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. 
		
		
		  
		
		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] 
			 | 
            
             
            
			
			
			  
            "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. 
            
			  
			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  |