Monday, July 13, 2026

Trump announces ban on transgender people in US military

July 28, 2017 by  
Filed under Latest Lingerie News

Comments Off

President Trump announced on Twitter on Wednesday that he will ban transgender people from serving in the military in any capacity, an abrupt reversal of an Obama administration decision to allow them to serve openly and a potential end to the careers of thousands of active-duty troops.

The decision halts a years-long process of advancing rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the U.S. military that began with the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in 2010. And the nature of the announcement left Republicans and Democrats in Congress concerned about the seeming broad scope of Trump’s order.

Citing the need to focus on what he called “decisive and overwhelming victory,” Trump said that the military cannot accept the burden of higher medical costs and the “disruption” that transgender troops “would entail.”

“After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee who in 2010 opposed ending “don’t ask, don’t tell,” criticized Trump’s decision in a statement, attacking both how it was delivered and its implications for active-duty transgender troops.

“The president’s tweet this morning regarding transgender Americans in the military is yet another example of why major policy announcements should not be made via Twitter,” McCain said. “The statement was unclear. The Department of Defense has already decided to allow currently serving transgender individuals to stay in the military, and many are serving honorably today. Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving. There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train and deploy to leave the military — regardless of their gender identity,” McCain said.

Trump was lobbied for over a year by conservative Republicans to roll back the Obama administration policy change. Christian conservative leaders pressed him on the issue as a candidate in June 2016 during a meeting in New York just after Trump secured the Republican nomination for president. Many of them said the military is no place for “social experimentation” at the expense of military readiness.

Although they were pleased with Trump’s decision, Wednesday’s announcement came with no warning to those same conservative leaders. It also was a surprise to many on Capitol Hill.

Trump’s decision comes two weeks after the House rejected an amendment to the annual defense policy bill that would have blocked the Pentagon from offering gender transition therapies to active-duty service members. Twenty-four Republicans joined 190 Democrats voting to reject the measure.

But conservative lawmakers — many of them members of the House Freedom Caucus — had threatened to withhold support for a spending bill if Congress did not act to prohibit the Pentagon from paying for the procedures. The impasse broadly threatened government spending, but most importantly for Trump, it potentially held up money that had been appropriated for the border wall between the United States and Mexico, a key promise he had made during the campaign.

A White House official and a House GOP official confirmed that Reps. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Scott Perry (R-Pa.), all Freedom Caucus members, were in talks with the White House and House leadership on the issue.

They were willing to accept a Defense Department or White House provision that addressed paying for procedures — well short of a ban on transgender people serving in the military, according to the House official who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the issue.

Trump went well beyond what they had requested.

Earlier this year, Trump’s military leadership had signaled that they needed more time to fully assess the implementation of the last significant piece of the Obama administration’s approach, delaying the entry of transgender military recruits until the end of 2017. The policy in place would have allowed them to begin serving July 1, but Defense Secretary Jim Mattis delayed it just before the deadline, citing a need for more study.

The six-month delay was requested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and would have allowed a further review of how integrating transgender recruits would affect the military’s “readiness and lethality,” Mattis said in a memo last month. That review was due in early December.

Mattis noted that the delay “in no way presupposes the outcome.”

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended Trump’s decision, saying it was purely focused on military readiness. Yet when pressed by reporters on how the new policy would be implemented and how it would affect currently serving transgender troops, Sanders deferred the questions to the Pentagon. She said Trump had made the decision and informed Mattis of the policy change Tuesday.

“Look, I think sometimes you have to make decisions, and once he made a decision, he didn’t feel it was necessary to hold that decision, and they’re going to work together with the Department of Defense to lawfully implement it,” Sanders said.

Aside from a short statement, the Pentagon referred all questions regarding Trump’s tweets to the White House.

In a sign of how quickly political and social norms have shifted in Washington, many Republican lawmakers spoke out against Trump’s announcement.

