A federal judge in Washington scrutinized President Donald Trump’s decision to issue an executive order aimed at prohibiting transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military during a hearing on Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes expressed skepticism over the administration’s rationale, labeling part of the directive as “frankly ridiculous,” and indicated that a ruling on whether to temporarily halt the enforcement of the order may not come until early March. Plaintiffs’ lawyers have contended that the directive unlawfully discriminates against transgender service members.
Judge Reyes praised the contributions of several active-duty personnel who are part of the lawsuit against this order, noting their service with admiration. When questioning a government attorney, she asked, “If you were in a foxhole, would you care about these individuals’ gender identity?” to which the attorney replied that it would not be his primary concern.
Trump’s order, issued on January 27, argues that the gender identity of transgender troops is at odds with a soldier’s commitment to a disciplined and honorable lifestyle, claiming it undermines military readiness. The order mandates that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth formulate a new policy in line with these assertions. The lawsuit involves six active-duty transgender individuals and two others who intend to enlist, arguing that the executive order exhibits “hostility” and violates constitutional rights.
Judge Reyes criticized the order’s language, suggesting that it unfairly portrays thousands of transgender service members as lacking honesty and discipline, and directly challenged the Justice Department attorney on this point. She pressed him, asking how the directive did not demonstrate animus against transgender individuals, to which the attorney admitted he was unable to provide a clear answer.
Furthermore, the order stipulates that “use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual’s sex” goes against a government policy aimed at fostering high standards in military personnel. Judge Reyes dismissed the notion that pronoun usage could affect military readiness, emphasizing that rational individuals understand it doesn’t.
Her questioning of attorney Jason Lynch was extensive, as they debated the order’s language and implications regarding transgender service members. Reyes highlighted that Trump would characterize the directive as a ban, noting, “He would say, ‘Of course it is,’ because he calls it a transgender ban,” while Lynch argued that the order does not necessitate immediate discharges as a new policy is developed.
More hearings are slated for this week and again in early March. The plaintiffs’ attorneys assert that Trump’s directive infringes upon the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection clause, rendering transgender individuals as lesser and expendable in both military and public contexts. They describe the order as an irrational and prejudicial attack on dedicated service members.
In contrast, government attorneys argue that the challenge to the order is premature and that it does not dictate any immediate actions regarding the discharge of transgender personnel. They maintain that the constitutional right to equal treatment does not extend to all individuals in the same way, asserting that transgender individuals are not “similarly situated” to their biological counterparts.
Originally, during his first presidential term, Trump implemented a directive to ban transgender individuals from military service, which the Supreme Court allowed to stand until President Biden rescinded it upon taking office. Although thousands of transgender people currently serve in the military, they make up less than one percent of the total active-duty force. Among the plaintiffs in this case are an Army major who received the Bronze Star for his service and a distinguished Navy Sailor of the Year. They are being represented by attorneys from advocacy groups specializing in LGBTQ rights.
