As troops look toward a future when their service might be welcome once again, individuals affected by the policy told Military Times that the year and a half time period upended their lives.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said in a June 1 ruling regarding Talbott v. USA that the Pentagon’s transgender military ban was unconstitutional and that the 30 enlisted plaintiffs involved in the case could continue to serve.

That ruling, which upheld an earlier preliminary injunction and is set to go into effect July 16, applied only to those plaintiffs.

Shortly after, on July 1, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a motion to certify Talbott v. USA as a class action lawsuit, meaning the protections would extend to all transgender service members enlisted in the military.

But not yet.

Before more than the 30 can rejoin, the certification must be complete and the district court must extend the preliminary injunction to the class. The timing of those actions remained uncertain Wednesday.

The U.S. government can fight the ruling and attempt to stall it by petitioning for a rehearing or asking the Supreme Court to intervene, but as of Wednesday, neither have happened.

Transgender civilians looking to enlist are still barred from joining the military.

Cast out

Though transgender troops were optimistic after the June 1 ruling about the future of their service, their path to get right back where they started — being allowed to do their jobs — was grueling.

Military Times spoke with 10 transgender service members who described how the forced separation process and the ensuing administrative leave pipeline pushed them into a perilous mental space.

With their lives on hold, these service members felt depression, anxiety and disillusionment over why an institution to which they had pledged their lives suddenly cast them out, swiftly and seemingly without regard for their psychiatric and professional well-being.

Service members also felt betrayed that the Defense Department used their “gender dysphoria” diagnosis to justify their separation. The term was assigned to service members during previous administrations as a medical diagnosis that allowed them to serve openly as transgender and receive gender-affirming care.

The DoD declined in an email to Military Times to comment on the situation.

Life in limbo

In 2025, after 15 years of service, one transgender U.S. Navy lieutenant was envisioning full retirement, a deserved pension and the health benefits that came along with it.

Just five more years.

Instead, they found themselves at the psychiatric ward at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center after checking themself in for suicidal ideation, something they said was abnormal for them.

Eventually, they regained their footing, but the effects were lasting.

“My mental health has just been a dumpster fire,” said the lieutenant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intimate psychological struggles. “This trans ban has made me a completely different person.”

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 27, 2025, that paved the way for the ousting of any transgender service members with a history of “gender dysphoria.”

Sweeping DoD policy followed shortly thereafter, with service members given the opportunity to either apply for voluntary separation — which incentivized service members through bonus pay to leave on their own accord — or wait for likely involuntary separation through the new policy.

A Feb. 26, 2025, Pentagon memo said that troops with a history of gender dysphoria have medical, surgical and mental health constraints “incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”

Service members saw it as a thinly veiled attempt to get rid of them.

Some transgender service members — the Pentagon has declined to say how many — were placed on administrative “absence,” or Permissive Temporary Assigned Duty (PTAD).

The administrative leave process, which had no precedent in the military for medical conditions, paid service members to not work and barred them from serving while they awaited their separation date.

The lieutenant was able to medically retire on May 22 after their mental health decline triggered a medical board review that deemed them eligible. They spent 16 years in the Navy, just four shy of the 20 they had aspired to serve.

Petty Officer Second Class Jaylen Joubert, a sailor who served about three years, said he was denied administrative leave altogether.

Joubert’s gender dysphoria diagnosis was given to him in October 2024, and his gender-affirming care was set to begin in February 2025. The transgender military ban executive order halted the process.

After expressing frustration to his commanding officer for being denied PTAD, he said he was involuntarily separated on April 17, 2026, due to conditions not amounting to a disability, but related to mental health and mental turmoil.

A loss of direction

Senior Master Sgt. Jamie Hash joined the military to be a part of something bigger than herself.

In 2025, with 13 years in the U.S. Air Force already under her belt, she had planned to serve at least 20 years and retire. So when Trump rolled out the ban and DoD policy ensued, she decided to reject the voluntary separation process and fight to remain.

“I don’t want to leave based on something that’s not specific to my performance or capability,” Hash said.

She has been on administrative leave since June 2025, and the leave has impacted her professional goals.

Hash had been awarded a prestigious three-year legislative fellowship in summer 2024 that allowed her to work as a liaison between the Defense Department and Congress, but the opportunity was jeopardized with the ban.

Though technically enrolled in the fellowship program, she wasn’t allowed to show up and take advantage of any its resources or perform any duties during her forced leave.

This loss of direction and purpose was commonplace for many.

For Master Sgt. Sabrina Bruce, who served in the Air Force for eight years and the Space Force for four, the military provided a second lease on life, as well as a support network that made her feel whole.

She’d realized her worth. But now that community was gone.

“Joining the military was the best thing that ever happened to me,” said Bruce. “Before the military, no one saw potential in me.”

Depression and suicidal thoughts plagued her for several months during the administrative leave process, which finally ended in December 2025 when she officially voluntarily separated.

Army Maj. Erica Vandal, who separated on Jan. 1, after nearly 15 years of service, described the administrative leave process as a “state of limbo.”

Vandal said she was still figuring out who she was as a person outside of the military. She was currently filling the void with advocacy work, she said, and continuing to search for something that fulfilled a sense of purpose similar to what the military offered.

Nicolas Talbott, the lead plaintiff in Talbott v. USA — the high-profile case challenging the ban — joined the Army National Guard in March 2024 and commissioned as a second lieutenant.

It took him nearly a decade to enlist after legal battles and the shifting policies of different presidential administrations, including both of Trump’s.

Talbott told Military Times that serving his country was the best job he’d ever had, combining every field of study he was passionate about: national security, counter terrorism and high-stakes environments that require precise decisions.

But after serving less than one year, his future in the military was once again cast into doubt.

“Stuck in a constant state of limbo has become the norm for me,” Talbott said.

