In Washington, a federal judge raised doubts about President Donald Trump’s intentions behind an executive order that prohibits transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military, labeling a part of the directive as “absurd.” U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes hinted at postponing a decision until early March regarding whether to temporarily halt the Trump administration from implementing the order, which plaintiffs’ attorneys argue discriminates against transgender troops. During the hearing on Tuesday, Reyes expressed skepticism about the administration’s rationale for the policy change and commended the courage of active-duty troops challenging the order.
The judge challenged a government attorney, questioning if gender identity would matter if soldiers were in a difficult situation, to which the attorney responded that it would not be a primary concern. Trump’s order on January 27 claims that transgender individuals’ gender identity conflicts with military values and readiness, mandating Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to develop a new policy. Six transgender active-duty service members and two prospective military recruits filed a lawsuit seeking to block the enforcement of the order, arguing that it displays hostility and animosity towards transgender individuals.
Reyes criticized the order for tarnishing the reputation of transgender troops and questioned the Justice Department attorney about the underlying animosity. The judge also dismissed the claim in the order that pronoun usage could impact military readiness as “absurd,” stating that it defies common sense. Reyes and Lynch, the attorney, engaged in lengthy discussions about the language and implications of the executive order, with further arguments scheduled for Wednesday and March 3. Plaintiffs’ attorneys assert that Trump’s order violates transgender individuals’ rights and undermines their standing within the military community.
The judge, nominated by President Joe Biden, expressed reservations about the order and its implications on transgender service members, signaling a thorough evaluation of the case in the coming hearings.
“Defendants argue that the plaintiffs are prematurely challenging an order that does not immediately mandate the discharge of transgender troops. The Justice Department further contends that the constitutional right to equal protection only requires that individuals in similar situations be treated similarly.
According to the defendants, a transgender individual who identifies as a woman is not in a similar situation as a biological female, and likewise, a transgender individual who identifies as a man is not in a similar situation as a biological male.
During Trump’s first term, a directive was issued to ban transgender service members, which was later upheld by the Supreme Court. However, President Biden rescinded the ban upon taking office.
Although only representing less than 1% of all active-duty service members, thousands of transgender individuals currently serve in the military. Among the plaintiffs are an Army Reserves platoon leader, an Army major awarded a Bronze Star for service in Afghanistan, and a Sailor of the Year recipient in the Navy. They are being represented by attorneys from the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLAD Law.”
