit with lawsuits from transgender service members and recruits.

In response to the lawsuits, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., and another in Washington state issued preliminary injunctions that blocked the ban from taking effect while the cases work their way through the legal system.

The preliminary injunction in the D.C. case was later paused by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, though the appeals court also warned the administration against taking "any action ... that negatively impacts service members" while it considers whether to fully overturn the injunction.

But in the Washington state case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the administration's emergency motion to lift the injunction.

The Trump administration appealed the Ninth Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that any delay in implementing the policy would cause "irreparable" harm to the military.

"The district court's injunction cannot be squared with the substantial deference that the department's professional military judgments are owed," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the application^[2] to the Supreme Court last month.

But the lawyers who filed the lawsuit argued that allowing the ban to take effect is what would cause irreparable damage by "ending distinguished careers and gouging holes in military units."

"The loss of well-qualified service members like respondents will necessarily negatively impact military readiness, lethality and unit cohesion -- essential components of a strong and effective national defense," the lawyers wrote in a filing to the Supreme Court^[3] last week. "Transgender service members hold key positions throughout units, and the military's success depends on mutual trust between leaders and members."

While the Ninth Circuit denied the Trump administration's emergency motion, it is still considering the administration's non-expedited request to lift the injunction.

The Supreme Court's order Tuesday put the case back in the hands of the Ninth Circuit by staying the injunction until the Ninth Circuit makes a ruling on the regular motion.

The case that made it to the Supreme Court was filed by Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation on behalf of six transgender service members, one transgender person seeking to enlist and an LGBTQ+ advocacy group called the Gender Justice League.

In a statement Tuesday, Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation vowed to continue fighting.

"Today's Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender service members who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation's defense," the groups said in a joint statement. "By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice. Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down."

Related: Trump Takes Fight over Transgender Troops to Supreme Court^[4]