LGBTQ Groups Slam Pentagon for 110K Erection Pills to Cisgender Troops Amid Gender-Affirming Care Ban

The US military dispensed a record 108,332 prescriptions for erectile dysfunction medication to active-duty personnel in 2025, a figure that has ignited fresh controversy as the Pentagon continues to enforce strict prohibitions on gender-affirming healthcare.

The disparity has become a flashpoint for LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, who claim that the Department of Defence healthcare policies are applying inconsistent standards to the medical requirements of its service members.

Record Figures Raise Fresh Questions

Figures obtained by the New York Post through a Freedom of Information Act request from the US Defence Health Agency show that 108,332 prescriptions for erectile dysfunction medication were dispensed to active duty service members during 2025.

Although only nine prescriptions higher than the previous record of 108,323 in 2024, the total represents a 16.5 per cent increase compared with the 92,996 prescriptions recorded in 2021 during the Biden administration.

The wider military health system recorded far higher numbers. Veterans, military retirees and eligible dependents received 639,355 erectile dysfunction prescriptions in 2025, up from 627,121 the previous year.

According to the data, generic medications now dominate military prescribing. Generic sildenafil, the active ingredient in Viagra, accounted for 85,244 prescriptions issued to active duty personnel in 2025. Generic tadalafil, the equivalent of Cialis, accounted for another 22,880 prescriptions. Brand-name Viagra and Cialis were not prescribed to active duty troops in either 2024 or 2025, reflecting the military's long-standing preference for lower-cost generic medicines.

Healthcare Policy Under Intensifying Scrutiny

The prescription figures arrive against the backdrop of sweeping changes to Pentagon healthcare policy under President Donald Trump's administration.

In February, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth announced new rules prohibiting military medical facilities and the military health insurance programme from providing gender affirming care for transgender service members and eligible family members. The policy also bars new military recruits with what the administration describes as a 'history of gender dysphoria'.

Critics argue the timing makes the latest prescription data difficult to ignore.

LGBTQ+ organisations have questioned why treatments addressing sexual function remain widely available while medically recognised gender affirming care has been removed from military coverage. Medical experts generally define gender affirming care as treatments that help align an individual's physical characteristics with their gender identity, although erectile dysfunction medication is not classified as a gender-affirming treatment under established clinical guidelines.

That distinction has done little to quiet criticism from advocacy groups, which say the broader policy reflects unequal access to medically necessary healthcare within the armed forces.

Court Battles Over Transgender Service

The Pentagon's healthcare restrictions are already facing multiple legal challenges.

One of the most closely watched cases, Doe v. Department of Defence, was filed in the US District Court for the District of Maryland by GLAD Law and the National Centre for LGBTQ Rights on behalf of three military families. The plaintiffs argue they had accessed healthcare for their transgender children through the military health system for years before the Trump administration ended coverage.

'President Trump has illegally overstepped his authority by abruptly cutting off necessary medical care for military families,' Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Centre for LGBTQ Rights, said in a statement.

'This lawless directive is part of a dangerous pattern of this administration ignoring legal requirements and abandoning our servicemembers.'

Separate legal challenges to the administration's policy restricting transgender military service are also progressing through the courts in Talbott v. United States and Shilling v. United States. Those cases challenge broader rules affecting transgender Americans seeking to serve or continue serving in the armed forces.

None of the cases has reached a final ruling.

The prescription data itself does not establish any connection between the increase in erectile dysfunction medication and military policy changes. What it does highlight is the striking contrast between continued government funding for one category of healthcare and the removal of another that remains supported by major US medical organisations for appropriately diagnosed patients.

As litigation continues, the Pentagon's healthcare policies are expected to remain under close judicial and public scrutiny, with the debate extending well beyond prescription numbers and into wider questions about equal access to medical treatment for those serving in the US military.