Abby Phillip Corners Scott Jennings Over Military Ban

[00:00:00]And what if the president wakes up tomorrow and says, "I don't want any black people in the military." Do we have Do we give difference to him on that? No. Ridiculous.

[00:00:05]>> No, wait a second. It's not ridiculous.

[00:00:07]It's not ridiculous because you're discriminating against a group of people in a very similar way.

[00:00:12]>> I knew you were going to say that.

[00:00:13]Excuse me. I'm glad you [laughter] hold I'm curious. Why is it Why is it ridiculous? I mean, you just said the president should be the one who just decides, right? Today's debate starts with a question that immediately exposes the core issue behind one of the most controversial military policies in America. Is this really about military readiness, or is it about excluding a group of Americans from serving their country? As the Supreme Court allows the Trump administration's transgender military ban to move forward for now, CNN brings together a transgender Navy veteran, legal arguments, and political perspectives for a heated discussion.

[00:00:53]But as you'll see, the debate quickly shifts away from military effectiveness and towards something much bigger.

[00:01:00]Whether government officials should be allowed to restrict rights based on opinions rather than evidence.

[00:01:07]Watch carefully because several moments in this discussion leave major questions unanswered and Abby Phillip isn't about to let those questions slide.

[00:01:17]>> The the main argument, Elena, that the Trump administration is making here is that um that allowing transgender troops to serve hurts lethality and it hurts readiness. What do you say to that?

[00:01:29]>> Well, there's no evidence of that. I think that you know that was the case.

[00:01:32]We've seen transgender people serving honorably for the last several years and why what has changed between now and then? They've just woken up to a new administration who has a different outlook on their ability to serve. So I think that you know if you talk to people who are serving on active duty a alongside um transgender troops, they're not making these complaints. The the leaders in the military are not making these complaints. These are political complaints about military service. So I think that all the courts that have looked at this issue and looked at it, you know, and said there's nothing in fact to back up what the the government is claiming here. In fact, the judges challenge them to produce evidence and they couldn't produce any evidence. So I think it's it's a really dark day for our country where basically we're allowed to discriminate against a class of people. If Scott, if they can't produce evidence that this actually does in fact have an impact on readiness, I mean, how is this not then just discrimination?

[00:02:34]>> Well, it's the opinion of the commander-in-chief uh who according to our constitution is the head of the military. I mean, regardless of uh anyone's opinion or um you know, anybody's whatever side you're on, whether you're for it or against it, at some juncture, the president is a commander-in-chief of the military, and he has and should have broad latitude to determine how the armed forces should be operated. Um and so I think that's what he's doing here. I think that's ultimately what the court uh said today was that the president is the commander-in-chief, and we got to we got to respect that. But I mean to to to her point if there's not a downside and it's been going on for years now and uh I mean I'm just presenting your argument to them.

[00:03:16]>> Yeah.

[00:03:17]>> What is the argument other than Trump Hegathth just doesn't want trans people in the military?

[00:03:24]>> Well, I mean I think that the president we'll ultimately see. I think that's why the court is allowing the president to move forward with this until it works itself through the court system. Maybe the Supreme Court will be the final arbiter here to say, "Yeah, nay, you can do this." But ultimately, I think the court is showcasing deference to the executive, saying that, "Look, you're the president. You're over the military.

[00:03:42]You do for the most part get to sort of dictate the standards of our military."

[00:03:45]And I don't really see how you can push back against that. Again, we'll see what happens in the court.

[00:03:49]>> I can I'm sorry. I can What if the president wakes up tomorrow and says, "I don't want any black people in the military." Do we have Do we give difference to him on that? No. No. Wait a second. It's not ridiculous. It's not ridiculous because you're discriminating against a group of people in a very similar way.

[00:04:04]>> I knew you were going to say that, but Excuse me. I'm glad you [laughter] hold on. I'm curious. Why is it why is it ridiculous? I mean, you just said the president should be the one who just decides. So, if he decides to wakes up tomorrow and says, "I think it's bad for morale, it's bad for cohesiveness, for there to be uh black people in the military, Latino people in the military, just in her hypothetical scenario, what's the difference between that and what we're seeing here?"

