Ah, but there's a difference between doing "what's best", and doing something for political points. Did you know that this all started with the US House of Representatives arguing about whether Dept. of Defense funds should be used for gender reassignment surgery for transgender soldiers? Because it might have led to a bill failing, something Trump didn't want to keep happening, House Republicans turned to him to address the idea of such funding. So he said he was banning transgender people entirely. Not just the surgery. Not just those looking to seek surgery. The entire transgender population of the US military, which number in the thousands. Now I agree there's a hardy debate to be had about whether or not to use funds for such surgery, but the idea of using that as an opportunity to completely ban a group of people from serving is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are transgender people right now serving in the US military not seeking surgery, nor taking regular hormone treatments. There are also people who have completed transitioning that don't need regular treatments. So these are able people that are being denied their privilege to serve their country, when it has been proven via a study performed by RAND Corp in 2016 that not only is the monetary burden negligible, but also proved through referencing other countries that openly have transgender people serving (like the UK) that there is no effect on morale or unit cohesion. I agree there are times to be doing things for the best even if some people don't like it (such as marriage equality being passed in the US two years ago), but you have to still do the work and learn whether it really is for the best, or if it's only to look good for certain people.