As well as McCain, Republican Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah); Joni Ernst (Iowa), an Army veteran; and Richard C. Shelby (Ala.) issued statements calling the president’s decision into question.

Under former defense secretary Ashton B. Carter, the military lifted the ban on transgender troops and was given one year to determine how to implement a policy that would allow transgender service members to receive medical care and ban the services from involuntarily separating people in the military who came out as transgender.

Thousands of troops serving in the military are transgender, and some estimates place the number as high as 11,000 in the reserves and active-duty military, according to a Rand Corp. study commissioned by the Defense Department.

The Rand study estimated that gender-transition-related medical treatments would cost the military between $2.4 million and $8.4 million annually.

Brad Carson, a former congressman who worked on transgender policy deliberations under the Obama administration, said in an interview Wednesday that months of delays last year in implementing a change in transgender policy “left the door open” to Trump’s action and potentially invites litigation challenging the president’s decision.

“That being said, just from the tweets, it seems as if what he is doing is rolling back already implemented policies, which will force out several hundred openly transgender service members out of the military,” Carson said.

Also Wednesday, the Justice Department filed a legal brief in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit arguing that LGBT people are not protected from discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

As a political candidate, Trump largely avoided issues related to LGBT rights, even while many in his family — including daughter Ivanka Trump — have been vocal supporters of LBGT people.

But since taking office, the Trump administration has rolled back protections, including those for transgender children in public schools. And earlier this year, even before the decision on public schools, the Pentagon quietly rescinded a directive to Defense Department schools that students were free to use the bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity.

The White House also did not recognize LGBT Pride Month in June, although other members of his administration did so, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

When asked whether Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, the president’s senior adviser and son-in-law, were involved in the discussions before Trump’s tweets Wednesday, the White House official said, “It actually may have caught them unaware.”

Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a think tank that has helped the Pentagon research transgender people serving in the military, released a statement condemning the move.

“This is a shocking and ignorant attack on our military and on transgender troops who have been serving honorably and effectively for the past year,” Belkin said.

Philip Rucker, Dan Lamothe, Jenna Johnson, Ed O’Keefe, Robert Barnes and Christopher Ingraham contributed to this report.

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

The iPod nano had a weird, amazing history

July 28, 2017 by  
Filed under Latest Lingerie News

Comments Off

Like the iPod Classic three years before it, the iPod nano’s death today was a long time coming. But years ago, before the product stalled out, lost its identity, and was made wholly unnecessary by the iPhone, it featured some of Apple’s finest design and arguably represented the iPod at its peak — tiny, fun, and focused.

1st generation, 2005

My favorite iPod nano iteration has always been the very first one (seen above). It came in black and white with a silver back, like a shrunken-down version of the classic iPod, and it felt immediately retro. It wasn’t throwing back to anything — just the iPod released a year earlier. But it was as though the nano had leapt so far ahead as to make the traditional iPod feel like a thing of the past, like the nano was a modern riff on technology we used to use and love.

For my money, it also had the all-time-best Steve Jobs unveiling, pulled from the coin pocket of his jeans.

2nd generation, 2006


iPod nano second generation

2nd generation iPod nano.

Photo: Apple

The second generation, released a year later, changed the iPod nano into a more familiar shape, with curved sides and bright color options. It was far more reminiscent of the iPod mini and largely represented what the nano would look like into the future.

As much as I love the original style, the color options have always gone a long way toward making the iPod line feel more fun and personal. I’m still surprised that Apple hasn’t done this for the iPhone (aside from, briefly, on the 5C).

3nd generation, 2007

Then came the third model, which was kind of a bizarre misstep. It made the nano stout and wide, so that it could have a screen portioned properly to play music videos. At a time when YouTube was just getting started, it almost seemed like downloading music videos from the iTunes Store made sense.