[00:04:30]>> I mean, are are you really going to go down this ridiculous ridiculous This is a ridiculous argument. The president the president considering what they've already the president secretary of defense have an argument here. They believe that readiness and unit cohesion and overall operations of the military are impacted by this. That is their opinion and that is the opinion of the commander-in-chief who the constitution gives broad latitude to run the armed forces. So that's their opinion. You're allowed to have one. You're allowed to have one.

[00:04:59]You're also allowed to run for president and become commander-in-chief yourself.

[00:05:02]But until you do, until you do, >> he's the commanderie. I have to just say I I didn't hear an answer to the hypothes.

[00:05:09]>> One of the most revealing moments of the entire discussion just happened. Scott Jennings repeatedly argues that the commanderin-chief has broad authority over the military. That's true.

[00:05:21]Presidents do have significant authority over military operations and standards.

[00:05:27]But Abby Phillips challenge wasn't about authority. It was about limits. The question was simple. If presidential opinion alone is enough justification, where is the line? Notice how Scott keeps returning to the same argument.

[00:05:41]It's the president's opinion. What Elena and Abby are pushing back against is the idea that opinion by itself should override evidence. And that's where the discussion becomes uncomfortable for defenders of the ban. Because if the policy is based on readiness, then evidence should matter. If the policy is based on cohesion, then measurable proof should matter. If neither can be demonstrated, critics argue that the policy starts looking less like military management and more like discrimination.

[00:06:15]That's why Scott avoids directly engaging with the hypothetical.

[00:06:19]Answering it would require explaining what principle separates this exclusion from other forms of exclusion. And at this point in the debate, that distinction still hasn't been clearly established. Let's keep watching the hypothetical, right? I I just didn't hear it though. I didn't mean Okay. The definition of discrimination according to American Psychological Association, discrimination is the unfair or prejuditial treatment of people or groups based on characteristics such as race, gender, age, or sexual orientation? What is the difference between um you know prohibiting certain groups like transgender people from serving versus you know people based on their race or even their gender?

[00:07:00]Frankly, >> I personally think there's a difference and I'm just going to leave it at that.

[00:07:03]>> Well, I I will say >> do you believe that race and are you saying that the quality of race and the quality of transgender are the same?

[00:07:11]>> I'm just asking the question because I think you're making there there's a distinction but you're not explaining why. No, I'm I'm asking you you you you guys brought up the hypothetical. Are you arguing that someone's race is the same as someone choosing to become >> But your argument you you've made the argument twice that the commander-in-chief's opinion is all that matters. You've said that twice now the constitution. Yes.

[00:07:33]>> So if he wakes up tomorrow and says it's not okay to be gay or lesbian in serve [snorts] because that's his opinion.

[00:07:40]There's nothing to back that up. They meet the physical standards. They meet the intellectual standards. they have voluntarily decided to serve their country to give their life for this country so many of us don't have to that it's the opinion without any basis in fact that that's that's what matters more than the constitution of equal rights and equal protection >> I my go ahead no >> no I was going to say the other thing or there's a few things that bother me about this and mostly it was the language of the policy right when you're look when looking reading at some of these word [snorts] transgender people as in as inherently untruthful and discipline dishonorable. That's like a very weighty thing to say about people who are courageously deciding to protect this country. The other problem, Scott, is that it's never enough. It's bathrooms today. It's sports today. It's sports tomorrow. It's the military today. And >> it's also sports today, by the way.

[00:08:30]>> Yeah, it is sports today. And >> 80% of Americans agree, by the way.