The process wasn’t only grating for his mental health, but difficult for those around him too, including family members. They’d witnessed him work hard for everything he’d gotten, and then they watched as he found himself in what they viewed as an unfair situation.

Grooming, uniform standards

Several service members described administrative leaves and separation processes that felt designed to disrespect and humiliate them, as it barred them from donning the uniform they’d worn since their transitions.

The military made them adhere to the grooming standards of their gender assigned at birth during retirement ceremonies and graduations from prestigious military schools, they said.

U.S. Space Force Col. Bree Fram officially retired on Dec. 31, 2025, after serving for nearly 23 years. She opted to voluntarily separate once she realized the Trump administration would no longer allow her to serve.

Fram was the first openly serving transgender service member to be promoted to the rank of colonel. Despite the momentous achievement, she wasn’t allowed to wear her uniform during her retirement ceremony on Jan. 8, 2026.

Inexplicably, the DoD changed her military records on Dec. 1, 2025, to reflect her gender assigned at birth, not her actual gender, Fram said. Had she walked across the stage in the female uniform she’d been wearing for years, she would’ve been brought up on charges because it would now violate Uniform Code of Military Justice regulations barring opposite-gender uniforms.

Instead, she wore a business suit.

“These were the uniforms that we bled into, that we sweat into, that we were denied even that small dignity of wearing,” Fram said.

Her service dress uniform and boots were placed on a table off to the side as she walked across the stage.

About two weeks before her gender was denied publicly, she dealt with what she said was another slight. She was summoned to the Pentagon by a lieutenant general deputy chief of space operations.

In the meeting, which lasted 15 minutes, the lieutenant general told Fram that the official support she’d requested for her retirement ceremony — which included an honor guard and a band, both very common for ceremonies — would not be granted because there were concerns it would have the appearance of being political.

The officer then reminded Fram that she was still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which Fram found unusual.

“I took this very much as a warning or a veiled threat, to be be silent, to not talk about these things,” Fram said.

Army Infantry Major Kara Corcoran has served for over 18 years and is currently involved in the involuntary separation process.

In May 2025, she graduated from the School of Advanced Military Studies after completing an esteemed one-year master’s degree program that trained her to become an operational planner.

But she was informed by her chain of command that senior leadership had prohibited her from crossing the stage with her peers during graduation unless she adhered to male regulations and standards, in keeping with the new DoD policy.

“Cruelty was the point,” Corcoran said of the rule.

She was given an option to have a separate ceremony, or just be given her diploma instead.

She borrowed an old friend’s male uniform, cut her long hair into a pixie cut the day before the graduation ceremony and walked across the stage.

“You’re not gonna take away something I’ve earned,” Corcoran said. “If you think that cutting my hair is going to affect my identity, you don’t understand the strength and resilience of transgender service members.”

Bait and switch

Nearly all of the transgender service members who spoke to Military Times transitioned after joining the military, but in order to begin gender-affirming care, they had to receive a diagnosis of “gender dysphoria” from a doctor.

Gender dysphoria is defined by the Mayo Clinic as a “feeling of distress that can happen when a person’s gender identity differs from the sex assigned at birth.” But the clinic also notes that while some transgender people experience gender dysphoria, others feel comfortable with their bodies and gender identities.

“Not all transgender or gender diverse people experience gender dysphoria,” the clinic says.

The diagnosis was now being used to cast out transgender troops.

Many of the service members who spoke to Military Times said they either never had gender dysphoria but agreed to the diagnosis as a way to receive gender-affirming care, or they had experienced the feeling in the past but had not after transitioning.

Using the diagnosis against them was an unfair bait and switch, many said.

Staff Sgt. Athena N. Knight served in the U.S. Marine Corps for 14 years and opted for voluntary separation. She was honorably discharged on June 30, 2026.

Knight said she never had clinical gender dysphoria and didn’t meet the criteria for the ban.

“I don’t have gender dysphoria, I’m just transgender,” Knight said.

She was given the diagnosis under Defense Department Instruction 1300.28 “In-Service Transition for Transgender Service Members,” but explained it was because it provided the only path to receive necessary gender-affirming care.

The difference was similar to the distinction between someone being depressed and clinically depressed, Knight said. They’re not the same.

Someone could experience symptoms of gender dysphoria and not have clinical gender dysphoria.

Using gender dysphoria to expel someone from the military not only confused the service members it affected, but it also didn’t make sense legally, advocates said.

“There’s not one other medical condition that results in automatic discharge from the military,” said Shannon Minter, who works for the National Center for Lesbian Rights and is the lead attorney in the Talbott v. USA case.

Master Sgt. Logan Ireland, who’s served for 15 years in the Air Force, said he’s never felt dysphoric about his gender.

But based off DoD policy under the Trump administration, he faced separation despite wanting to continue serving.

Ireland initially applied for retirement after the Air Force extended the possibility of early retirement for transgender service members with 15 to 18 years of service.

He received retirement orders from the Air Force in June. But then, several months later, the Air Force issued a memorandum saying his application for early retirement was denied. Voluntary separation was offered, but Ireland didn’t want it at that point.

He is suing the Trump administration with other service members from the Air Force and Space Force over what they say is a loss of early retirement benefits.

“I had to get the diagnosis of gender dysphoria in order to continue serving in the military authentically as male,” Ireland said. “So for me it was a checkbox.”

Even though he had the diagnosis, it was easily curable through hormones and living as his authentic self, which he said he was doing.

“I’m a male,” Ireland said. “I live happily, healthfully as a male. There’s zero issue with me having a gender dysphoria diagnosis in a past medical history, because it’s already been corrected.”

Question of return

The Talbott v. USA ruling is set to go into effect Thursday, but if the class action is certified, it remains unclear what the protections mean for service members who voluntarily separated but want to return now that the ban was ruled unconstitutional.

Regardless, transgender troops have expressed mixed feelings about returning to an organization that rejected their service to their country.

“I don’t think I’ll get back in uniform unless something drastic happens,” Knight said.

