The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in February in favor of the Trump administration and the Department of Defense (DoD), allowing HIV-positive military personnel to be barred from serving in the armed forces. The court has since vacated that ruling and agreed to rehear the case en banc, meaning the full court will hear the arguments rather than just a three-judge panel. The government argues that HIV can create deployment limitations and increase medical costs.
As a former service member, I understand the rationale behind the policy to a degree. However, that argument loses strength when the military continues to accommodate other medical conditions that can be more expensive to treat and manage over time.
I’ve seen this firsthand. During my service, I served with a service member who developed cancer. The military did not discharge him simply because of his diagnosis—which is effectively what this policy would do to HIV-positive service members. Instead, he was given the choice to remain in the military or pursue separation. He chose to stay in. The military sent him to a treatment center in Germany, supported him throughout his treatment, and placed him under strict limitations afterward. When his cancer later returned, the military once again provided treatment and support.
I have no issue with how the military handled that situation. In fact, I believe they did the right thing. But if the military can make accommodations for a service member battling cancer, why shouldn’t HIV-positive service members be given the same opportunity?
With today’s treatments, many people living with HIV can maintain undetectable viral loads and lead healthy lives. In some cases, an HIV-positive service member may face fewer limitations than someone undergoing cancer treatment or managing another chronic medical condition. If the military is willing to evaluate other serious health conditions on a case-by-case basis, it is reasonable to ask whether HIV-positive service members deserve the same consideration.
As the full appeals court prepares to revisit the case, the debate is no longer about what HIV was decades ago—it is about what HIV is today. The military already makes accommodations for service members facing cancer, diabetes, and other chronic conditions that require ongoing treatment and medical resources. If those individuals are evaluated on their ability to serve rather than their diagnosis alone, then the question before the court is a simple one: Why should HIV be treated differently? In an era when modern medicine allows many people living with HIV to serve safely and effectively, the answer may determine whether military policy is rooted in current science or outdated assumptions.