[00:08:33]>> Oh, that's fine. And 80, guess what? The majority sometimes is wrong. That also happens, right? Because the majority used to believe that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was somebody who was a threat that somebody who was not a good American. The majority of people used to be against civil rights. Were they right? No, they weren't. And so the whole point is when you target one group and inevitably that line moves to everybody else. And I'm not saying he's coming for black people tomorrow. But considering that this is a military or this is a a a leadership that is already using DI DEI as code word for black people already when it comes to the military suddenly when you don't protect the most vulnerable you wind up making it worse for everybody else that's in the mar the marginaliz >> you don't think trans people are vulnerable in this country. So, are is it your position that the commander-in-chief should recruit people who you're describing as vulnerable into the >> No, he should he should recruit people who want to serve and protect this country. And it's really kind of ironic considering he dodged the draft that he's trying to he suddenly has an opinion about >> we have an opinion. The good news is, and Elena, you you pointed this out.

[00:09:36]This is going through the court system.

[00:09:38]The other side has the opportunity to present evidence >> except for tomorrow. And there should be thousands of people who wake up and get processed out. The harm will be done.

[00:09:46]>> And I certainly understand that. But again, there's still an opportunity for it to continue through the proper process, >> but they they wake up tomorrow without a job being removed from their commands.

[00:09:56]Operational readiness will be impacted.

[00:09:59]And so there's commands that are going to be left without leaders. There's going to be real life implications for theaters around the world where our military is protecting this country. And for what end? So, so I guess so Ela I guess my point is if a strong enough evidence is presented throughout the court process all the way up to SCOTA and it's ultimately believed okay hey the other side has enough evidence where we can't rule in favor of the executive then the executive I believe would respect that that decision but we have to allow this thing to move forward and see what >> was your man what was your experience in the military like did you serve while you had after you had transitioned or >> No I served before my transition >> so you weren't so you weren't in during your >> No at all. Mhm. No, I I came to know that I was transgender while I was serving with a top secret and above clearance and I knew that I couldn't pass my polygraph test. And so I had to make a tough decision.

[00:10:49]>> Do I stay true to my character, my values, my integrity, or do I choose to to leave this role and live a private life? And so I think that that the challenge is is that the injunction was to allow people to continue to serve while the courts played out.

[00:11:08]>> Mhm.

[00:11:08]>> Right. So there would be no harm done to these folks, giving the courts an opportunity to work through these issues. So people wouldn't lose their jobs. Now they're going to wake up tomorrow without jobs. They can't just come back in for serving 22 years waiting for this court case to work its way through for 69 months, 2 years.

[00:11:25]>> So you hadn't trans So was there a prohibition on you transitioning while you were in the military?

[00:11:30]>> Back in that time, there was a ban against serving if you were um you know the don't ask don't tell policy.

[00:11:35]>> Yeah. This was in the mid '90s.

[00:11:37]>> This was in the mid '90s.

[00:11:37][clears throat] Yeah. So, but but let me can I ask a question because I think this is relevant. You know, Elena was in serving left because of this policy.

[00:11:48]>> How many people is it okay to lose who are competent who are doing their jobs because for for those for reasons like that? I mean, at the time she could have been a gay or lesbian and it probably would have been the same result as well.

[00:12:03]I mean, I think that's why ultimately they ended don't ask don't tell. I mean, I I think discrimination.

[00:12:07]>> I mean, I think ultimately the the commander-in-chief and the secretary of defense have to decide >> comprehensively about troop levels, troop readiness, and unit cohesion overall and overall recruitment. They're actually quite happy with recruitment right now.

[00:12:19]>> But that has never there have never been a military standard that transgender people have not met.

[00:12:25]>> So, the military standards have not been lowered for people who are transgender.

[00:12:29]And I think that's that's the issue here. And the courts that have looked at this issue in depth have said this is pure animist that there is no evidence of this. So if you actually take the rhetoric out of it and look at the issue at its heart, all the courts say the same thing. So I think that's the travesty here.

[00:12:47]>> I believe the president has the constitutional right to do this and I also think you have the constitutional right to make your case on it and everybody's going to be in court about it and I think you should continue to but you also make your case. I'm sorry.

[00:12:56]She also talked about unit cohesion and that's exactly the same kind of argument that they made against integrating the military when Harry Truman did it. I'm sorry. It's the same argument. It's the same.

