Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration From Banning Transgender People From Military Service

A federal judge halted the Trump administration’s ban on transgender troops in the U.S. military Tuesday evening.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes ruled that the ban violated the constitutional rights of transgender members of the military. It will almost certainly provoke a swift appeal from the Department of Justice.

The decision originates from a civil lawsuit first brought against the Trump administration in January by a group of trans military service members, many of whom are decorated. They say President Donald Trump’s ban violated their rights and was inherently discriminatory.

Trump’s executive order purports to streamline “military excellence and readiness” by banning trans troops because “expressing a false ‘gender identity’ divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.” The administration also claimed the cost to provide gender-affirming care to transgender troops is prohibitively and uniquely expensive.

Last week, Judge Reyes spent several intense hours grilling Justice Department attorneys over these and a litany of other claims the administration has clung to to support its ban.

For example, Reyes said one study the Defense Department relied on had “cherry picked” data and ignored critical comparative analyses.

To wit, while the Defense Department pointed to depression and suicidal ideation among trans people as a key factor to keep them out of the service, the department failed to note that in the same study, it quoted that when compared to non-transgender service members with depression, transgender service members actually deployed longer.

“The fact that transgender people deploy longer after a gender dysphoria diagnosis and depression, would tell us they are actually better suited to stay in service than a cohort of depressed [non transgender] people,” she remarked.

And as for it being too expensive to care for trans troops, Reyes noted that while the government had cited a $52 million price tag for trans health care, that price was over 10 years ago, meaning the annual cost on average was a mere drop in the bucket when compared to what the military shells out for non-transgender health care costs.

The U.S. military spent $42 million on Viagra in 2024 versus just $5.2 million last year on gender-affirming care for trans soldiers. Reyes noted that the military considers Viagra a treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, something that helps service members avoid things like suicidal ideation.

How then, Reyes wondered in court last week, would it make sense to deny care to trans soldiers if the point of the administration’s ban is to strengthen military readiness?

The Defense Department policy relied on medical literature that claimed 55% of all trans individuals experienced suicidal ideation and that the attempted suicide rate of trans individuals was 13 times higher when compared to cisgender counterparts, Reyes noted.

“What’s the first thing that’s wrong with this analysis?” she said in court last week.

For starters, the judge pointed out, the department doesn’t clarify whether those trans people quoted in the study ever served in the military. So comparing a civilian trans person to someone who has to deal with the “stressors of military life” would be good to know.

The department ignored why it is that transgender people may experience higher rates of suicide as well, she said last week.

“The literature review will tell you: Because they face such stigma and discrimination in society. All studies show people with gender dysphoria are not more inherently subject to suicidal ideation. It’s not biological. It’s because they face discrimination, because they face abuse and all kinds of slurs, all these things that are heaped up onto transgender people,” she said.

“The answer to suicidal ideation is not to further discriminate, right?”

The Defense Department has argued too that transgender people are evaluated for mental health services 10% more often than non-transgender people.

But, Reyes noted, the government seemed to ignore the fact that this is because transgender individuals are required to participate in more mental health and wellness visits while in the military.

“We have to be careful with how we use this data,” Reyes said. “They may have [wellness visits] for reasons unrelated to gender.”

There were other significant inconsistencies that drew the judge’s attention.

The administration couldn’t definitely tell her whether the ban applied to all transgender service members or not.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted on X on Feb. 27 that “transgender troops are disqualified from service without an exemption.”

Then, a day later, when the Department of Defense’s formal memo on the ban went public, the department appeared to contradict Hegseth’s social media post.

While anyone with a history of receiving sex hormone therapy, sex reassignment or genital reconstruction surgery “as a treatment for gender dysphoria” was disqualified from service, the memo stated troops impacted by the ban could apply for a waiver on a “case-by-case basis.”

“Can we agree this policy covers all transgender people unless there is an exemption?” the judge asked.

Federal prosecutors said they were unsure. Hegseth may have been using “shorthand” in his post.

“I’m sorry. That’s what the Defense Department Secretary says. He’s the guy who wrote the policy and implemented it… This isn’t Jane on the street that I just passed by. This is the Secretary of Defense. Now, we want to know what the policy covers or intends to cover. Who would be the best person to ask?”

Thus far, the administration has blocked schools from using federal funds to promote the idea that gender can be fluid, directed the State Department to stop issuing documents that show a third gender marker, removed the transgender element on government websites from LGBTQ to LGB, revoked the ability of transgender federal workers from receiving gender-affirming care, directed transgender people in federal prison be denied medical treatment, and more, including blocking their access to homeless shelters.

For Reyes, the more pertinent question before her court was simple.

“The question [here] is whether the military, under equal protection rights afforded to every American under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment — if the military… can target a specific group that the administration disfavors.” she said in February.

The administration is expected to appeal the ruling, and it is likely that the question of whether the ban can be enforced will go to the Supreme Court.