A Pentagon policy implementing President Donald Trump's order to ban transgender from serving in the military will make it virtually impossible for transgender troops to stay in despite an ostensible waiver process, transgender rights advocates told Military.com on Thursday.

While the ability to get an exemption exists on paper, the criteria are so narrow and contradictory that, in practice, advocates said it is unlikely anyone will qualify for a waiver, and they called talk about the exemptions a distraction from the ban.

"The administration has doubled down on betraying service members who have faithfully followed the rules, met the same standards as others, and put their lives on the line to serve our country," Shannon Minter, legal director at National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is co-leading a lawsuit against the policy, said in a written statement. "The scope and severity of the ban are unprecedented. This is a complete purge of all transgender individuals from military service."

Read Next: Navy Secretary Nominee, a Trump Donor with No Military Experience, Glides Through Confirmation Hearing^[1]

The Pentagon on Thursday publicly acknowledged the new policy.

"Transgender troops are disqualified from service without an exemption," the DOD Rapid Response social media account, an anonymously run official account launched over the weekend that has mostly been criticizing news coverage of the department, posted Thursday^[2] in a response to a headline from CBS News that noted the waiver process.

The policy was revealed in a court filing Wednesday night rather than a formal announcement from the Pentagon. It fulfills the demands of an executive order signed by Trump last month^[3] that described being transgender as "not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member."

The policy, signed by acting Pentagon personnel chief Darin Selnick, echoes the executive order's language in calling gender dysphoria "incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service."

"It is the policy of the United States government to establish high standards for service member readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity and integrity," the policy said. "This policy is inconsistent with the medical, surgical and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria or who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria."

Asked at a briefing Thursday afternoon what evidence there is that transgender troops are incapable of serving or are incompatible with military values such as humility and integrity, Pentagon officials referred reporters to the White House.

Gender dysphoria is the medical term for the distress caused by someone's gender identity not matching their sex assigned at birth.

As of December, there were 4,240 service members in the active duty, National Guard^[4] and reserves with a gender dysphoria diagnosis, a defense official previously told Military.com^[5].

Under the new policy, troops will be kicked out of the military if they have ever been diagnosed with gender dysphoria or they have ever had gender-affirming surgery or hormone therapy.

Waivers are allowed if service members meet three criteria, according to the policy: They are stable in their biological sex for 36 months without "clinically significant distress or impairment;" have never attempted to transition to their gender identity; and are willing to serve in their sex assigned at birth.

There must also be "a compelling government interest in retaining the service member that directly supports warfighting capabilities," the policy adds.

The policy also says that any transgender service member who comes forward to voluntarily separate within the next 30 days is also eligible for a separation bonus that's twice as much as the involuntary separation pay^[6] they would receive if they are later kicked out for having gender dysphoria.

Trish King, a retired Army^[7] infantry soldier who served during the first Trump administration's transgender ban, suggested qualifying for a waiver under the new criteria would be impossible.

"We're saying that you can't have had gender dysphoria, but maybe if you had gender dysphoria, you can still serve, but you can't attempt to do anything about your gender dysphoria or need any treatment for it," King said in a phone interview with Military.com. "That's not a waiver. That's not for anybody."

Asked Thursday morning how many service members are expected to qualify for waivers, a Pentagon spokesperson declined to comment.

The policy revealed this week goes much further than the first Trump administration's ban on most transgender service members. Back then, service members who came out as transgender prior to the ban were allowed to continue serving in their gender identity.

The first Trump administration policy, recognizing the U.S. interest to "preserve the department's substantial investment in trained personnel," also did not automatically boot service members who were diagnosed with gender dysphoria after the ban was implemented. Those troops could stay in the military without applying for a waiver as long as they were willing to serve in their biological sex.

They could also apply for a waiver to serve in their gender identity. Just one waiver, for a Navy^[8] sailor, was known to be granted^[9].

The new policy was revealed as part of a filing by the Justice Department in the lawsuit by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, or NCLR, and GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, or GLAD Law. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of several transgender troops and recruits.

On Thursday, the judge in the case demanded the Trump administration answer a slew of questions about the policy by Saturday morning, including whether the service members who are plaintiffs in the lawsuit would be separated under the policy and whether there is any other mental health condition besides gender dysphoria that the Pentagon considers inconsistent with honesty, humility and integrity.

The judge, Ana Reyes, is weighing a request from NCLR and GLAD Law to block the policy from taking effect while the lawsuit works its way through the legal system. In a two-day hearing last week, Reyes appeared inclined to grant the request, calling Trump's executive order a display of "unadulterated animus."^[10]

A second lawsuit against the policy was filed by Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. In a statement Thursday, the two groups called the new policy "a dishonorable action from a dishonorable administration."

"Forcing out thousands of transgender service members -- who have met every qualification to serve -- does not enhance military excellence or make our country safer," they said. "Instead, the United States will be losing highly trained professionals who serve in roles critical to our national security."

-- Konstantin Toropin contributed to this report.

Related: 'Unadulterated Animus': Judge Tears into Trump Administration at Hearing on Transgender Military Ban^[11]

WASHINGTON — Five former secretaries of defense are calling on Congress to hold immediate hearings on President Donald Trump's recent firings of the chairman^[1] of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and several other senior military leaders, according to a letter obtained by The Associated Press^[2].

The five men — who represented Republican and Democratic administrations over the past three decades — said the dismissals were alarming, raised “troubling questions about the administration’s desire to politicize the military" and removed legal constraints on the president’s power.

Late last week, Trump fired Air Force Gen. CQ Brown Jr.^[3] as chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth^[4] followed that by firing Adm. Lisa Franchetti, chief of naval operations; Gen. Jim Slife, vice chief of the Air Force; and the judge advocates general for the military services^[5].

Hegseth has defended the firing of Brown, saying that other presidents made changes in military personnel and that Trump deserves to pick his own team. Hegseth said he fired the JAGs because he didn’t think they were “well-suited” to provide recommendations when lawful orders are given.

The letter — signed by William Perry, Leon Panetta, Chuck Hagel^[6], Jim Mattis^[7] and Lloyd Austin^[8] — said there were no real justifications for the firings because several of the officers had been nominated by Trump for previous positions. And it said they had exemplary careers, including operational and combat experience.

“We, like many Americans — including many troops — are therefore left to conclude that these leaders are being fired for purely partisan reasons,” said the letter, adding that “we’re not asking members of Congress to do us a favor; we’re asking them to do their jobs.”

In the meantime, they said, senators should refuse to confirm any new Pentagon nominations, including retired Lt. Gen. Dan Caine, who Trump has said should be the next joint chiefs chairman.

Trump’s choice of Caine^[9] is unusual. Caine, who is widely respected in the military, would have to come back onto active duty but he does not meet the legal requirements for the top post. According to law, a chairman must have served as a combatant commander or service chief. The president can waive those requirements.

Hagel is a Republican and Mattis, an independent, was Trump's first defense chief. The other three are Democrats. Four of the five served in the military, including two — Mattis and Austin — who were four-star generals.

"The House and Senate should demand that the administration justify each firing and fully explain why it violated Congress’ legislative intent that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff complete a four-year term in office," the letter said.

The chairman has a four-year term, and Brown had served a bit less than 17 months.

In recent decades, a number of three-star and four-star officers have been fired, but Pentagon leaders have routinely made clear why they were ousted. Those reasons included disagreements over the conduct of the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, problems with the oversight of America’s nuclear arsenal and public statements critical of the president and other leaders.