WASHINGTON (AP) — On Tuesday, a federal judge expressed skepticism regarding President Donald Trump’s motives behind an executive order aimed at banning transgender troops from serving in the U.S. military, labeling part of the directive as “frankly ridiculous.”
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes indicated she would likely not make a decision before early March on whether to temporarily halt the Trump administration’s enforcement of the order, which attorneys for the plaintiffs argue unlawfully discriminates against transgender service members.
However, her inquiries and comments during Tuesday’s hearing hinted at a strong doubt regarding the administration’s justification for the policy shift. Reyes also commended the service of several active-duty troops who are challenging the order in court.
“If you were in a foxhole, would you care about these individuals’ gender identity?” the judge posed to a government attorney, who replied that it “would not be a primary concern of mine.”
Trump’s order from January 27 asserts that 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 poses risks to military readiness. It mandates Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to formulate a revised policy.
Six transgender active-duty service members alongside two individuals seeking to enlist filed a lawsuit to prevent the Trump administration from executing the order. In their court submission, the plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that Trump’s order conveys an explicit “hostility” and constitutionally impermissible “animus” toward transgender individuals.
Reyes stated that the language in the order characterizes 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 replied.
“No, you have an answer. You just don’t want to provide it,” the judge responded sharply.
The order from Trump further claims that “use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual’s sex” is incompatible with a government policy to “maintain high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.”
Reyes remarked that it is “frankly ridiculous” to propose that pronoun usage could influence the military readiness of U.S. forces.
“Because it doesn’t. Because any common-sense, rational person would understand that it doesn’t,” expressed Reyes, who was nominated by President Joe Biden, a Democrat.
Reyes spent several hours questioning Lynch regarding the executive order, during which they disagreed on whether the directive explicitly prohibits transgender individuals from serving in the armed forces.
Reyes queried Lynch if Trump himself would classify it as a ban and added, “He would say, ‘Of course it is,’ because he refers to it as a transgender ban.” Lynch countered that the order itself does not necessitate the discharge of service members while Hegseth develops a corresponding policy.
“Everyone knows a change is coming. I’m not disputing that,” Lynch acknowledged.
Reyes is scheduled to hear additional arguments on Wednesday and again on March 3.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers assert that Trump’s order infringes on the rights of transgender individuals to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment, relegating them to “unequal and dispensable status, demeaning them in the eyes of their fellow service members and the public.”
“The ban represents an irrational and prejudicial assault on service members who have risked their lives to serve their country,” they claimed in a court filing.
Government attorneys contend that the plaintiffs are prematurely contesting an order that does not immediately require the discharge of transgender personnel. The Justice Department also argued 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 stated.
During Trump’s initial term, he issued a directive banning transgender service members, which the Supreme Court permitted to take effect. Biden reversed it upon taking office.
Thousands of transgender individuals serve in the military, but they constitute less than 1 percent of all active-duty members.
The plaintiffs include an Army Reserves platoon leader, an Army major honored with a Bronze Star for service in Afghanistan, and a Sailor of the Year recipient serving in the Navy. They are represented by attorneys from the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLAD Law.
