WASHINGTON (CN) — A federal judge Tuesday blocked the Trump administration’s effort to ban transgender Americans from serving in the military, finding the policy wrongfully targets trans soldiers despite evidence their service improves military readiness.
“The president has the power — indeed the obligation — to ensure military readiness,” U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes said in her opinion. “At times, however, leaders have used concern for military readiness to deny marginalized persons the privilege of serving. First minorities, then women in combat, then gays filled in that blank.”
Reyes, a Joe Biden appointee, found that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s Feb. 26 policy — created at President Donald Trump’s instruction per his “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” executive order — would effectively disqualify all trans people from service unless they successfully received an exemption.
She noted that while Hegseth intentionally refrained from using the word “transgender” in the order, which the Justice Department repeatedly mentioned in court, the terms “those with a gender identity that diverges from their biological sex” clearly referred to trans soldiers.
That attempted distinction was undermined by several posts on X, formerly Twitter, that said the policy would apply to trans people in no uncertain terms.
One post by the official U.S. Army account, which was reposted by Hegseth on Feb. 14, said the Army would “no longer allow transgender individuals to join the military.”
On Feb. 27, Hegseth shared a Fox News article detailing his policy and writing out the story’s headline: “Pentagon says transgender troops are disqualified from service without an exemption.”
The plaintiffs in the case include 14 active-duty service members who together have served more than 130 years in the military across several branches, served overseas from Afghanistan to Kuwait, and have earned over 80 commendations, including a Bronze Star and two Global War on Terrorism Service medals, among others.
They argued that Hegseth’s policy was “rushed and reached a preordained result, contains no analysis and has an exception in name only,” and ultimately contains derogatory language targeting a vulnerable group in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Reyes noted that the Justice Department agreed that the plaintiffs had “served honorably,” satisfied the high standards required to serve and have “made America safer.”
“So why discharge them and other decorated soldiers?” Reyes asked. “Crickets from defendants on this key question.”
The Justice Department has defended the policy, asserting that it was necessary because trans people undermine military readiness and disrupt “unit cohesion, good order and discipline.”
Trump’s executive order states that transgender people cannot meet the “high standards for service member readiness, lethality, cohesion, honestly, humility, uniformity and integrity,” due to “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints.”
The Justice Department urged Reyes to set aside the plaintiff’s service records and instead “defer to the military’s judgment.”
Reyes agreed that she should defer to the military, “but not blindly,” she said, noting that neither Hegseth nor Trump consulted with any military leaders before creating the policy.
Further, Hegseth’s policy and Trump’s order contain no analysis, nor do they cite any data supporting their assertions that trans people are not honorable, truthful or disciplined, Reyes said, adding that the Justice Department had conceded those points were “pure conjecture.”
Reyes clarified in her order that it would return the military’s policy to the status quo before Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order and maintain the current service status of the numerous plaintiffs in the case.
A group of former military department heads filed an amicus brief in the case, including those who were tasked with integrating trans people into service. They assured Reyes that the military had not fallen into an “existential” crisis since trans people began serving in 2021.
She noted that she did not issue the injunction lightly but stressed the core ideal that coordinate branches of government are the “means of keeping each other in their proper places,” as set out by James Madison in Federalist Paper 51.
“Judicial overreach is not less pernicious than executive overreach,” Reyes said. “ The president and defendants could have crafted a policy that balances the nation’s need for a prepared military and Americans’ right to equal protection. They still can. The military ban, however, is not that policy.”
She added that her order would not go into effect until 10 a.m. on Friday, potentially allowing an appeals court to intervene.
“In the self-evident truth that all people are created equal, all means all,” Reyes wrote. “Nothing more. And certainly nothing less.”