She expressed concern about having to return the money she was given by the military as an incentive to voluntarily separate. She also wasn’t sure about going through a potentially complicated reenlistment procedure, given the disability rating she received upon exiting the service.

The Navy lieutenant who sought help at Walter Reed said they didn’t want to rejoin the military after it turned its back on them. But at the same time, serving another four years would get them to 20 and allow them to receive a significant upgrade in retirement benefits.

As of last week, they were considering all their options.

Corcoran was unequivocal in her commitment to returning — if given the chance.

“I want to finish out my 20 years and do my job, and be able to be a productive teammate,” Corcoran said. “The whole point of why I joined the military was to serve my country.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a motion to certify Talbott v. USA as a class action lawsuit several weeks after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said in a June 1 ruling that the Pentagon’s transgender military ban was unlawful.

The June ruling only allowed the plaintiffs in that case to continue serving, meaning all other transgender service members are currently still banned from the military. But if the class action lawsuit goes into effect in two weeks along with the June ruling, the protections won in Talbott v. USA would extend to all transgender service members currently serving.

“The protection afforded to our plaintiffs should be available to all transgender servicemembers and their families,” said National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter. “We know that this ban is discriminatory, rooted in animus, and irrationally excludes highly decorated servicemembers who have deployed around the world and given everything to our country.”

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 27, 2025, stating that service members with a history of “gender dysphoria” have medical, surgical and mental health constraints “incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”

Transgender troops previously needed a gender dysphoria diagnosis in order to receive gender affirming care while in the military and, as a result, many transgender service members have the term in their medical record.

Approximately 4,240 transgender individuals are serving in the military have a gender dysphoria diagnosis, both on active duty and in the reserves, according to an Associated Press report.

The Defense Department rolled out a sweeping “voluntary separation” policy last February that attempted to incentivize transgender military service members to separate from the military by offering more money than they’d otherwise receive for involuntary separation.

Service members who Military Times spoke to at the time said the move was anything but voluntary, as they wanted to continue to serve and saw the policy as a way to kick them out.

Transgender service members have either been voluntarily or involuntarily separated or are in the process of being separated, with some on paid administrative leave.

The National Center for LGBTQ Rights and GLAD Law filed a lawsuit against Trump on Jan. 28, 2025, alleging that the ban was unconstitutional because the policy was based on animus.

The lawsuit eventually shifted so that the plaintiffs were suing the U.S. government.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a nationwide preliminary injunction on March 18, 2025, blocking the discharge of transgender service members, which the newly enacted Defense Department policy called for.

The U.S. government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which ultimately ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor over a year later on June 1, 2026.

The government has 45 days after the June 1 ruling to file a petition for rehearing.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit can either accept or deny that request.

The government can also ask the entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to rehear the case, which would comprise 11 active judges, as opposed to a three-judge panel, like the one that decided the June 1 ruling.

If the government went that route, the ruling of that rehearing would go into effect seven days after the decision.

The Trump administration could also ask the U.S. Supreme Court to issue an emergency stay to stop the preliminary injunction and class action lawsuit from going into effect.

The government hasn’t filed as of Wednesday.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation on Friday arrested former U.S. Navy Seaman Bareen Dzayee, 25, along with Bisaam Ghafoor, 21, and Elias Shamsaldeen, 21, for allegedly providing over $2,000 to an individual they believed to be an ISIS member.

The trio reportedly believed their money would sanction the purchase of rocket-propelled grenades and drones that would be used to murder U.S. service members.

“Over years, the individuals communicated about several plans to support ISIS, including through the provision of personnel, services and money,” a criminal complaint read. “Through chats, voice calls and multiple messaging platforms, these conspirators pledged allegiance or ‘Bayat’ to ISIS and its leader.”

Dzayee enlisted in the Navy in 2021 and served aboard the USS John McCain from March 25, 2022, to July 19, 2024, when he separated from the service.

Between March 2025 and January 2026, the FBI identified all three suspects as ISIS sympathizers after alarming social media posts.

The posts pledged allegiance to the terrorist organization, promoted violence and discussed weapons and explosives in support of ISIS operations.

A confidential FBI source the suspects believed to be an active ISIS member reached out to Ghafoor and Shamsaldeen in May 2025 and joined a social media group chat in which Shamsaldeen specifically stated his desire to injure U.S. service members, travel overseas to fight for ISIS and “take action” to make his fantasies of violence come true.

Ghafoor, Dzayee and Shamsaldee paid money between March and May of this year to the confidential FBI source. At one point, Ghafoor said it would be “sick” if the contact — who was the FBI agent — wrote Ghafoor’s name on one of the drones.

During the process of sending money to the FBI source, Ghafoor acknowledged that doing so would be treason but stated that he wanted to continue with the transaction, according to the Justice Department.

He also reportedly told the confidential source that he had fantasized about killing a female soldier by beheading and wanted to kill 300,000 Americans.

“For years, the Department of Justice has been encouraging Americans that if they see suspicious activity, they should report it to law enforcement,” U.S. Attorney Ryan A. Kriegshauser for the District of Kansas said in a DoJ release. “That’s because long gone are the days where terrorist threats and attacks are incidents that only take place far away on foreign soil.”

U.S. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Eric Smith told audience members at Modern Day Marine in Washington on Thursday that the demand for ARG-MEUs has exceeded the 3.0 presence he previously called for.

“I won’t say how many of the ARG-MEUs our combat commanders asked for, but it is well north of three,” he said. “Like double that.”

Calls for ARG-MEUs are coming from the U.S. military’s Southern Command, European Command, U.S. Central Command and U.S. Africa Command.

A 3.0 presence indicates a three-ship ARG-MEU deployed at all times: one out of the East Coast, one out of the West Coast and the 31st MEU delivering periodic deployments out of Okinawa, Japan.

Currently, the 22nd MEU is participating in Operation Southern Spear and the 31st MEU is in the Middle East in support of Operation Epic Fury.

The 11th MEU is reportedly en route toward the Middle East to support Operation Epic Fury, but as of this week was conducting routine patrols around the southern Philippines.

Smith labeled ARG-MEUs the most flexible tool in the Defense Department inventory, providing humanitarian assistance, non-combatant evacuation operations and key strike capabilities.

The ARG-MEUs in recent years have been more relevant than ever before, Smith added, but sustaining the pace proved difficult. This struggle emphasized the Marine Corps’ and Navy’s need to return to a permanent 3.0 ARG-MEU presence.

“This is our number one priority and it remains my personal north star as a commandant,” Smith said.

The Navy’s current inventory of amphibious ships, however, is not enough to address this goal, according to Smith.

The Navy holds an inventory of 32 amphibious warfare ships, but half of the fleet is in poor condition and poorly maintained, according to a 2024 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

A defense official told Military Times in August 2025 that the readiness rate of amphibious ships had dropped to 41% despite the Marine Corps previously stating that the amphibious readiness rate needed to remain at 80% or higher to complete missions.

To remedy the ongoing issue, the Marine Corps is focusing on optimizing maintenance schedules, investing in service life extensions and procuring new ships.

Expeditionary Warfare Director Brig. Gen. Lee Meyer told reporters Tuesday at the Modern Day Marine exposition that the Navy recently completed a study on Wasp-class amphibious assault ships, which led to the service life extension of the USS Wasp.

Meyer said the Navy and Marine Corps would also study other amphibious assault ships to see if they could extend their lifespan, with the services expecting a completed study of amphibious dock landing ships in the next several days.

The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps recently partnered to launch the Amphibious Force Readiness Board, which will seek to tackle the best pathway forward to maintain, modernize and build the service’s amphibious fleet to prioritize availability.

The board wasn’t a study group, according to Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle, who spoke at Modern Day Marine Thursday. It was a platform to produce action, he said.

“Far too long amphibious readiness has absorbed the cumulative effects of aging systems, deferred maintenance, supply chain, friction, workforce shortages and high operational tempo,” said Caudle. “So, we are attacking the problem directly.”

Phelan, who this week attended the Navy League’s annual Sea-Air-Space symposium in Washington, is departing the role “effective immediately,” Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell announced.

U.S. Navy Undersecretary Hung Cao, a former Virginia Senate candidate and special operations veteran, will assume the role of acting secretary of the Navy, Parnell added.

“On behalf of the Secretary of War and Deputy Secretary of War, we are grateful to Secretary Phelan for his service to the Department and the United States Navy,” Parnell wrote. “We wish him well in his future endeavors.”

While the Pentagon provided no reason for the move in their initial announcement, a senior administration official told Military Times that “President Trump and Secretary Hegseth agreed new leadership at the Navy is needed.”

“Secretary Hegseth informed John Phelan of this news prior to it being made public,” the official said.

Just yesterday, Phelan spoke with reporters at a media roundtable about the Navy’s prioritizing of ship building capacity as the service looks to double its vessel requests, according to the 2027 fiscal defense budget.

He also delivered a lengthy keynote address at the conference.

Phelan, who was confirmed as the Navy secretary in March 2025 by a 62-30 vote, was just the seventh non-veteran to serve in the role in the past 70 years.

A founder of the investment firm Rugger Management LLC, Phelan was the first service secretary pick to be announced by President Donald Trump following his return to the Oval Office. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, however, was the first service secretary to be confirmed.

Phelan’s abrupt dismissal comes as the sea service continues to grapple with the ongoing conflict with Iran and in the Strait of Hormuz. On Sunday, a U.S. Navy destroyer operating in the Arabian Sea enforced the service’s ongoing naval blockade of Iranian ports when it fired its Mk-45 gun at a cargo vessel attempting to sail toward an Iranian port.

Wednesday’s announcement also comes less than three weeks after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth asked U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George to step down and immediately retire.

That April 2 move involving George, one of three significant changes made by Hegseth on the same day, cut short George’s tenure, which began in September 2023, well before the end of the typical four-year term.

Gen. David Hodne, a former Army Ranger who had been overseeing the Army’s Transformation and Training Command, and Maj. Gen. William Green, the Army chief of chaplains, were also removed from their roles on April 2.

Since taking office, Hegseth has fired over a dozen generals and admirals, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. C.Q. Brown and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti.

Phelan was the Navy’s 79th service secretary.

Cao, meanwhile, is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy. He deployed with special operations forces to Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia during a military career that spanned 25 years.

Military Times reporter Tanya Noury contributed to this report.

Two crew members ejected, landing miles apart from one another. While the U.S. was able to locate and rescue the pilot that same day, the weapon systems officer aboard remained unaccounted for.

A mad dash to save him ensued.

The officer, call sign Dude 44 Bravo, marched several kilometers, significantly injured and bleeding, evading the Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps headhunting him. The airman found refuge in a mountain crevice, hoping American troops would make it to him before Iran’s military did.

His life hung in the balance.

Meanwhile, individuals around the world were placing bets online, guessing which day the officer would be rescued. They did so on the prediction market Polymarket, hoping to cash out with the correct pick.

The pushback was swift.

U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., a Marine Corps veteran, called the bet disgusting on X, and less than three hours later, Polymarket announced it had taken down the wager because it didn’t meet the platform’s integrity standards.

The weapon systems officer was rescued overnight from April 4-5 in a mission that included 155 aircraft supported by hundreds of special operations personnel. Polymarket bettors didn’t cash out.

“It should not have been posted, and we are investigating how this slipped through our internal safeguards,” read a Polymarket response to Moulton’s X post.

Markets are created by Polymarket’s own markets team with input from users and the community, according to the platform’s website.

