Judge questions motives for Trump's order banning transgender troops
Send a link to a friend
[February 19, 2025]
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday questioned President Donald
Trump's motives for issuing an executive order that calls for banning
transgender troops from serving in the U.S. military, describing a
portion of the directive as “frankly ridiculous.”
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes indicated that she won't rule before early
March on whether to temporarily block the Trump administration from
enforcing the order, which plaintiffs' attorneys have said illegally
discriminates against transgender troops.
But her questions and remarks during Tuesday's hearing suggest that she
is deeply skeptical of the administration's reasoning for ordering a
policy change. Reyes also lauded the service of several active-duty
troops who sued to block the order.
“If you were in a foxhole, would you care about these individuals'
gender identity?” the judge asked a government attorney, who answered
that it “would not be a primary concern of mine.”
Trump’s Jan. 27 order claims the sexual identity of transgender service
members “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable,
truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life” and is
harmful to military readiness. It requires Defense Secretary Pete
Hegseth to issue a revised policy.
Six transgender people who are active-duty service members and two
others seeking to join the military sued to block the Trump
administration from enforcing the order. In a court filing, plaintiffs'
lawyers argued that Trump's order openly expresses "hostility” and
constitutionally impermissible “animus” toward transgender people.
Reyes said the order's language smears thousands of transgender troops
as dishonest, dishonorable and undisciplined.
She asked Justice Department attorney Jason Lynch: “How is that anything
other than showing animus?”
“I don’t have an answer for you,” Lynch responded.
“No, you have an answer. You just don’t want to give it,” the judge shot
back.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/60ed7/60ed774481d3a026e75d36a8e9f1871b77167843" alt=""
Trump's order also says that “use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect
an individual’s sex” is inconsistent with a government policy to
"establish high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion,
honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.”
Reyes said it is “frankly ridiculous” to suggest that pronoun usage
could impact the military readiness of the U.S. armed forces.
[to top of second column]
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/032c8/032c81aa3e8ffeafd7251272ac83f595cdeb17e9" alt=""
"Because it doesn't. Because any common sense, rational person would
understand that it doesn’t,” said Reyes, who was nominated by
President Joe Biden, a Democrat.
Reyes peppered Lynch for several hours with questions about the
executive order. They disagreed on whether the language of the
executive order explicitly bans transgender people from serving in
the military.
Reyes asked Lynch if Trump himself would call it a ban, then added,
“He would say, ‘Of course it is,’ because he calls it a transgender
ban.” Lynch said the order itself doesn’t require the discharge of
service members while Hegseth crafts a policy that reflects it.
“Everyone knows a change is coming. I’m not denying that,” Lynch
said.
Reyes is expected to hear more arguments on Wednesday and again on
March 3.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/68411/684110052f777f4dfab052c6a7cc28596ce94219" alt=""
Plaintiffs’ attorneys contend Trump's order violates transgender
people’s rights to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment,
marking them as “unequal and dispensable, demeaning them in the eyes
of their fellow service members and the public.”
“The ban is an irrational and prejudicial attack on service members
who have risked their lives to serve their country,” they wrote in a
court filing.
Government attorneys say the plaintiffs are prematurely challenging
an order that doesn’t immediately require transgender troops to be
discharged. The Justice Department also argues that the
constitutional right to equal protection “requires only that
similarly situated persons be treated alike.”
“A transgender individual identifying as a woman is not similarly
situated to a biological female, nor is a transgender individual
identifying as a man similarly situated to a biological male,” they
wrote.
During Trump’s first term, the Republican issued a directive
directive to ban transgender service members. The Supreme Court
allowed the ban to to take effect. Biden scrapped it when he took
office.
Thousands of transgender people serve in the military, but they
represent less than 1 percent of all active-duty service members.
The plaintiffs include an Army Reserves platoon leader, an Army
major who was awarded a Bronze Star for service in Afghanistan and a
Sailor of the Year award winner serving in the Navy. They are
represented by attorneys for the National Center for Lesbian Rights
and GLAD Law.
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved |