Pentagon can ban HIV-positive recruits from US military, conservative appeals court rules

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Independent

Wednesday 18 February 2026 17:11 EST


The Department of Defense can ban recruits living with HIV from joining all branches of the U.S. military after a conservative federal appeals court struck down a decision that removed barriers that disqualified people living with HIV.

Wednesday’s ruling follows a years-long legal battle sparked by three people living with HIV who were barred from joining or rejoining the military due to their diagnoses.

In 2024, a federal judge ruled that the military cannot block recruits solely because of their HIV diagnosis, finding “asymptomatic HIV-positive service members with undetectable viral loads … are capable of performing all of their military duties, including worldwide deployment,” thanks to modern medicine that has “transformed” treatment.

But a three-judge panel of conservative judges — including two appointed by Donald Trump and another appointed by George H.W. Bush — said the Pentagon has a “rational basis” to deny those recruits, even those with undetectable viral loads with no transmission risk.

Read more: https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/hiv-military-ban-pete-hegseth-b2923223.html

[Polybius]

1. "two appointed by Donald Trump and another appointed by George H.W. Bush"

That says it all.

[BumRushDaShow]

2. The 5th Circuit is the most RW loon-packed Circuit court

[JohnnyRingo]

3. There are a number of reasons why a recruit can be turned down.

I'm not sure how many young men are disappointed that they can't join the Marine Corp because they have AIDS, but there are probably more who have asthma, mental health issues, or weight standards that are also refused. It seems to me that the AIDS virus may even be a bigger deal for exclusion, considering the close quarters and troop morale. I know, the soldiers shouldn't discriminate against their brothers in arms, but that only works on paper.

If anyone with those maladies really want to serve, just wait for the next good war. Right now the military can be fussy.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. Just because someone is HIV-positive doesn't automatically mean they have AIDS

THAT is the problem with blanket non-scientific idiocy like this.

[JohnnyRingo]

5. I hadn't thought of that, and you're right.

However, it does add another level of medical care that the military probably doesn't want to deal with, especially with no shortage of volunteers.

An extreme example is I have to get kidney dialysis three times a week for four hours each time. Not only would the Army immediately reject me, but even prisons don't want to deal with the expense and trouble with someone like me. I could probably rob a bank and get house arrest.

I'm going to let my outrage machine idle on this rule and save it for something that affects a larger pool of people.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. I do understand the issues of those with chronic medical issues

that would necessitate regular treatment (one of my BILs had to have dialysis 3 days a week for several years too until he was fortunate to get a donated kidney).

But it's almost like rejecting anyone who might have contracted any other virus that never manifests into something else (like chickenpox can suddenly reappear as shingles).

In this case, it's strictly a Raygun-era tarring and feathering as being associated with what they derisively called "the gay disease", by adding a homophobic stigma to anyone who contracted the virus, whether nothing further happens after or the infected person actually ends up getting full blown AIDS, regardless of how they ended up getting exposed.

[JohnnyRingo]

7. You trumped me with the Reagan Card....so to speak.

I see your point. It does come off like a flashback to the Great Discriminator era.

[BumRushDaShow]

8. Sadly they have brought all that back again and more

[Doctoris Extincti]

9. Unfortunately 'undetectable viral load' does not mean a person does not have the HIV virus.

In most cases the virus is still present. Very few people have been totally cleared of HIV.

The HIV community site HelpStopTheVirus has a good discussion on this and other challenges facing people living with HIV

It has been some time since I was involved with military medicine.

I do know that during OIF/OEF (our post-911 military Middle East adventurism) the army, at least, adopted the use of soldiers with low antibody titer Group-O neg blood as a 'Walking Blood Bank' (of course, being mil, it got acronymized as WBB). This meant if someone was wounded badly enough to require immediate transfusion, then the next name up on the WBB roster would be located.

Their blood would be drawn, and transfused immediately without any cross-match or disease screening. Indeed, going back to WW1 (The War to End All Wars) this was common practice in all the armies. Don't know that they were doing any disease screening though.

I do not know if the military still uses this system. If so, I can see the point, as live virus could be spread. However, if WBB is still a thing, it would seem a simple admin fix to exclude anyone with an undetectable viral load from being part of WBB, but still able to serve.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. The problem here is that this is an "ideological" conservative court decision

not truly a "medical" or "scientific" one, and particularly during a time when the military has been desperate to get more recruits.

They might as well do as former Congressman Charlie Rangel once railed about (and even introduced legislation for) - reinstate the draft.