“Soaked in Animus”: Federal Judges Strikes Down Trump’s Trans Military Ban

“The cruel irony is that thousands of transgender servicemembers have sacrificed—some risking their lives—to ensure for others the very equal protection rights the Military Ban seeks to deny them.”

2017.07.29 Stop Transgender Military Ban, Washington, DC - Wikimedia Commons

A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump’s anti-trans military ban, including “Executive Order 14183—Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” as well as a similar policy issued by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

“The cruel irony is that thousands of transgender servicemembers have sacrificed—some risking their lives—to ensure for others the very equal protection rights the Military Ban seeks to deny them,” wrote Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, in her opinion published today. “In the self-evident truth that ‘all people are created equal,’ all means all. Nothing more. And certainly nothing less.”

The court affirmed the President’s ability to discern who can serve the military, but emphasized the high standards needed to do so. “Leaders have used concern for military readiness to deny marginalized persons the privilege of serving,” she wrote. “First minorities, then women in combat, then gays.”

Today, trans people are the target — Trump’s executive order from January declared that being trans “conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle,” and that it “is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.” The order was accompanied by Hegseth’s anti-trans memo to the Pentagon on Feb. 7.

To categorically ban trans people from the military, the government would have to show that trans inclusion has resulted in tangible, material harm.

The court ruled that this is not the case. Even more, Reyes says that neither Trump’s executive order nor Hegseth’s directive seemed to have received input from military rank and file.

“Neither document contains any analysis nor cites any data,” Reyes writes. “They pronounce that transgender persons are not honorable, truthful, or disciplined—but Defense counsel concedes that these assertions are pure conjecture.”

The plaintiffs, Reyes continues, have cumulatively provided over 130 years of military service. “They have served in roles ranging from Senior Military Science Instructor to Artillery Platoon Commander to Intelligence Analyst to Satellite Operator to Operations Research Analyst to Naval Flight Officer to Weapons Officer,” she writes. “They have deployed around the globe [...] One is presently deployed to an active combat zone. They have earned more than 80 commendations.”

The ban was not only discriminatory, Reyes says, but also unscientific. “Who considered the information [...] is anyone’s guess. [Trump officials] do not know. Maybe no one, because one study is eight years old and the other two support Plaintiffs’ position [of opposing a trans military ban].”

She characterizes the ban as “soaked in animus and dripping with pretext.”

“Its language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact,” Reyes writes. “Thus, even if the Court analyzed the Military Ban under rational basis review, it would fail.”

Trans people have been formally allowed to serve openly in the military since at least 2021.

“Our military has not fallen into an ‘existential’ crisis,” Reyes points out. “Nor have our ‘lethal and effective’ soldiers come unglued when asked to use preferred pronouns, which the Hegseth Policy also bans.” In fact, evidence submitted to the court seems to suggest the contrary — recruiting, unit cohesion, and military readiness have since improved.

The Trump Administration will have until the morning of March 21 to file an emergency stay to appeal Reyes’ ruling. If this happens, the question could eventually rise to the Supreme Court.