Before and since the Iran war began, though, Polymarket has created war-related markets that users can bet on, raising concerns over the illegality and ethics of those specific bets. Polymarket did not respond to requests for comment.

Experts and lawmakers told Military Times that while the latter two concerns were front of mind, along with insider trading, the bets could also jeopardize national security.

Privileged information

Several days after the bet regarding the F-15E crew member was taken offline, U.S. Rep. Mike Levin, D-Calif., took to social media to express his dismay.

“Betting on the lives of our service members, on war, on assassination, and death is morally indefensible,” Levin said in a Facebook post.

During an interview with Military Times, Levin said he also had a problem with what many Polymarket bets insinuated: Anonymous traders might be using insider knowledge of massive military and war operations to turn a large profit.

On the first day of Operation Epic Fury, for instance, an anonymous Polymarket account under the username “Magamyman” made roughly $550,000 off of trades about the U.S. strikes against Iran and the removal of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed by Israeli air strikes during the opening salvo of the Iran war.

“As a member of Congress, I have, I think, a fair amount of information that the public doesn’t,” Levin said. “I would have never in a million years thought that we’d be engaging in that sort of kinetic effort right then and there.”

Levin’s thinking was based off the briefings he’d received and President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, he said. Based on that, he doesn’t believe that bets like this were the result of luck.

Insider trading wasn’t his only concern, though.

“Not only did they profit illegally, but I think they also may have exposed national security information publicly,” Levin said.

Manipulating state interest

Prediction markets don’t represent the likelihood something will happen, they represent the likelihood people think something will happen, according to Matthew Motta, an associate professor at Boston University’s School of Public Health who’s written about sports betting and prediction markets.

But if people believe the former statement, and not the latter, foreign adversaries or bad actors can take advantage of that dichotomy to thwart U.S. interests and strengthen their own, Motta told Military Times.

“Folks in the military may see movement on a prediction market as intelligence,” Motta said. “And if they do, then that information becomes rife for manipulation, because what can happen is that untraceable actors, perhaps actors with nefarious interests, can place money on an outcome that would be convenient for them.”

Unlike in sports gambling, where people might bet against a house in which a person or an algorithm sets the odds, people are betting directly against one another, which means they can directly alter the odds and the bet.

There was also the human element of greed.

Hypothetically, an intelligence official or military official could log onto Polymarket and place an anonymous bet on when a service member might be rescued or when a military operation might commence. They could then potentially make sure the military action they oversaw or aspects of a particular combat operation aligned with that bet to ensure they got a hefty payout without anyone knowing.

“That’s part of the nature of the problem is that a lot of this is being done through decentralized finance,” Levin said. “In this instance, it’s making it more difficult to determine exactly who is placing these bets and who’s making the money.”

Polymarket allows users to bet or trade shares anonymously by connecting their cryptocurrency wallets. While the amount bet or made is public, the identity of those receiving a financial windfall is not.

If adversaries started to count on this type of discord in which military or intelligence officials were using classified or non-public information to enrich their finances, it could reduce the lethality of U.S. war operations.

“If folks start to believe that these people are somebody working at the Pentagon or something, then you could imagine this might heighten the alert and reduce the element of surprise,” said Robert Ralston, a professor at the University of Birmingham’s Department of Political Science and International Studies who studies international security and has written about prediction markets.

Ralston also worried that concerns over Defense Department employees abusing privileged information for monetary gain could sew distrust among an American public that already might be skeptical of trusting government institutions.

If this inappropriate wielding of power was to be expected by Americans or adversaries, then adversaries might begin weaponizing technology to leverage those perceived weaknesses.

“As AI tools get better, it’s not a farfetched thing for a foreign government to create, essentially, a bot or a tool that constantly monitors … every Polymarket event contract related to Iran and try to find anomalous trades,” said Matthew Wein, a former policy advisor to the Department of Homeland Security.

The national security threat could also be scaled up, depending on the stakes of the wager, said Evan Cooper, a research analyst at Washington think tank Stimson Center.

Advisors or military officials with a direct line to the president could tip the scales in favor of going to war altogether, based off bets they’d made.

There were also other, stranger ways that market manipulation via Polymarket could potentially occur.

On November 15, 2025, a handful of Polymarket users placed bets on whether Russia would storm Myrnohrad in eastern Ukraine by the evening, despite there being no heavy indication that it would happen.

The markup on profit for some was reportedly 33,000%.

Several hours later, the bettors won.

But not because Russia had actually taken the city.

The Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think-tank which Polymarket allegedly sometimes utilizes for military cartography and information about the war in Ukraine, had inexplicably changed the map shortly before the bet ended to show that Russia made inroads into the city even though there was no information to support the edit.

Polymarket paid the bettors.

But the next day, the map’s edit was fixed, ISW acknowledged the error, and it appeared that the staffer responsible for it was fired.

Dubious bets

There have been several high-profile, well-timed bets on aspects of the Iran war that have yielded massive financial gains for users whose identities are unknown.

Fifty newly created accounts on Polymarket placed large bets on a U.S.-Iran ceasefire in the hours leading up to the official April 7 ceasefire that Trump announced on Truth Social.

They were the only bets those accounts had ever placed, and some accounts reaped hundreds of thousands of dollars in winnings as a result of their wagers.

Trump uploaded a social media post on Truth Social earlier in the day, claiming “a whole civilization will die tonight.”

A ceasefire was not widely expected at that juncture.

Another anonymous Polymarket user walked away with $400,000 after placing a bet in January that former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro would be ousted as the country’s leader hours before the U.S. captured him and transported him to the U.S.

Six Polymarket accounts made a total of $1.2 million betting that the U.S. would strike Iran, and many of the wallets placed the bet hours before the first strike. The wallets were funded only a day before the bets were wagered, according to an X post from visual analytics platform Bubblemaps.

“It is the wild west, which is why new rules need to be written,” Levin said.

If people were capitalizing on non-public information they’d gleaned through official duties to make money, it should be illegal, and they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, he said.

