Sara Jacobs · TranslatePolitics.com

House of Representatives

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027

2026-07-21

“You say we fear-monger. I say you target girls. A girl was investigated to see if she was trans. She was not trans. Other girls were investigated because they did not look feminine. None were trans. You spread rumors about a basketball player. You harassed her. You bullied her. You threatened her. In Florida, you investigated a trans student. Investigators asked kids to describe the trans student undressing. I think this is disturbing. I think trans girls are more likely to be victims of violent crime, not the perpetrator. I think the person behind this amendment is wrong. She wants to stop colleagues using the restroom. She talks about the right to vote. I think her side wants to take away a woman's right to vote. I think this is absurd.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Chair, my colleague says that we are just fear- mongering about what these bans would actually mean, but we have actually already seen how trans sports bans have been used to target all girls. A high school athletic association secretly investigated a female athlete without telling her or her parents to see if she was trans. She was not. The same association had investigated other complaints, receiving them because ``an athlete doesn't look feminine enough,'' and none of those allegations that the students were trans were verified to be true. In another incident, a Utah State school board member falsely suggested in 2024 that a high school basketball athlete was trans, subjecting her to relentless harassment and bullying, including threats of violence. In Florida, a school investigated a trans student's participation in girls' sports, and investigators repeatedly asked other individuals, all children, to describe how the student appeared in various stages of undress. If this does not disturb you about how our young girls will be treated in sports, then you are clearly not paying any attention. Let's be clear: Trans girls and trans women are much more likely--four times more likely than Cis people to be the victims of violent crime, not the perpetrator. Let's also be clear about something. The author of this amendment has led her own investigations that have failed, trying to prevent our colleagues from being able to use the restroom. She is talking about the right to vote. Her side of the aisle is literally pushing to take away a woman's right to vote because of the SAVE Act, and Secretary Hegseth doesn't think women should have the right to vote or serve in the military. This is absurd. I yield back the balance of my time.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't want the military schools to stop letting trans girls play girls' sports. I want to protect those kids. I think the other side just wants to fight about it for politics.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Chair, it is unfortunate that, once again, I am here fighting with my colleague from South Carolina to prevent her from injecting culture wars into our military. Let's clear up a few things. This amendment isn't about the Olympics. It isn't about the World Cup. It isn't even about college-level athletics. It is about discriminating against kids in preschool, from preschool to high school, whose parents are serving this country. These are kids who are trying to find a place where they fit in and belong, and this amendment makes them a political and physical target. Military kids change schools frequently due to their parents' careers. They have mastered the art of saying good-bye to their new friends, their home, their routine because they do it so often. They have missed birthdays and holidays and milestones with their parent when they are deployed, and sometimes they have to grow up too soon, taking on additional responsibilities when one parent is away. We should be doing everything we can to make sure that these kids get to be kids. However, this amendment does the opposite. It politicizes kids who just want to play on a soccer team with their friends. My colleague talks a lot about men forcing their way into girls' locker rooms. Well, this amendment actually is about forcing men into girls' locker rooms. It actually makes young girls more vulnerable to the likes of Larry Nassar, who would celebrate a policy like this because it makes it easier to victimize little girls. Think about it: Actual predators will be happy about this amendment. It could force any girl, especially tall, muscular, or more masculine- presenting girls to have to undergo invasive exams to prove that they are a girl. It could require girls of all ages to answer personal questions about their bodies and physical development to adults they may not know. I remember being a girl growing up, and as comfortable as I may be now talking about my period with all of you, that would be my worst nightmare in middle school, but that is the experience we would be forcing on millions of little girls around the country; not just trans girls, all girls. Talk about an invasion of little girls' privacy. At the end of the day, what is this really accomplishing? The number of trans girls in DODEA schools competing in sports is incredibly small. I bet the author of this amendment doesn't even know of any. This isn't a crisis, but my colleague is pretending it is to score political points. The parents of these military kids serve so we can have debates in this Chamber. The least we can do is not make their kids the collateral damage in culture war fights. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't know those children. I am not their doctor. A doctor should decide what is best for children. I want the doctors to decide. I want people to do what doctors say. I want doctors to give children many things. I don't want people to say mean things.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. Chair, I don't believe that 435 Members of Congress should play pretend doctor and try to decide the medical care of servicemembers or their children that we have never met. In fact, even the physicians in this body know that there is a legal and ethical standard: that a doctor has to establish a patient-physician relationship, like an evaluation or an exam before prescribing care. None of us should be overriding the actual doctors who decide what kind of care is and isn't necessary. For the record, every major medical association in this country, representing over 1.3 million American doctors, recognizes that trans healthcare and gender-affirming care is safe, effective, and medically necessary. Prescribing any kind of care, whether it is puberty blockers or hormones or anything else, doesn't happen on a whim. It is after a rigorous, deliberate, multi-step physical and psychological evaluation by doctors. Here is the worst part about all this, the double standard at the heart of this amendment: Gender-affirming care is standard evidence- based care. In fact, the military relies on it for cisgender troops: troops with thyroid conditions, low testosterone, or other hormone needs. They just made a whole new policy about it. My colleague literally said: It is to make sure someone is more masculine. Making someone who is masculine more masculine is literally the definition of affirming one's gender with gender-affirming care. The same medical treatment can't strengthen readiness for a cis man and hurt readiness when a trans servicemember or our military families need it. A blanket ban on healthcare is a cruel punishment for kids. Denying them mental health care and therapy is especially disgusting when they are more likely to feel alone and isolated because of the vitriol they hear from people in this very body, people in power like my colleagues. We are better than this. Our troops are better than this. Our troops deserve better than this.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I don't like that you want to ban transgender people from the military. I say it is discrimination. I say it wastes time and money. I say we already allow them to serve. I say our studies show it helps more than hurts. I say we don't kick people out based on who they are. I say it costs money when we kick people out. I say that is not what you claim to want. I say even their health care is not the reason they serve. I say we spend even more money training them than for their health care. I say your rule change makes no sense.”

Official Congressional Record

Madam Chair, it seems like my colleague on the other side of the aisle has just as little understanding of parliamentary procedure as she has understanding of military readiness. This amendment is a waste of time. The trans military already exists. This executive order is already in effect. So what does this amendment actually do? It makes discrimination permanent. RAND and the Pentagon have already studied this. They concluded that allowing trans Americans to serve openly doesn't hurt unit cohesion, operational effectiveness, or readiness. Commanders said it made their force stronger. Do you know what actually hurts readiness? Kicking out trans servicemembers despite their stellar performance and discharging people we have spent time, money, and resources training because of who they are, not how they performed. That costs money. That hurts readiness. Secretary Hegseth loves talking about the importance of meritocracy in the military, but kicking out qualified people because he doesn't like their identity is the exact opposite of meritocracy. If you are really cynical and think that trans people only serve to get their healthcare paid for, you would be wrong. The Pentagon spent 6,400 times more on trans servicemembers' career development than on their healthcare. One of the trans servicemembers I met told me that their most costly procedure was for their shoulder reconstruction after being injured in the line of duty. For the record, shoulder reconstruction has nothing to do with being trans. Here is the double standard at the heart of this amendment. Hormone therapy is standard, evidence-based care. They just made a whole new policy about it.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