[00:13:06]>> I mean, is she wrong about that?

[00:13:07]>> This is where the conversation becomes historically significant.

[00:13:11]>> Whether viewers agree with Elena's comparison or not, she's raising a point that has appeared repeatedly throughout American military history. When racial integration was debated, opponents cited morale and cohesion. When gay and lesbian Americans were excluded from service, similar concerns were raised.

[00:13:32]Years later, many of those arguments were widely viewed as mistakes. Now, Elena is asking whether history might be repeating itself. Notice what happens next. Abby Phillip repeatedly asks a direct question. Is she factually wrong that unit cohesion was used to justify segregation? Scott doesn't really dispute the historical fact. Instead, he rejects the comparison itself. And that's an important distinction because once the historical precedent is acknowledged, the debate shifts from whether those arguments existed to whether today's situation is fundamentally different. That's the central question viewers are left to decide for themselves. What Abby does effectively throughout this segment is force the conversation back to evidence and consistency.

[00:14:25]Rather than allowing broad political talking points to dominate, she keeps asking whether the rationale being used today can survive the same scrutiny that past exclusionary policies failed to survive. And that's what makes this exchange so compelling.

[00:14:43]>> Wrong about that though. I mean, [clears throat] I was just right about that. We do not want to serve I'm I'm aware >> white people didn't want to serve black people because of unit cohesion. So now you're saying gay people can we only have a couple seconds. Michael I see that you're you're frustrated that she made that argument but is she wrong that unit cohesion was used as an excuse to keep the military segregated for a long time and also don't ask don't tell when it comes to discriminating against gay and lesbian people.

[00:15:10]>> We should focus on the issue at hand.

[00:15:12]That's what I think. Same same argument.

[00:15:14]>> But I I just No, we should focus on the issue at hand. I don't know why we keep going to bringing up race. Let's just focus on the issue at hand.

[00:15:21]>> Look, it's race, sexual orientation.

[00:15:24]We've seen this twice, right, in two major junctures for the military. I'm just wondering if she is drawing parallels here between the arguments that are being made to maintain this policy. I reject those parallels. That's that's my answer. I reject the parallels. I think they're ludicrous parallel. Do you feel like you had a choice in your life as to what you were going to do or did? No, of course not.

[00:15:44]The same way that I didn't have a choice to be born who I was. The same way you didn't have a choice to be born who you were. So why do we get exclusions and she doesn't?

[00:15:52]>> I didn't say that. Elena should be excluded.

[00:15:57]>> My opinion here is let it work itself through the court system.

[00:16:00]>> And and I have no problem with that.

[00:16:02]It's just don't fire people while it's working through the courts. That's what these injunctions were doing was letting it work through the courts. And the Supreme Court, I think, really just delegitimized itself even further today.

[00:16:14]And I think that's a challenge for all of this country when we don't have the checks and balances of the courts, you know, checking the executive power and Congress checking the executive power and all of those things because at the end of the day, right now in the military, you can be a white supremacist, a known white supremacist, and serve in this military, but you cannot be transgender and serve in this military. That's a fact.

[00:16:34]>> As this discussion comes to an end, one thing becomes clear. The debate isn't simply about military policy. It's about evidence, constitutional protections, and whether Americans willing to serve their country should be excluded without a clear factual justification.

[00:16:51]Elena's testimony brought realworld consequences into the conversation, highlighting the impact these decisions have on people who have already dedicated years of their lives to military service. Meanwhile, Abby Phillip consistently pushed for direct answers, pressing arguments that often relied on authority while demanding evidence to support them. The courts may ultimately decide the legal outcome, but the broader public debate is far from settled. What do you think? Should military service be determined solely by whether someone can meet the standards required for the job? or should presidents have broad discretion to exclude entire categories of people from serving? Let us know in the comments.

[00:17:35]And if you enjoyed this analysis, don't forget to like, subscribe, and turn on notifications for more political debates and breakdowns.