There were prior concerns over Polymarket’s legality before the Iran war.

The U.S. Justice Department and Commodity Futures Trading Commission launched investigations into the prediction market during former President Joe Biden’s administration. The platform was banned in the U.S. from 2022 to early 2025 after the CFTC settled charges against the company for not complying with regulations.

But those federal investigations were closed with no charges filed once Trump took office, and the prediction market was allowed to operate in the U.S.

There are also questions regarding conflicts of interest.

Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., was appointed as an adviser to Polymarket in August 2025, and the venture capital firm 1789 Capital, where Trump Jr. is a partner, is also an investor in the company.

The current law, under the Commodity Exchange Act, makes it so that the CFTC possesses the authority to decide whether a betting contract should be taken down or violates current law that prohibits wagers on terrorism, assassinations or war.

Specifically, CFTC Regulation 40.11 cites that a CFTC registered entity cannot list for trading a contract that involves “terrorism, assassination, war” and or that is “contrary to the public interest.”

But there are several loopholes that allow individuals to bet on contracts that appear to deal with war and death and appear to violate this regulation, Levin said.

First, prediction markets can self-certify themselves and say they’re complying with the law, Levin said.

Polymarket maintains a Designated Contract Market license that the CFTC oversees, which allows the prediction market to self-certify and list new markets unless the CFTC takes issue.

Michael Selig, the chair of the CFTC, has defended the legality of prediction markets, announcing his support on social media and suing several states attempting to regulate prediction markets, claiming that it is the sole right of the CFTC to regulate them, and not the states.

During a hearing before the House Agriculture Committee — which oversees the CFTC — Selig said that his agency would bring anyone to justice engaging in insider trading.

Second, Levin said that Polymarket contends certain betting contracts that appear to hover around topics such as the death of leaders are actually regime change markets. This would allow the platform to circumvent CFTC regulations regarding assassination.

And third, Polymarket operates offshore, making it difficult for the CFTC to reach them, Levin said.

Ultimately, it’s up to the CFTC whether the contracts are in favor of public interest currently, but Levin disagrees that the power should rest solely with that government entity.

In response, Levin and U.S. Senator Adam Schiff, D-Calif., announced on March 10 the DEATH BETS Act, a bill that would make it illegal for a CFTC registered business to allow bets or contracts related to terrorism, assassinations, war or death.

“War is not a commodity, human life should never be traded on,” Levin said.

As the war enters its 12th day, Cooper took to X to provide updates on Operation Epic fury and the ongoing American attacks in Iran.

“We also took out the last of four Soleimani-class warships,” Cooper said. “That’s an entire class of Iranian ships now out of the fight.”

The first of the guided missile Iranian catamarans were delivered to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy in 2022, and were the first Iranian warships to possess vertical launch systems capable of medium-range surface-to-air missiles, according to the U.S. Naval Institute.

To date, the U.S. has struck more than 5,500 targets inside Iran, said Cooper.

The offensive assault is not letting up either.

According to Cooper, on March 10 the U.S. military launched “strike waves nearly every hour from different locations and directions going into Iran,” with the U.S. bomber force taking out a large ballistic missile manufacturing facility.

The military strikes — which the commander described as “unpredictable, dynamic and decisive” — will continue to target Iran’s defense industrial base.

The objective of Operation Epic Fury, Cooper reiterated, is to end Iran’s ability to project power and harass shipping.

On Wednesday, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations announced on X that three shipping vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz were hit by an unknown projectile.

U.S. Central Command issued a warning several hours later, cautioning civilians that the Iranian regime was using civilian ports along the Strait of Hormuz to conduct military operations.

“Civilian ports used for military purposes lose protected status and become legitimate military targets under international law,” a CENTCOM press release said.

A high-ranking member of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned last week that any vessels traveling through the 100-mile long sea passage would be targeted and met with lethal force, according to Iranian media.

Since Operation Epic Fury began on Feb. 28, roughly 140 troops have been wounded — eight severely — the Pentagon announced Tuesday.

Seven service members have been killed in action so far.

Six died when an Iranian one-way attack drone struck a makeshift operations center at a civilian port in Kuwait on March 1.

Another service member died on March 8 after succumbing to injuries that he sustained on March 1 after Iran attacked Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia.

Sgt. Benjamin N. Pennington, 26, of Glendale, Kentucky, succumbed to his wounds on March 8, the Pentagon announced, after being wounded during a March 1 enemy attack at Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia.

Pennington was assigned to 1st Space Battalion, 1st Space Brigade at Fort Carson, Colorado, the release added.

“Sgt. Pennington was a dedicated and experienced noncommissioned officer who led with strength, professionalism and sense of duty,” Col. Michael F. Dyer, 1st Space Brigade commander, said in the release. “Our deepest sympathies are with his family, friends and fellow soldiers. We remain dedicated to providing comfort and support at this time and will forever honor his legacy and ultimate sacrifice for our nation.”

Pennington enlisted in the U.S. Army in 2017 as a unit supply specialist, according to the release. He had been assigned to the 1st Space Battalion since June 2025.

His awards include the Army Commendation Medal (3), Army Achievement Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal (2), National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Overseas Service Ribbon, Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon, Korea Defense Service Medal and the Army Service Ribbon.

Pennington will be posthumously promoted to staff sergeant, the release added. The incident is under investigation.

Seven service members have been killed in action during Operation Epic Fury, which began on Feb. 28 when the U.S. and Israel launched military strikes against Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other top Iranian leaders.

The Pentagon also announced Sunday that an Army National Guard officer who also served as a New York City policeman died on March 6 following a non-combat incident.

Maj. Sorffly Davius, 46, of Queens, New York, passed away at Camp Buehring, Kuwait, according to a release.

Iran has unleashed retaliatory strikes at U.S. military installations and civilian infrastructure across the Middle East amid ongoing bombardment by U.S. and Israeli forces.

