Former top general calls military’s removal of trans troops a costly mistake – NPR

Retired four‑star Gen. Stanley McChrystal presided over a January retirement ceremony in Washington, D.C., honoring five transgender service members who were forcibly separated under the Trump administration’s second ban. McChrystal, 71, told the crowd the removals should not have happened and warned they carry real costs for military readiness. The ceremony, hosted by the Human Rights Campaign, featured uniforms displayed on mannequins because the retirees were barred from wearing them. Family members, colleagues and advocates used the event to spotlight procedural problems, human tolls and legal questions that now shadow Pentagon policy.

Key Takeaways

• Five transgender service members—Col. Bree Fram (USAF/Space Force), Cmdr. Blake Dremann (USN), Lt. Col. Erin Krizek (USAF), Chief Petty Officer Jaida McGuire (USCG) and Sgt. 1st Class Cathrine Schmid (USA)—were ceremonially retired after being forced out under the 2025 policy reversal.
• Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, age 71, publicly criticized the separations at the January ceremony in Washington, calling them a mistake that undermines force readiness.
• A February 2025 memo from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed separation boards to find service members with current or past gender dysphoria unfit for service, citing an aim to build “one force” defined only by ability and mission adherence.
• Attorney advocates say boards are required to reach predetermined findings, that transgender members cannot amend medical records in the same way as other servicemembers, and that administrative processes have sought retirement benefits retroactively.
• Legal and emotional consequences are already reported: a military attorney cited multiple suicides she believes are connected to separations, and the attorney estimated boards cost about $22,000 each to convene.
• Numerous transgender personnel interviewed described “stealth” service strategies to avoid outing, informal command protections, and career impacts such as lost training opportunities or reassigned duties.
• The policy shift sits alongside a Pentagon review of women in ground combat jobs and a public posture from the defense secretary that emphasizes different personnel priorities than prior administrations.

Background

Policy on transgender service has shifted repeatedly over the past decade. The first Trump administration had allowed some currently serving transgender troops to remain if they secured an official diagnosis for gender dysphoria within a narrow window; that accommodation became the basis for retaining service in some cases. In 2025, new guidance reversed course, positioning gender dysphoria as a disqualifying condition and triggering separations across service branches.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth framed the change as an effort to eliminate identity‑based subgroups and preserve a force defined strictly by mission and ability. His public remarks and internal memos have coincided with other personnel reviews, including a six‑month Pentagon review of women in certain ground combat slots. Critics say those moves reflect a broader cultural and policy shift inside the department rather than a neutral administrative adjustment.

Main Event

The January ceremony in Washington, organized by the Human Rights Campaign, gathered families, advocates and former comrades to honor five service members who had been administratively separated. Mannequins in service uniforms were placed onstage because the retirees were barred from wearing their own uniforms for the event. Speakers offered short tributes: family members described the retirees’ leadership and sacrifice; the retirees themselves combined pride in service with grief at a forced end to their careers.

Col. Bree Fram, an astronautical engineer and formerly the highest‑ranking transgender officer in uniform, urged attendees to stand and be visible. Lt. Col. Erin Krizek described deep attachment to service life and to sailors after her decades of work. Maj. Kara Corcoran and others detailed personal timelines that show how earlier compliance with Pentagon instructions—securing diagnoses or following guidance—later became grounds for removal once policy reversed.

Several currently serving personnel interviewed for this report, identified only by initials to protect their careers, described “stealth” arrangements in which commands quietly accommodated privacy to avoid outing service members. Those arrangements sometimes required career sacrifices, such as declining schools or assignments that would trigger revealing medical or administrative reviews. Advocates and lawyers reported that separation boards have been instructed to find these cases unfit and move toward separation and benefit recoupment in some branches.

Analysis & Implications

Operational readiness: senior leaders and advocates differ sharply on whether forced separations affect mission capability. McChrystal argued that losing trained personnel reduces depth and flexibility; commanders and career officers told the ceremony that these individuals had deployed, commanded and filled specialized billets. From a manpower perspective, removing experienced troops reduces institutional knowledge and increases training costs to replace them.

Financials and administrative burden: attorneys working these cases say the administrative process itself is costly—both in dollars (an estimated $22,000 per assembled board) and in staff time—while the Pentagon’s public rationale focuses on downstream medical costs. Analysts note that short‑term administrative expenses can easily outweigh any projected long‑term savings from excluding a small number of service members, especially when separations trigger appeals and litigation.

Legal exposure and morale: mandatory findings by separation boards, limits on amending medical records, and retroactive recoupment of promised benefits increase legal risk for the department. Those constraints also create perceptions of unequal due process, which can depress morale among remaining troops and complicate recruiting messages at a time when services face retention challenges.

Comparison & Data

The table above lists the five retirees named at the ceremony and their service branches. This is a small, illustrative set; advocates say separations are taking place across all branches. Comparing board costs, estimated medical claims and replacement training costs suggests that administrative separations are not a straightforward budgetary saving and can create hidden long‑term expenses.

Reactions & Quotes

“First off, we shouldn’t be here,”

Gen. Stanley McChrystal (ret.)

McChrystal used that line at the podium to frame the ceremony as a corrective public recognition of service denied elsewhere. His remarks emphasized operational consequences and the dignity owed to retiring professionals.

“It’s systematic oppression,”

Maj. Kara Corcoran, U.S. Army (ret.)

Corcoran described the personal and procedural harm she says the policy produces, including paperwork burdens and unequal medical‑record access compared with other conditions. Her case illustrates how compliance with previous guidance (obtaining a diagnosis) was later used as a basis for separation.

“The department must ensure it is building ‘one force’ without subgroups defined by anything other than ability or mission adherence,”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (memo, Feb 2025)

Hegseth’s memo frames the policy as a cohesion measure; critics argue it instead singles out identity and narrows access to due process for a specific population.

Unconfirmed

• Some attorneys and advocates cited “several suicides” in the last year connected to separations; the exact number and direct causal links remain unverified in public records.
• Comprehensive, publicly available tallies of all forced separations across every service branch and the full budgetary impact of the policy reversal have not been published; national totals remain uncertain.

Bottom Line

The January ceremony put a human face on a policy shift with operational, legal and moral consequences. Retired Gen. McChrystal framed the removals as a mistake that weakens readiness by discarding trained, experienced personnel; advocates and attorneys raised parallel concerns about due process, benefit recoupment and the psychological toll on service members and families.

Absent swift policy revision, litigation or congressional action, the separations are likely to continue and create ongoing costs for the department beyond any narrowly framed medical‑cost arguments. For policymakers and the public, the case crystallizes a central tension: whether personnel policy should be guided primarily by narrowly defined identity exclusion criteria, or by a broader assessment of capability, cohesion and equitable treatment.

Sources

• NPR (news report on the January ceremony and interviews)
• Human Rights Campaign (advocacy organization; hosted the January retirement event)
• U.S. Department of Defense (official policy/memo referenced: Defense Department guidance and statements)