Defense Secy Mattis May Change Pres. Trump’s Transgender Rules

Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis answers questions while speaking at the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental in Mountain View, Calif. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, File)

August 15, 2017
OAN Newsroom

Defense Secretary James Mattis suggests he may change President Trump’s transgender directives once he receives them.

Mattis spoke to reporters at the Pentagon Monday, saying he has no doubt the White House will send him those guidelines soon.

He said he will study it and come up with what the policy should be.

Mattis added, Pentagon officials are working closely with the president’s team on the issue.

The retired Marine General claims the rules would address whether or not transgender people can serve.

It would also determine under what conditions they would serve as far as the medical support they need, and how much time they would be non-deployable.

  • BoomerBabe

    Mattis is a soldier. I believe he will follow his leader’s directive.

  • Use Common Sense

    Someone better check his closet….

  • R.L.

    Yeah as if you ever served..

  • Donald York

    Taxpayers should not have to pay for a sex change for these confused individuals .

  • Pingback: Defense Secy Mattis May Change Pres. Trump’s Transgender Rules | Politically Brewed()

  • dragon lady

    Do that every day.

  • IraMad

    This guy must not understand who the commander in Chief is. If you change even the punctuation, you should be escorted from the halls of power…under guard!
    DRAIN THE SWAMP…NOW PLEASE!

  • stephenrh

    I pray that Mattis soon discovers that Trump’s transgender rule is not negotiable nor is disrespecting the president’s communication with the extremist media. “Your fired,” might go a long way in this situation and carried out immediately.

  • GUSSUK

    cannon fodder

  • Tado

    Non-deployable.
    How is that done?

  • rebpatgrl

    is it true mattis is a ho mo? i had read that somewhere. never been married or seen with a woman in a romantic way.

  • R A.

    Yeah, if the Zoophilians can serve, will their spousal “animal of choice” get government benefits?

  • Roy Beane

    Anyone who’s actually been in combat does not want a confused or conflicted person (sexually or otherwise) next to them with an automatic weapon in their hands. Very dangerous for those putting their lives on the line for America.

  • Olive Yale

    Plain and simple, there is no justifiable reason to ban transgender people from serving. An investigation into the effect of allowing transgender people to serve turned up nothing that would be of detriment to the US military; furthermore, thousands of transgender people serve currently without hindrance to their respective units or the military at large. From a monetary standpoint, the projection for the cost of transgender healthcare in the military is a fraction of that entity’s current expenditure on erectile dysfunction. All in all, a ban on transgender military service would open up a can of worms while forming a slippery slope with respect to what criteria are utilized to disqualify prospective enlistees from serving. Suffice to say: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

  • Janelle

    If someone can’t figure out their gender……….it says quite a bit about decision making skills overall.

  • Ron

    If they are enlisting to get in to have taxpayers pay for their surgery, I say NO. IF they changed their gender “completely” and have no other needed surgeries, then yeah let them in if they want to serve. A female that has changed their sex to female still usually won’t have the upper body strength to get through, say seal training, so they can do something in an office or. Wherever. Trans shouldn’t ever be allowed to serve on a close quarters submarine. My 3¢.

    • All American

      Assignment to the Middle East

      • Ron

        Works for me

        • All American

          I read that Islam holds great respect for transgenders!

  • CO

    We being pushed towards AI warfare and the Universal meat shield ?

  • turnipweed

    I smell another firing.

  • 10X

    No sh**bird, thoroughly disgusted.

    • turnipweed

      Pukin’ disgusted.

  • Dave Tibor

    If General Mattis decides, on the basis of cold hard facts, that transgender soldiers are useful in the military, so be it. We’ve wasted enough time on this nonsense.

    Of Americans who participated in the 2010 census, 21,833 had changed their sex. In the US Marine Corps, as an example, of those representing the demographic (military age), and if transgender people actually wanted to join the Marines in the same proportion as in the general population, there would be less than 400 in the entire corps. There is no evidence that transgenders would want to join the Military, but even if they did, I doubt that even a third could pass the entrance requirements, or that their mental state (outside of the mere fact of their gender confusion) would be acceptable.

    Who knows? Maybe transgender “Fire Teams” would be the ultimate strike force against Muslim Extremists? They wouldn’t know whether to rape or run! LOL!

    One thing is for sure. I wouldn’t want to be on the opposing side staring down a barrel held by a 6′ tall steroid-driven lesbian transgender monster with a chip on “his” shoulder the size of Manhattan and a couple plastic marbles in “his” pants. That’s probably enough to make your average sleeping Muslim terrorist awaken screaming his bloody head off!

  • John S

    Military is to defend America – not be a free ride for queers.

  • roger

    let them form their own battalion and than we can parachute them in to take over north korea

  • Billy Bones

    This should ONLY be commented on by those serving or have served in the military. For me they want to do the job then fine. Just don’t change any requirements for a quota like they did for women. Make it the same for all. We already have LGBT=Q in the military. Politically it’s now for votes only to make it official. An American is an American regardless.

    • 808Americans

      >>>This should ONLY be commented on by those serving or have served in the military.
      How about the people paying them?
      Think we should have a say?

      • Chris C.

        “NO”
        If you have never served in the Military and just watched what it is like on the History channel you have no idea what what we go or have gone through. You pay for the protection we give you from foreign/domestic threats. Leave the internal politics of ruining the Military up to the Military since we/they know how to win wars, not the general public or some POS politician. Transgenders are a distraction from the main goal and that goal is to win an keep America safe. Being sidelined by all these distractions takes away from that goal, it does not enhance the effectiveness of a combat unit by causing any internal frictions and extra needs for certain folks. You may say this isn’t fair, well war is not a game and fair isn’t in the rule book when it comes to defeating the enemy. We should just go back to “Don’t ask and don’t tell” if they want to get a surgery to address any mental issue they have they can get it while they are civilians and pay for it out of their own pockets since it is a pre-existing condition.

        • Monica Sylvester

          Thank you for my freedom; I respect and agree with your comment.

        • 808Americans

          Well I have served so…
          I agree there is no place for the “special” people in the military.
          In my day the special folks were washed out.
          I understand today is not my time, however…
          I completely disagree with your opinion that the TAX payer has no say.
          The TAX payer has every say.
          That said; All the best to you and yours.

      • Billy Bones

        No.

    • AlwaysTrump

      I served in Nam 1969 to 72. All queers are good for is fragging. They are mental and can NOT think about anything other than their stupidity. We dont need misfits in our military. We need able bodied soldiers with sharp minds.

      • Billy Bones

        That’s old school. Nowadays they are hard to spot or in admin.

        • AlwaysTrump

          Maybe for you younguns but for us proud tried and true Americans, a queer is an eyesore and very easy to spot. We don’t need or want the trash in our society.

    • TCop19

      An enlistment for the sole purpose of obtaining free elective surgery is a fraudulent enlistment.

      • Billy Bones

        Yep

  • Letmesay

    I would like to see the video. Because I thought mad dog was behind our president 100%.

  • Matt

    Why is our military PAYING for elective surgery?
    AND if and or when they do this transitional surgery
    should by time off work no pay with medical benifits
    this is a debilitating surgery and no reason they should be paid
    by all means hold them a job when fully recovered
    but not before

  • Biform25

    You’ll do what you’re told or GTFO.

  • Diane Coto

    wth??!!

    • 808Americans

      Exactly.

  • Trey Von Dinkis

    For all of you panicking, I do NOT think Mattis’ comments meant he was going to ‘blow off’ the President’s directives.
    I think what he meant was that he’ll have to apply the directives to consider ‘real-life’ situations – such as how to handle terms of people already in service. Do they immediately go? Do they finish out their term? If so – how do you handle benefits for those? Things such as that.

    I’m pretty certain that is all that he means.

    • Monica Sylvester

      That is also what I gleaned from the article.

      • Trey Von Dinkis

        Yes – the headline and writing is a touch ‘clit-bait’-ish – with ‘change.’
        Doesn’t mean ‘disregard,’ more ‘adapt’ and ‘apply accordingly.’

  • Lisa Hull

    They should serve as how they entered as to serve and if they want to change their gender than they can do that when they get out.

    • R A.

      And those tranzgenders that had their sezual deviant surgeries since being in the military should be reversed and “undone” in order to continue employment w the military.

  • If mattis changes this “order” from the President, he should then resign ASAP!

    • Monica Sylvester

      President Trump has surrounded himself with educated people to help him run this country and I believe he will respect and discuss Gen Mattis’s recommendations with Gen Mattis.

    • Turtle

      Why? Gen (R) Mattis is the best man Trump can have for this job! President Trump respects his opinions and views, Trump will adhere to Gen Mattis’ recommendations!

  • Mattis needs to keep the directive in place. If he changes it, President Trump is no longer in control of the WH.

    • …or the military.

      • That goes without say. He is the commander-in-chief.

    • NotBornLastNight

      Not true. Trump has faith and confidence in his secretaries that he chose. He therefor delegates his authority to the secretaries. Management 101.

      • stephenrh

        Mgmnt 101 is for liberal school children better known as snowflakes. Time tested strategies are what works not the maudlin crap from text books taught by community organizer types.

        • NotBornLastNight

          WTF are you trying to say McFly? Are you trying to tell this 28 year Army veteran Lieutenant Colonel that he’s a snowflake? Or are you trying to tell this 25-year police veteran that he is a community organizer? I suggest Steph, that you pick up a book once in a while and read it. It may raise your IQ into double digits.

    • tedlv

      Good morning!

      • Hey! It’s afternoon now. Have a great rest of the day!

        • tedlv

          You too!

    • stephenrh

      and if Mattis changes it, he should have his ass handed to him on the spot.

    • IraMad

      Change it ONLY IF the President agrees.

  • Russ Degidio

    They got to him….

  • 10X

    WTF happened to my beloved Marine Corps?!

    • R.L.

      Do not panic brother, I think Mattis will consider those who are serving now. He did not want them in the first place, but since they are in, we must figure a way to allow them to complete their service as long as they do so honorably.

      I hate the idea that cross dressers were allowed to serve, but we cannot allow any Marine to be given unfair treatment. He can let them serve and just not permit any more to serve. Medical should only cover the health of the Marine, not sex changes etc….

      Semper Fi
      ’65-’87

      • turnipweed

        Uh, exactly how many do you think are in the military? Closer to 3, or to 5?

        • R.L.

          Look, I did my time. I am not condoning any cross dressers. But when the government offers a program (such as obaba did with the military) then the military is obligated to ensure that said service person gets treated fairly.

          Now there maybe only two serving who are doing so honorably. So i take it your position is that they should get the boot even though they have served honorably???

          I do not know how many took obama’s offer. Nor do I care. I only care about our military folks who serve honorably. Do not care if they are pink or green, orange or brown. If there are only two as you say, then who does it hurt to ensure that they get the same medical treatment you might ave gotten in the service, or get an honorable discharge if they rate one???

          If there are say thirty thousand of them, let’s make a special division for them and they can be the first wave across the beach.

          • The minefield and IED detection squad (MIDS).

          • IraMad

            I like that strategy!

          • turnipweed

            Don’t encourage freaks and attract more to join. Let our military keep their dignity and fighting spirit. Don’t be OK with our military becoming even more politicized. That always ends in needless deaths. We don’t need silly distractions from a few freaks, or blowing small things up into big things.

            Back in the day, we took care of our own problems. During my basic training, some creep used to grab people’s junk after lights out. We gave him a blanket party, and made him so miserable he quit.

          • R.L.

            Dude, I am not advocating taking in any more of the mentally ill. I am simply stating that our government need to keep its’ word regardless of how much you and I do not like it.

            The government let them in. Now we are stuck with the problem of what to do with those already in. My question is what do we do with those who are serving honorably? It has nothing to do with recruiting more, or giving them special consideration.

            I simply think that any Marine who is currently serving honorably should be given the benefit of the doubt. Meanwhile we still institute a ban on any additional mentally ill being permitted to serve in our Corps.

            In your dislike (which reflects my dislike) I believe you are reading far too much into my comment.

          • turnipweed

            Our disagreement appears to be over our perception of how much sick-O’s damage the military. I believe they are a serious threat and badly tarnish our military. I suspect homosexuals now join just to meet others. If they should not be allowed in, they should be kicked out immediately.

          • R.L.

            Right before i retired, the Aids thing was just starting. Everyone had to submit to an aids test. There were some who popped positive for HIV.

            Back then, it was a known disease of the gays. The implications were serious as have relations with gays was a punishable offense under the UCMJ as you are well aware. And one had to have proof that the infected actually had been involved with gays and did not contract the disease b way of some other means.

            I know that the military made sure that those Marines or Navy (not sure who was positive as it was confidential) could not give blood, etc. I do not know if their ability to serve on sea duty or deployment was affected.

            My point here is that they were given the benefit of the doubt so as to be able to continue their career such as it was going to be. If the were ineligible for deployment i suspect that they would see fewer promotions etc. In that they were not “convicted” of any violation of the laws in effect at the time, they were permitted to continue to serve.

            Obviously there is much more to the story to which i am not privy. Maybe there were some who were indeed convicted of sodomy I do not know, but if they were, those folks would have been discharged.

            I do however, respect your point of view and actually appreciate it. I hate anything that is a degradation of our military and think that the cross dressers are one of those things.

            Now if we are to discharge them because they are mentally ill, they would probably under current law be entitled to a medical retirement package. Not sure exactly what the rules are, but you can bet the ACLU would be after the military and government in a heart beat.

            Also keep in mind I am not advocating more promotions for them nor any leadership positions. If they are permitted to serve, then given the options of limited promotions because they probably cannot be deployed, and as a result should not lead, the will get out of their own accord.

            If justice were to be truly served Obama would be the person at the end of a rope (for allowing them to serve in the first place). It was his actions which are certainly bordering on treasonous by degrading our military.

            He is the reason we are stuck having a discussion on which cross dresser should be permitted to serve.

            Not sure how it will all be resolved, but however it works out, I do hope that you have a great day brother.

            Semper FI

  • Rachel Sloniger Turpin

    Easy solution. Let them serve “as they were born” and if they want to transition, they can after they get out. IMO they should have never gotten rid of “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”. Good policy protection for both sides.

    • Barry Soetoro-Chin

      and, not at taxpayer expense.

      • NotBornLastNight

        Concur.

    • Letmesay

      Disagree ..on don’t ask don’t tell, why do you think we have these freaks in the military in the first place. That was never a good policy protection for both sides. It really only benefited one side and that’s the one that’s walks our streets in heels stockings wig and a hairy chest. Clinton did wrong just like his wife did wrong.

      • NotBornLastNight

        Don’t ask, Don’t tell policy certainly did work well. “Freaks” will always be in the military. Just don’t tell me and I won’t ask. If you want to wave your rainbow flag and shout to the world your sexual deviance or tell me you are confused, don’t know your gender and want the taxpayer to solve and pay for your confusion then you’ve got no business being in the military.

  • Mike Valdez

    Just says he will study them when he receives them. Nothing about not being in sync with POTUS. 🇺🇸

  • AshJonson

    Make them front line grenade carriers then. We don’t need mental cases mixed in with weapons.