I tried to buy into Apple’s vision of loading up our iPods with videos (I had a fifth-gen Classic), which I mostly purchased with iTunes credit from the promo codes on the bottom of Pepsi caps. But it never really made much sense. Watching videos on the iPod was a bad experience — the nano’s screen was just two inches wide — and I’m not sure that I’ve rewatched even my favorite music videos more than a few times.


Apple Announces iPod Upgrades

3rd generation iPod nano.

Photo by Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

I think the biggest failing of this generation is that the nano just didn’t look cool; it always felt strange seeing someone use one, as though they had chosen the wrong model. Though there was one highlight of this generation: the colors. Apple should really bring back that soft blue and green.

4th generation, 2008

A year after that, Apple returned the nano to its traditional shape. This time, with a longer screen. I’d say that this is probably the peak of the nano’s design. It was where Apple had gotten so good at making iPods, there was just nothing to complain about. It was sleek, it was stylish, and it came in nine colors.

At this point, the iPod touch had already been unveiled, and it was kind of clear that there was only so far that the iPod line could go. Here was where Apple showed that it had done all there was to do with a tiny screen and a wheel.


iPod nano 4th generation

4th generation iPod nano.

Photo: Apple

5th generation, 2009

I remember reading Engadget’s live blog from the back of a classroom when the fifth-generation iPod nano was unveiled in 2009 and being kind of bewildered by what Apple had done. It took the prior year’s model, made the colors glossier, the screen a bit bigger, and — the big upgrade — added a camera to the back.

The iPod didn’t need a camera. Evidently, Apple agreed because it got rid of it the next year. My colleague Paul Miller points out that Apple may also have been trying to compete “with those Flip cams that were all the rage for 12 months.”

This was the model where you started to get the sense that things were over for the nano. Apple had taken the iPod as far as it could. And with nowhere left to go, it decided to shove a camera into the device just because it could.

6th generation, 2010

That was pretty much the end for the iPod nano, but Apple kept the line going for a little bit longer by switching it over to a touchscreen. The first of those was was basically an iPod shuffle with a tiny screen on it, displaying a single button at a time.

This was maybe the best of Apple’s touchscreen nanos, if only because people hacked them into early smartwatches. But ultimately, it just didn’t feel like an iPod. It wasn’t quick and stylish and convenient. It was a weird little product that mostly seemed like an excuse to continue the iPod line.


Apple Launches Upgraded iPod

6th generation iPod nano.

Photo by Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

7th and 8th generations, 2012 and 2015

The final two iterations came a few years later. They were shaped more like earlier iPod nanos, but with tall touchscreens and a completely redesigned OS. The trouble was that, at this point, the nano had abandoned pretty much all of its heritage. It didn’t really look like a nano or even an Apple product. It ran some odd operating system and had different iconography than all other Apple products. It may as well have been a knockoff made by another company.

That’s how the nano languished for five years. Until today, when Apple removed the product from its website (along with the iPod shuffle) and said it had been discontinued.


Gallery Photo: iPod nano pictures (2012)

7th generation iPod nano.

The future

It’s hard to imagine a world in which the iPod nano continued to work. The product died nearly as soon as it peaked, and it has little to offer in a world dominated by very large-screened phones that offer its core function in a better way, despite largely being a minor feature.

There are certainly futures for the iPod that we can imagine Apple could have chased. It could have reworked the iPod to work with wireless headphones. It could have made something like the Mighty — an iPod shuffle designed for streaming services. After watching Baby Driver, it’s hard to imagine a new iPod that looked just like the old ones, with some small tech updates, wouldn’t be an instant seller. But any iPod is doomed to be a blip on Apple’s earnings sheet compared to the monstrously profitable iPhone. So despite our nostalgia, there’s little reason for Apple to do it.

Even though there was no way forward for the nano, it’s a little sad to see it go. With the Classic gone, and now the nano and shuffle, too, the iPod is very nearly dead. All that’s left is the touch, and that’s hardly even an iPod. It’s just a stripped-down phone.

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS