On Tuesday, a federal judge issued an indefinite injunction that prevents the Trump administration from implementing an executive order that aimed to effectively bar transgender individuals from serving openly in the military. This decision represents a significant setback for the administration’s efforts to restrict transgender rights, particularly in the military.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, ruled that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other military officials could not implement Trump’s executive order or any new policies associated with it. Judge Reyes also ordered that the military status of the plaintiffs, who are service members and individuals attempting to enlist, remain unchanged until further notice from the court.
In her ruling, Reyes stated that the purpose of her order was to “maintain the status quo” of military policies related to transgender service members, as they existed before Trump signed the controversial executive order titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” in 2017. The judge also granted a temporary stay on her order, which will remain in place until Friday to allow the Trump administration time to file an appeal.
“The Court knows that this opinion will lead to heated public debate and appeals,” Reyes wrote in her opinion. “In a healthy democracy, both are positive outcomes.”
The ruling came after a group of six active-duty military members and two individuals seeking to enlist in the military filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration shortly after the president signed the order on January 27. The plaintiffs argued that the executive order violated their constitutional rights. Two similar lawsuits challenging the order are also moving through the courts.
Trump’s order, which was originally aimed at excluding transgender individuals from military service, argues that transgender people do not meet the “rigorous standards necessary for military service” due to concerns that they could potentially undermine military effectiveness and unit cohesion. The order explicitly states that a transgender person’s identification and required accommodations are inconsistent with the values of humility and selflessness needed for military service.
Reyes, in her ruling, noted that the president certainly has the authority and responsibility to ensure the readiness of the military, but she pointed out that military leaders have historically used similar justifications to exclude marginalized groups from service. She underscored how arguments against the inclusion of minority groups, including women in combat and gay service members, have been used in the past to justify discrimination.
“First minorities, then women in combat, then gays filled in that blank,” Reyes wrote. “Today, however, our military is stronger, and our nation is safer for the millions of such blanks (and all other persons) who serve.”
A study conducted by the RAND Corporation in 2016, commissioned by the Pentagon, found no evidence that allowing transgender individuals to serve openly in the military had a negative impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness, or overall readiness.
During multiple hearings, Judge Reyes questioned the legal arguments presented by the Department of Justice, particularly those defending the implementation of Trump’s executive order. The policy, which was set to go into effect on March 26, classified individuals with a “current diagnosis or history of, or symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria” as unfit for military service.
The memo also stated that the Pentagon recognizes only two sexes, male and female, and that service members must serve in accordance with their designated sex.
Judge Reyes criticized the Department of Defense’s broad and vague classification of individuals with gender dysphoria, questioning how such a policy could be applied fairly given that it could encompass nearly any transgender person. “How can I say that a policy is limited, when on its own terms, it could include almost any transgender person?” she asked during a hearing in March.
One of the DOJ lawyers, Jason Manion, argued that courts should defer to the current military and its leadership rather than re-evaluating the military's needs under previous administrations. However, Reyes was unimpressed, stating that judges cannot simply accept policies that are not supported by adequate evidence.
“There’s a point where we must draw the line,” the judge said. “The Department of Defense is cherry-picking studies and using them in a misleading way to justify this policy. The Court cannot allow that.”
Judge Reyes also noted that the Justice Department’s arguments for the policy were based on unsupported claims and presented little substantial evidence. She had previously commented on the lack of integrity within the Justice Department’s legal arguments and even directed specific remarks at DOJ lawyer Jason Lynch, accusing him of misleading the court.
The lawsuit against Trump’s executive order has sparked broader legal challenges to the military's policies toward transgender individuals. Along with the lawsuit in which Judge Reyes issued her ruling, seven transgender service members, supported by LGBTQ rights organizations, have filed a separate suit challenging the ban on transgender troops in Washington state. In addition, two more service members filed a suit in New Jersey earlier this month.
Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, one of the groups representing the plaintiffs, praised Judge Reyes's decision. “The Court’s unambiguous factual findings lay bare how this ban specifically targets and undermines our courageous service members who have committed themselves to defending our nation,” Levi said in a statement.
“Given the Court’s clear-eyed assessment, we are confident this ruling will stand strong on appeal.”
As the legal battle continues, the Trump administration faces mounting opposition and scrutiny over its policies regarding transgender service members. Judge Reyes’s ruling has ensured that the rights of transgender individuals in the military will not be restricted by the executive order—at least for the time being.
