Military review boards in the Navy and Marine Corps have voted to retain transgender-identifying service members in nine of 12 cases despite Pentagon instructions directing them to recommend discharge, according to a report from the New York Times, revealing resistance among some military review boards to President Donald Trump’s transgender military ban.

The New York Times reported that Navy boards have recommended retaining transgender sailors in seven of nine cases since hearings began in July, while Marine Corps boards have recommended retaining Marines in two of three cases since August.

The outcomes differ significantly from those in the Army, where approximately 50 hearings have resulted in discharge recommendations in all but roughly five cases, and the Air Force, where approximately six hearings have resulted in recommendations for discharge in every known case.

Under the Pentagon’s procedures, three-member separation boards are tasked with determining if service members have a history of gender dysphoria or evidence of transgender identification. The boards are not permitted to consider an individual’s military performance, specialized skills, or combat experience when determining whether or not to recommend discharge.

However, some Navy and Marine Corps boards have crossed out portions of their findings documents and recommended retaining transgender service members instead.

The recommendations are not final and can be overturned by the civilian secretaries overseeing the respective military branches. The Pentagon has not publicly released comprehensive figures from the hearings, which are closed to outside observers, and the Times compiled its findings through interviews with service members and attorneys involved in the proceedings.

“These boards are being told to do something that they know is wrong — to rubber-stamp a non-choice given to them by the administration,” Rachel VanLandingham, a former Air Force attorney and professor at Southwestern Law School, told the Times. “We are seeing them say they’re not going to play that game. We are seeing them nullify a process they see as unjust.”

One Marine recommended for retention was Staff Sgt. Damien Contreras, a supply and logistics specialist with approximately a decade of service and three overseas deployments. Contreras was placed on paid leave in April before appearing before a separation board at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia in late August.

During his hearing, a government attorney presented documents from 2017 showing that Contreras had changed genders. However, after reviewing his service record and performance evaluations, the board crossed out language concerning “a history of cross sex hormone therapy,” selected “remains qualified,” and recommended retaining him.

“You have war fighters looking at war fighters,” Contreras told the Times. “They see I’ve always done my job, I’ve deployed, I’ve mentored other Marines, followed the rules. They say, ‘Hey, this is a good Marine, why wouldn’t we retain him?'”

In another Marine Corps case, board members recommended discharge but unanimously indicated the service member should “be retained based on his commendable service record and unique skills.”

Priya Rashid, an attorney who has represented dozens of transgender service members, said she initially lost nearly all her cases before observing a shift in outcomes over the summer.

“I don’t understand why this pattern is occurring,” Rashid told the newspaper. “And I’m worried that if the pattern becomes too apparent, the government will just change the processes and procedures again so that the pattern can be extinguished.”

The Times also highlighted a Navy paramedic whose board recommended retaining him in July despite the Pentagon’s policy. The sailor, who had received two merit-based promotions and served alongside Marines deployed to the southern border, said all three board members described personally knowing transgender individuals, including former colleagues and friends.

“I never ran into people who cared if I was trans,” the sailor said. “They just cared that I did my job well.”

His attorney, Steph Kral, subsequently represented another sailor before a different board, which also recommended retention despite its members reportedly lacking similar personal connections to transgender service members.

“I don’t think they are trying to make any grand policy statement,” Kral said. “I think they’re just trying to do what’s best for the Navy.”

The report also referenced Hegseth’s September address at Quantico, during which he called for military standards that included “No fatties. No trannies. No beardos. No weirdos. No wimps. No radicals.”

VanLandingham suggested that dissatisfaction with Pentagon leadership could be influencing the boards’ decisions, while Rashid pointed to the Marine Corps’ emphasis on loyalty to fellow Marines.

“The questions from the Marine boards have focused in on how the policies of higher-ups may have changed, but the Marines in question never did anything wrong,” Rashid said. “I think they are looking for a way to give a fellow Marine the benefit of the doubt.”

The military branches declined to discuss the outcomes or make board members available for interviews, citing ongoing litigation. The Defense Department also declined to comment. The Times noted that the relatively small number of Navy and Marine Corps cases means the pattern could change as additional hearings take place.

In March 2025, Breitbart News reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the Trump administration’s request to enforce its transgender military ban while appealing a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle. Judges Wallace Tashima, John Owens, and Roopali Desai rejected the request in a case brought by Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation on behalf of seven active-duty transgender service members. Separately, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes blocked the Pentagon from implementing its policy barring transgender troops from serving without a waiver. The legal challenges followed Trump’s January 27 executive order, Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness, which stated that “expressing a false ‘gender identity’ divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.” In February, Hegseth also directed the Pentagon to pause new accessions involving individuals with a history of gender dysphoria and medical procedures associated with gender transitions.

In May 2025, Breitbart News reported that the Pentagon began removing more than 1,000 openly transgender-identifying military personnel from immediate service after the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s emergency request to lift a nationwide injunction blocking enforcement of its policy. The Pentagon also gave other transgender-identifying service members 30 days to depart voluntarily and began examining medical records to identify personnel diagnosed with gender dysphoria or receiving related treatment. Defense officials reported that 4,240 troops across active-duty forces, the National Guard, and reserves had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria as of December 9, 2024, although the total could be higher. A Rasmussen Reports survey of 1,325 likely voters conducted January 29-30 and February 2, 2025, found that 54 percent approved of Trump’s executive order, including 38 percent who strongly approved, while 41 percent disapproved, including 30 percent who strongly disapproved.

In June 2026, Breitbart News reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that 28 transgender-identifying individuals challenging the administration’s military policy could continue serving while their lawsuit proceeded. The ruling applied only to those plaintiffs and did not block the administration’s restrictions on new transgender enlistees. Judge Robert L. Wilkins wrote in the majority opinion that the government had not established a factual basis for its characterizations of transgender service members, stating, “Indeed, the government has not contested that the Plaintiff-Appellees who are currently serving (and who have collectively earned more than 80 recommendations) have served honorably and pose no threat to national security.”

In July 2026, Breitbart News reported that the House rejected an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act sponsored by Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) that would have codified Trump’s executive order banning transgender-identifying individuals from military service. The amendment failed 212-217 after four Republicans joined Democrats in opposing it: Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Mike Lawler (R-NY), James Moylan of Guam, and Kimberlyn King-Hinds of the Northern Mariana Islands. Moylan and King-Hinds are nonvoting delegates who can vote on amendments but not final legislation. “Four ‘republicans’ just betrayed President Trump and our military in favor of the Transgenders,” Boebert wrote on X. “DISGUSTING!” Meanwhile, two amendments sponsored by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) passed the House. One prohibiting TRICARE from covering sex-change drugs and surgeries passed 219-208, while another barring transgender-identifying male students from girls’ K-12 sports teams at Department of Defense-operated schools passed 221-203.

On September 1, 2026, Breitbart News reported that the Trump administration filed an urgent appeal with the Supreme Court seeking permission to remove 29 transgender individuals from military service or the enlistment process before their legal challenge proceeded to trial in January. The case involved active-duty personnel, reservists, National Guard members, and one prospective enlistee. Solicitor General John Sauer described the lower court ruling allowing the plaintiffs to remain in their positions as “gravely erroneous.” The plaintiffs were permitted to remain in service or continue the enlistment process while the case proceeded.