The U.S. Marine Corps values loyalty to one’s fellow Marines and to doing the right thing even when it’s easier to do what’s wrong. It’s not a huge surprise, then, that some Marines have been saying “no” to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth who’s demanded the expulsion of all transgender service members despite their demonstrated fitness for service.

In two of three of these boards formal hearings roughly similar to a trial, Marines have voted to retain transgender fellow Marines And in the third case, the board expressly concluded that despite its vote, the Marine should be retained due to his “commendable service record and unique skills.”The votes to retain are similar to jury nullification, and they send the clear message that honor restrains them from kicking out Marines who have met and continue to meet every Marine Corps standard. Thus, their vote to retain despite evidence that the Marine in question is or may be transgender.

Trump and Hegseth have already decided that any record of gender dysphoria, even if the service member never transitioned, requires a Marine or solider or sailor or airman to be stripped of the nation’s uniform It is an Orwellian world that Marines and military members from the other services enter when ordered to sit on separation boards that Hegseth ginned up to kick out folks who refused “voluntary” separation. (It’s no less Orwellian for military lawyers made to facilitate such proceedings.)

Military separation boards, in general, wield discretion to decide whether it’s in the best interest of the service to retain a fellow service member despite their alleged misconduct or diagnosed physical disability, these are boards in name only. President Donald Trump and Hegseth have already decided that any record of gender dysphoria, even if the service member never transitioned, requires a Marine or solider or sailor or airman to be stripped of the nation’s uniform.

Hegseth means for these boards to do one thing: Confirm an indication, past or present, that the service member is transgender. That’s it.

They are directed to disregard the full record of the service member before them; to ignore their long history of honorable service including combat deployments; to look away from their superb performance evaluations; to not listen to their stellar character witnesses; and to pretend away the individual service member’s demonstrated excellence in an occupational specialty critical to a military at war. Pentagon plans to purge transgender troops from U.S. military March 1, 2025 Plainly put, the board members are ordered to lie and say that the service member is unfit to serve and thus play a role in depriving the U.S. military of that service member’s substantial training, experience and willingness to serve It’s no wonder, then, that most Marine board members thus far — as well as most Navy board members — have ignored such nonsense and voted to retain.

Their moral compasses demanded it.

This doesn’t mean that the Army and Air Force board members who have gone along with Hegseth’s lies don’t have moral compasses or that they enjoy being complicit with the cruel subterfuge that these boards represent. But despite whatever moral dilemma they may have between being asked to follow their values or follow orders, they have come down on the side of following orders. And they have had help. From Hegseth’s top civilian lawyer in the Pentagon to the services’ military judge advocate corps, Pentagon and military lawyers have contributed to the rationalization game that allows the Orwellian discharge boards to churn along. Legal top cover is a great way to rationalize dishonesty and justify morally bankrupt decisions that are inconsistent with one’s values.

But it’s disappointing that military lawyers have helped enable these gaslighting boards, especially since June when a Washington, D.C., federal judge agreed to make all transgender service members remaining on active duty part of a class protected by her preliminary injunction. That judge ordered Hegseth not to separate transgender service members (originally, only the named plaintiffs in Talbott v. United States) until their federal litigation challenging the transgender ban on constitutional grounds is complete.

Navy and Marine Corps boards voted for retention in nine of 12 cases, challenging an administration that treats transgender identity as grounds to end a military career.

The Advocate (@advocate.com) But Judge Ana Reyes has not issued her written ruling to that effect — she’s likely waiting to see what the Supreme Court will do with the government’s late August emergency petition challenging her preliminary injunction — and the services, surely reacting to pressure from Hegseth, have been accelerating the boards. But Reyes’ oral ruling gave and continues to give military lawyers strong legal ground to advise their commanders that holding separation boards — at least since June 30 — is contrary to a federal judge’s order. Yet the boards continue.

Hopefully more boards will follow in the footsteps of those service members who have decided to be guided by their values of integrity, loyalty, honor and respect. As social psychology studies have long show n, situational dynamics are incredibly powerful. Such dynamics have surely contributed to some boards rubber stamping the administration’s counterfactual determination that no transgender military member is worthy of continued service. There’s no reason to think that boards that refuse to rubber stamp Hegseth’s orders can’t be similarly influential.

While the unbelievably powerful dynamic of obedience to authority (recall the Milgram shock experiment ) is almost impossible to interrupt, we’re seeing evidence that almost impossible isn’t the same as completely impossible, and that values and common sense can trump a service member’s order to lie and do what’s wrong. The post Pete Hegseth’s purge of trans troops hit a wall: Marines who refuse to lie MS NOW