Judge Blocks Policy That Would Expel Transgender Troops

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to prohibit transgender individuals from serving in the military.

In a strongly worded ruling, U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes issued an injunction preventing the enforcement of the ban, allowing transgender service members to continue serving under the policies set by the Biden administration while the lawsuit challenging the Trump-era restrictions proceeds.

“The ban fundamentally relies on discriminatory rhetoric to target a vulnerable group, violating the Fifth Amendment,” Judge Reyes stated in her opinion.

The government had argued that military decisions should be left to military experts without judicial interference. However, in a 79-page ruling, Judge Reyes criticized the administration’s approach, stating that the ban was implemented with minimal supporting evidence. “The law does not require the Court to endorse illogical conclusions based on speculation,” she wrote.

According to the Defense Department, approximately 4,200 service members, or about 0.2% of the military, identify as transgender. These individuals serve in various roles, including pilots, senior officers, nuclear technicians, and Green Berets, as well as in general enlisted positions across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. Despite their relatively small numbers, transgender personnel have been a disproportionate focus of the Trump administration’s policies.

In January, President Trump signed an executive order stating that transgender troops had introduced “radical gender ideology” into the military. The order claimed that adopting a gender identity different from one’s birth sex was incompatible with the values of honor, truthfulness, and discipline expected of soldiers.

The following month, the Defense Department issued new regulations reinforcing this stance, mandating the discharge of all transgender service members regardless of their qualifications.

Several affected individuals promptly filed lawsuits, arguing that the policy constituted unlawful discrimination and violated their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

Although the military had yet to implement the full ban, it had encouraged transgender personnel to voluntarily leave, even offering financial incentives to expedite their departures. The Navy, for example, had set a March 28 deadline for transgender sailors to apply for voluntary separation.

Since the executive order was signed six weeks prior, transgender service members reported being required to conform to grooming standards and pronouns based on their birth sex. Many have been denied medical treatment, excluded from assignments, sent home from deployments, and placed on administrative leave.

“Their lives and careers have been thrown into chaos,” said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who represents the plaintiffs. “That’s why securing immediate relief is so critical.”

Minter also argued that Trump’s executive order was so overtly hostile toward transgender individuals—what legal experts refer to as “animus”—that it was unlikely to withstand legal scrutiny.

During a contentious March 12 hearing, Judge Reyes, appointed by President Biden in 2023, aggressively questioned Justice Department attorneys defending the ban. She expressed frustration with their arguments and methodically scrutinized the reports the administration had cited to justify its policy.

She pointed out that much of the data was outdated and misleading, accusing the Defense Department of selectively using evidence to support its claims. At one point, she remarked that the administration’s reasoning was so weak that they might as well have cited a Beyoncé album.

“How can you claim that an entire group of people lacks humility?” she challenged the government’s lawyers. “That argument simply doesn’t hold up.”

Justice Department attorney Jason Manion argued that courts should defer to military leadership and avoid questioning the Defense Department’s decisions. “Ultimately, we are asking the court to respect military judgment,” he said.

Judge Reyes responded sharply: “You keep assuming there is actual judgment involved here. From what I can see, the only judgment being made is that transgender individuals supposedly lack integrity, humility, and a warrior ethos.”

She repeatedly suggested that the lack of substantial evidence of harm caused by transgender troops pointed to the administration’s policy being rooted in prejudice rather than necessity.

Manion countered that proving animus influenced the policy would not be sufficient grounds to invalidate it. Citing a Supreme Court ruling that upheld Trump’s 2017 travel ban on several majority-Muslim nations, he argued that the policy would only be unlawful if it were motivated solely by animus.

“Evidence of animus alone,” he stated, “is not enough to overturn the policy.”

This is not the first time transgender troops have challenged a military ban in court. Early in Trump’s presidency, he announced a similar ban via Twitter, which was promptly blocked by two federal judges.

That injunction remained in place for two years until the Supreme Court in 2019 allowed a revised version of the ban to proceed while its constitutionality was debated. The case was ultimately dropped when President Biden rescinded the ban in 2021, leaving the legal question unresolved.

The Trump administration’s renewed attempt to implement a ban marks a significant shift in military policy, deviating from a 77-year trend of increasing diversity and inclusion in the armed forces. Historically, the White House has pushed for greater inclusion while the military has been more resistant. This time, the dynamic has reversed.

Senior military leaders have publicly opposed the transgender ban.

The policy is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to roll back diversity initiatives in the military, which it views as counterproductive. These efforts have included dismissing high-ranking officials, discontinuing recognition of Gay Pride and Black History Month, and purging references to diversity and inclusion from Defense Department materials—including the removal of a photo of the B-29 bomber Enola Gay, seemingly flagged because of its name.

This week, the Department of Veterans Affairs announced it would discontinue gender-affirming care for transgender veterans.

“If veterans want to pursue gender transition, they’ll have to pay for it themselves,” Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins said Monday.

Although the judge’s injunction temporarily prevents the expulsion of transgender service members, many say the ordeal has left lasting damage to their careers and well-being.

Sgt. First Class Julia Becraft, an Army soldier in Texas, was set to be promoted to platoon leader in July, but her promotion has been indefinitely delayed due to the ban.

Devastated by the policy, she took personal leave to focus on her mental health and has been attending therapy sessions.

“My unit has been incredibly supportive, but my world has been turned upside down,” she said.

Becraft has served in the Army for 14 years, completed three deployments to Afghanistan, and earned a Bronze Star. Yet she now faces the prospect of being discharged without retirement benefits.

Even if she is ultimately allowed to remain in the military, she questions whether she can continue serving under an administration that has targeted her.

“It’s not just about them coming after me,” she said. “It’s about everything else they’re doing—dismantling D.E.I. efforts, firing great leaders without cause. I want to stay strong and fight, but honestly, I’m scared.”