The first six soldiers were killed when an Iranian one-way attack drone evaded U.S. air defenses on March 1 and struck a makeshift operations center at a civilian port in Kuwait.

The bodies of the six fallen soldiers returned to the U.S. at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware on Saturday as President Donald Trump and other top U.S. officials attended the dignified transfer of the troops’ remains.

The slain soldiers were identified as Sgt. Declan Coady, 20, of West Des Moines, Iowa; Capt. Cody Khork, 35, of Winter Haven, Florida; Sgt. 1st Class Nicole Amor, 39, of White Bear Lake, Minnesota; Sgt. 1st Class Noah Tietjens, 42, of Bellevue, Nebraska; Maj. Jeffrey O’Brien, 45, of Indianola, Iowa; and Chief Warrant Officer 3 Robert Marzan, 54, of Sacramento, California.

CENTCOM announced Monday that 18 troops had been wounded so far.

“Last night, a U.S. service member passed away from injuries received during the Iranian regime’s initial attacks across the Middle East,” CENTCOM said in a post on X.

The service member’s identity was not released and will be withheld until 24 hours after their next of kin is notified, per Defense Department policy.

Seven service members have been killed in action so far during Operation Epic Fury, which began on Feb. 28 when the U.S. and Israel launched military strikes against Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other top Iranian leaders.

Iran has unleashed retaliatory strikes at U.S. military installations and civilian infrastructure across the Middle East amid ongoing bombardment by U.S. and Israeli forces.

Six soldiers were killed when an Iranian one-way attack drone evaded U.S. air defenses on March 1 and struck a makeshift operations center at a civilian port in Kuwait.

The bodies of the six fallen soldiers returned to the U.S. at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware on Saturday as President Donald Trump and other top U.S. officials attended the dignified transfer of the troops’ remains.

The slain soldiers were identified as Sgt. Declan Coady, 20, of West Des Moines, Iowa; Capt. Cody Khork, 35, of Winter Haven, Florida; Sgt. 1st Class Nicole Amor, 39, of White Bear Lake, Minnesota; Sgt. 1st Class Noah Tietjens, 42, of Bellevue, Nebraska; Maj. Jeffrey O’Brien, 45, of Indianola, Iowa; and Chief Warrant Officer 3 Robert Marzan, 54, of Sacramento, California.

CENTCOM announced Monday that 18 troops had been wounded so far.

The U.S. and Israel have killed 940 people in Iran, according to NBC News, citing Iranian state media.

Military Times spoke with several national security specialists, defense analysts and foreign policy pundits who warned that the U.S. military’s finite interceptor stockpile could be strained and potentially exhausted if the ever-changing projected timeline of Operation Epic Fury depletes a resource that cannot be replenished at the scale and pace of war.

“You can’t replace those kinds of missiles overnight,” said Kelly Grieco, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center, a nonpartisan Washington think tank. “It would take years.”

The U.S. currently employs several systems designed to destroy incoming missiles and drones, including the Patriot missile defense system, Aegis Combat System (SM-3/SM-6) and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile systems.

As of December 2025, the Missile Defense Agency’s arsenal of SM-3s was 414 and the number of THAAD interceptors was 534, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Conversely, the Pentagon was receiving nearly 270 Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement per year since 2015.

That number has begun to climb, meanwhile, with Lockheed Martin in January agreeing to a seven-year deal with the U.S. government to produce approximately 2,000 PAC-3 missiles per year.

“Lockheed Martin is well-positioned to fulfill this agreement, having recently increased PAC-3 MSE production by more than 60% over the past two years,” the company announced in January. “In 2025, Lockheed Martin delivered more than 600 PAC-3 MSEs, a 20% increase from the previous year.”

But SM-3s and THAADS, known as ballistic missile defense unique interceptors, are the most adept at air-defense against incoming munitions, according to CSIS. As a result, they cost more and take longer to manufacture.

Though the exact number of interceptors used by the U.S. military during the first six days of Operation Epic Fury has not been released by the Defense Department, Grieco said it was likely not an insignificant amount, stressing that the resource was limited.

The U.S. likely used between 100 and 150 THAAD interceptors and 80 SM-3s in support of Israel during its Twelve-Day War with Iran and an unknown number of Patriot interceptors in Qatar to defend Al Udeid Air Base from Iranian attacks, according to CSIS.

More than 150 THAAD interceptors would equate to roughly 30% of the THAAD stockpile, which is “concerning,” CSIS said.

If the U.S. used interceptors during the current Iran war at the same rate it did during the Twelve-Day War, it would use half of its entire interceptor stockpile in four to five weeks, according to Grieco.

Israeli officials assessed that Iran possessed 1,500 missiles and 200 launchers at the end of that war, according to Iran Watch, a website published by The Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control that tracks Iran’s missile capabilities.

Their capabilities grew in the months that followed, with Iran reportedly possessing roughly 2,500 projectiles as of March 1.

But if the U.S. does dip that far into their interceptor stockpile, it would likely require interceptors from other theaters to be moved to CENTCOM, stripping U.S. military assets bare in those other areas of operations.

If the Iran war bled into multiple months and the U.S. interceptor usage rate was similar to that of the 12-day war, the U.S. could hypothetically deplete its entire interceptor stockpile, Grieco said.

Before that would even happen, however, U.S. military forces would have to transition away from attempting to intercept everything.

Resources stretched thin

Six U.S. service members died Sunday when their makeshift operations center at a civilian port in Kuwait was struck by a suicide drone.

The missed opportunity for air-defense was the result of interceptor resources being stressed, said Daniel Shapiro, a fellow at the Atlantic Council who served in the Obama administration as the U.S. ambassador to Israel for six years.

“If there was nothing deployed, that obviously contributed because what resources we had, had to be deployed elsewhere,” Shapiro said. “If it was deployed, it was unsuccessful.”

In addition to the PAC-3 production contract, the Defense Department reached an agreement with Lockheed Martin in January to quadruple the yearly production of THAAD interceptors from 96 to 400.

But this isn’t something that will happen instantaneously. The PAC-3 agreement, for instance, is slated to ramp up over a span of seven years.

At this time, the U.S. military cannot immediately increase the number of interceptors by a vast margin.

“The Department of Defense is really good, but magic is still not one of its capabilities,” Grieco said.

The Trump administration is scrambling to replenish munitions resources and will host a meeting Friday with Lockheed Martin, RTX, L3Harris and other defense firm executives to discuss an uptick in missile systems production to replenish munitions used in the Iran war.

Stress on resources could also factor into the timeline for the conflict.

A dwindling amount of interceptors may have led to the end of the Twelve-Day War, according to Shapiro. So many interceptors were used during that time that the U.S. and Israel were approaching interceptor inventory strain, he noted.

“My understanding was that had the conflict continued for another few days or another week or so, it could have become critical,” Shapiro said.

The volume of ballistic missiles Iran has fired from the first day of Operation Epic Fury has decreased by 90%, CENTCOM commander Adm. Brad Cooper said during a media briefing at MacDill Air Force Base Thursday. Iranian drone attacks had also decreased by 83% since day one, he added.

The drop in Iran’s rate of firing projectiles possibly means that the U.S. offensive against Iranian missile capabilities and missile storage facilities is working. At this time, however, that remains unclear.

Dr. Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa Program at Chatham House, said during an Atlantic Council Thursday roundtable that the calculus regarding Iran was unknown.

“Certainly on day six, it looks like its capability to launch missiles is maybe reduced, but it could also be deliberate,” Vakil said. “Iran is prepared for a longer war than I think the U.S. administration clearly calculated for.”

Iran could either be conserving missiles to distract with multiple attacks in different domains or preparing for a military campaign that will come in waves, she said, or both.

Who can outlast?

The question is whether Iran can continue its barrage of ballistic missiles and drones and outlast the interceptor stockpile the U.S. has.

The Pentagon continues to provide assurances that Iran is not capable of this feat.

“We’ve got no shortage of munitions,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said at MacDill Air Force Base Thursday.

Cooper said U.S. combat power continues to escalate while Iran’s is in decline.

And Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine, who spoke at a Pentagon briefing Wednesday, addressed concerns regarding specific U.S. munitions shortages.

“We have sufficient precision munitions for the task at hand, both on the offense and defense,” Caine said. “But I want to tell you, teammates, as a matter of practice, I don’t want to be talking about quantities.”

Despite the confidence military officials have projected, Hegseth and Caine reportedly admitted during a briefing with lawmakers Tuesday that Iran’s Shahed drones presented a problem for interceptors because they fly at a low altitude and can evade air defense systems, according to CNN.

And Iran has no shortage of the unmanned aerial vehicles — reportedly producing 10,000 per month, according to Reuters.

The drones are also cheap to manufacture, costing between $20,000 and $50,000, according to Open Source Munitions Portal, an online munitions archive run by a non-profit watchdog.

Contrast the $35,000 average cost of an Iranian Shahed drone with an estimated $4 million price tag of a PAC-3, and the cost exchange is 114-1 in favor of Iran.

Aside from missile math, the unknown timeline for Operation Epic Fury also factors in.

President Trump said this week that the military campaign could last four to five weeks, but that the U.S. had the capabilities to go far longer than that.

Hegseth, during a Pentagon briefing Wednesday, implied that the war could stretch up to two months, but reiterated the president’s point that the U.S. has enough munitions and equipment to beat Iran.

A U.S. CENTCOM memo obtained by Politico, meanwhile, detailed that the Pentagon was requesting military intelligence officers to be sent to its headquarters “to support operations against Iran for at least 100 days but likely through September.”

“The question is which clock will run first,” said Mohammed Soliman, a senior fellow at the Washington think tank the Middle East Institute.

Soliman said that any boots on the ground, including Kurdish allies, has the potential to prolong the conflict, leading to potential U.S. interceptor depletion.

Shortly after Military Times spoke with Soliman, reports emerged that pro-American, Iranian Kurdish forces had been supplied with arms by the CIA and were preparing to attack Iran.

The stress on the interceptor stockpile also depended on the endgame, according to Shalom Lipner, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who served for over 25 years in the prime minister’s office in Jerusalem.

“It’s a race of attrition between the two sides to see who can get over the finish line before the other,” Lipner said.

Sen. Mark Kelly, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, raised concerns over the lopsided interceptor expenses during an interview with CNN.

“We can deal with some of this, but if they have more offensive assets than we have defensive, we get into trouble here possibly really quickly if our magazine depth goes to zero and they can then shoot these things freely around the region,” Kelly said.

The United States launched Operation Epic Fury on Feb. 28, killing Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during the initial attack, leaving a vacuum of power that has yet to be filled, though Khamenei’s son is an early favorite to succeed him.

The Trump administration has laid out select objectives for the operation, including the decimation of Iran’s missile capabilities, navy and its nuclear program.

On Tuesday, Cooper announced on X that the U.S. military had struck nearly 2,000 targets, with more than 2,000 munitions. In retaliation, Cooper noted, Iran has launched over 500 ballistic missiles and over 2,000 drones.

The admiral added Thursday that the U.S. has destroyed 30 Iranian navy vessels, including one off the coast of Sri Lanka — in the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command area of responsibility — that was the result of the first U.S. Navy submarine torpedo kill since World War II.

A total of 50,000 U.S. troops, 200 fighter jets, two aircraft carriers and bombers are currently stationed in the theatre, with personnel and ordnance reinforcement on their way, Cooper said.

Hegseth reiterated that during the press conference Thursday, saying the amount of firepower surrounding Iran is about to “surge dramatically.”

“We’ve only just begun to fight, and fight decisively,” he said.