On the night of July 21, the House voted down an amendment that would have written the ban on transgender troops into federal law — and it took four Republicans to do it.
The amendment, offered by Colorado Republican Lauren Boebert to the annual defense bill, would have codified Executive Order 14183 — the order the administration used to expel transgender service members — by requiring every member of the military to serve “in accordance with their biological sex.” It would have taken a policy that currently rests on an executive order and a Supreme Court stay and made it a statute, the kind of thing a future president can’t simply sign away. It failed, 212 to 217. Every Democrat present voted no. So did Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Mike Lawler of New York, James Moylan of Guam, and Kimberlyn King-Hinds of the Northern Mariana Islands — the only four Republicans to break with their party.
Ari's Threads is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
One thing keeps this from reading as a victory lap. The same night, in the same bill, the House passed two other anti-trans amendments. South Carolina Republican Nancy Mace got one through barring gender-affirming care under TRICARE, the military’s health program, 219 to 208, and another barring transgender girls from girls’ sports at schools the Defense Department runs for military families, 221 to 203. On the ledger for the evening, the House moved the defense bill in an anti-trans direction. One of three amendments failed. Two passed.
Which is exactly why the four “no” votes are worth naming. The measures that passed were narrow — a care restriction, a sports rule. The one that failed swept wide: a total, permanent, statutory ban on transgender people serving at all. Fitzpatrick and Lawler sit in the kind of suburban swing districts that decide House majorities. Moylan and King-Hinds are delegates from Guam and the Northern Marianas, who could vote on the amendment because it was considered in the Committee of the Whole. Four Republicans who will vote for plenty of things this administration wants would not put their names on writing an entire class of Americans out of the armed forces. That is a smaller finding than “the coalition is cracking” — and a truer one.
It is also, as far as the public record shows, a first. Anti-trans measures have reached the House floor repeatedly this Congress — a national sports ban, a bill to criminalize gender-affirming care for minors — and they have passed. Others were stripped in negotiation or never allowed a vote at all. This is the first standalone anti-trans amendment to be brought to the floor and voted down. (The distinction matters: in May, a bill to build a women’s history museum failed 204–216 while carrying an anti-trans amendment — but there the amendment was adopted and the whole bill collapsed around it. That was a bill dying. This was an amendment losing.)
None of which changes the situation for a transgender person currently in uniform, or trying to enlist. The ban Boebert wanted to codify is already in force. The executive order stands; the Supreme Court let it take effect last year; transgender service members have already been pushed out under it. July 21 killed the effort to make that ban permanent — to move it from an order a future administration could reverse into a law that would take an act of Congress to undo. Stopping that is not nothing. A statute is a lock; an executive order is a latch. Four Republicans declined to turn the lock.
So the honest version of the night is neither the celebration nor the shrug. The right did not have the votes to make the cruelest version of its policy permanent, even in a House it controls, even with the administration behind it — and it could not get there because four of its own members wouldn’t go. That is the line they found. It held on TRICARE and it held on school sports, and it broke on the total ban. Where a coalition breaks tells you where its floor is.
The people who lost this vote will be back — the NDAA still has a Senate to clear and a conference to survive, and the two Mace amendments are riding along with it. But for one night, on the one measure that would have made the ban forever, the answer was no — and Republicans made it no.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.