Best Defense

Thomas E. Ricks' daily take on national security.

Not so fast, Professor Zelikow!: That transgender policy change is in fact up to both the president and the Congress

If only Congress could determine who serves, then all military regulations on enlistment, retention, and health care would be unconstitutional.

LAS VEGAS, NV - OCTOBER 08:  Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at the Treasure Island Hotel & Casino on October 8, 2015 in Las Vegas, Nevada.  During the rally, Trump said people were giving him credit for helping force Kevin McCarthy to bow out of the race for Speaker of the House.  (Photo by Isaac Brekken/Getty Images)
LAS VEGAS, NV - OCTOBER 08: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at the Treasure Island Hotel & Casino on October 8, 2015 in Las Vegas, Nevada. During the rally, Trump said people were giving him credit for helping force Kevin McCarthy to bow out of the race for Speaker of the House. (Photo by Isaac Brekken/Getty Images)
LAS VEGAS, NV - OCTOBER 08: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at the Treasure Island Hotel & Casino on October 8, 2015 in Las Vegas, Nevada. During the rally, Trump said people were giving him credit for helping force Kevin McCarthy to bow out of the race for Speaker of the House. (Photo by Isaac Brekken/Getty Images)

 

By Diane Mazur
Best Defense guest respondent

Professor Philip Zelikow concludes that President Donald Trump has no constitutional authority to decide whether the military will “accept or allow” transgender individuals to serve. But the president does have that power, just as he has the power to continue the current Department of Defense policy allowing transgender individuals to serve openly. If only Congress could determine who serves, then all military regulations on enlistment, retention, and health care would be unconstitutional.

 

By Diane Mazur
Best Defense guest respondent

Professor Philip Zelikow concludes that President Donald Trump has no constitutional authority to decide whether the military will “accept or allow” transgender individuals to serve. But the president does have that power, just as he has the power to continue the current Department of Defense policy allowing transgender individuals to serve openly. If only Congress could determine who serves, then all military regulations on enlistment, retention, and health care would be unconstitutional.

Zelikow asserts that the Supreme Court held in Rostker v. Goldberg that the Constitution “commits exclusively to Congress” the power to set qualifications for military service, and therefore the executive branch cannot decide whether transgender citizens should serve. But the court is quoting this language from a Senate Armed Services Committee report, not agreeing with it. The court ruled that congressional power was “broad,” not exclusive. It was deciding whether courts could overrule Congress, not whether the executive could set qualification standards.

The military determines medical qualifications for enlistment and retention. Under 10 U.S.C. § 505, the military may accept enlistments of “qualified, effective, and able-bodied persons who are not less than seventeen years of age nor more than forty-two years of age.” Congress doesn’t tell the military who is qualified, effective, or able-bodied. Federal law similarly gives the services discretion to determine if serving members should be separated for unfitness.

The Congressional Research Service issued a post-Trump-tweet update on transgender policy, and it summarized the two options at hand: either the executive branch can act, or Congress can act: “Congress may choose to defer or delegate authority to DOD for policies and regulations regarding accession, separation, and health care for transgender service members. Alternatively, Congress may draft legislation to affect such Administration policy, under its authority to make laws governing the armed forces.”

Congress does have the power to legislate qualifications, but it typically does not do that, and it is certainly not required to do it by the Constitution. The rare occasions in which Congress has legislated military qualifications leave a poor track record, notably the mistaken policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Perhaps this time we could take a short cut and do it right the first time.

Diane H. Mazur is Director of Legal Research at the Palm Center; Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Florida College of Law; former U.S. Air Force officer (aircraft and munitions maintenance); and author of A More Perfect Military: How the Constitution Can Make Our Military Stronger (Oxford University Press 2010).

Photo credit: ISAAC BREKKEN/Getty Images

Thomas E. Ricks covered the U.S. military from 1991 to 2008 for the Wall Street Journal and then the Washington Post. He can be reached at ricksblogcomment@gmail.com. Twitter: @tomricks1

More from Foreign Policy

A worker cuts the nose off the last Ukraine's Tupolev-22M3, the Soviet-made strategic aircraft able to carry nuclear weapons at a military base in Poltava, Ukraine on Jan. 27, 2006. A total of 60 aircraft were destroyed  according to the USA-Ukrainian disarmament agreement.
A worker cuts the nose off the last Ukraine's Tupolev-22M3, the Soviet-made strategic aircraft able to carry nuclear weapons at a military base in Poltava, Ukraine on Jan. 27, 2006. A total of 60 aircraft were destroyed according to the USA-Ukrainian disarmament agreement.

Why Do People Hate Realism So Much?

The school of thought doesn’t explain everything—but its proponents foresaw the potential for conflict over Ukraine long before it erupted.

Employees watch a cargo ship at a port in China, which is experiencing an economic downturn.
Employees watch a cargo ship at a port in China, which is experiencing an economic downturn.

China’s Crisis of Confidence

What if, instead of being a competitor, China can no longer afford to compete at all?

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell testifies in the U.S. Senate in Washington on Sept. 24, 2020.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell testifies in the U.S. Senate in Washington on Sept. 24, 2020.

Why This Global Economic Crisis Is Different

This is the first time since World War II that there may be no cooperative way out.

Chinese President Xi Jinping (left) and Premier Li Keqiang applaud at the closing session of the National People's Congress at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on March 11.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (left) and Premier Li Keqiang applaud at the closing session of the National People's Congress at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on March 11.

China Is Hardening Itself for Economic War

Beijing is trying to close economic vulnerabilities out of fear of U.S. containment.