During a nearly two-hour-long hearing at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Washington, D.C., on Friday, Judge Ana Reyes expressed frustration with the Trump administration’s efforts to dissolve a block on its transgendermilitary ban, calling into question the government’s failure to provide clear answers or evidence supporting its motion. She later reinstated a stay she had previously put in place to allow for time to complete the court record.
Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate's email newsletter.
The hearing came after the administration filed an emergency request Friday to dissolve the preliminary injunction blocking the ban, set to take effect at 10 a.m. that day. The Department of Defense issued new guidance on Friday morning, with Justice Department lawyers arguing that it nullifies the need for the court’s preliminary injunction in the challenge to Executive Order 14183. The guidance claimed to clarify that the policy targets those with clinically diagnosed gender dysphoria, not all transgender people, but the distinction is largely irrelevant. Most transgender people experience gender dysphoria until they receive gender-affirming care, which alleviates the distress caused by the condition. Lin argued the government wasn't banning "trans people, per se."
Related: Federal judge dismantles Trump's trans military ban in explosive hearing
“You’re still excluding people who identify as transgender by focusing on those with gender dysphoria,” Reyes said. “The policy’s impact is the same. This is still a ban on transgender service members.”
The judge sounded frustrated throughout the hearing as Department of Justice special litigation counsel Jean Lin struggled to provide direct answers. At one point, Reyes asked Lin to identify who had been involved in the policy decision-making process. Lin’s response was vague, prompting Reyes to press for clarity. “You can’t even tell me who made this decision?” she asked. “I want to know who was part of this.” Lin couldn’t say whether Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had even seen the policy.
Reyes called out the DOJ for insisting that the Pentagon ban wasn’t about transgender people when Hegseth explicitly indicated on X (formerly Twitter) that it was. Justice Department lawyers had argued that he was just using "shorthand."
She also accused the Justice Department of attempting to “gaslight” her.
“I am not going to abide by government officials saying one thing to the public — what they really mean to the public — and coming in here to the court and telling me something different, like I’m an idiot,” she said.
Reyes grew exasperated with the government’s inability to provide evidence for its assertions. When Lin claimed the Department of Defense had considered the impact of gender dysphoria on military readiness, Reyes pointed out that the DoD had no data on how many service members were affected. “Right now, you don’t know how many gender people with gender dysphoria are in the military, right?” Reyes asked. Lin admitted that nobody knows.
Despite the government’s inability to provide supporting data, Lin insisted that the policy was necessary to address concerns about unit cohesion and military readiness. Reyes, however, pointed out the contradiction in the government’s position. “You don’t have any evidence that people with gender dysphoria are inherently unfit to serve, right?” she said. “You have not been able to point to me any other medical classification that the military uses that impacts one class of people, right?
Related: Trump administration admits to judge it doesn’t know how many troops are trans—or why it’s banning them
At one point, Reyes demanded that any transgender service members on administrative leave be returned to regular duty immediately. “I’m not extending the stay,” she declared.
The government’s efforts to move forward with the March 26 deadline for voluntary separations and March 28 for involuntary separations also came under scrutiny. Reyes asked if the Trump administration lawyer if the government would agree to extend those dates to allow for a resolution to be reached, but Lin responded that such an extension was unlikely. Reyes grew frustrated, questioning why the government could not delay the deadlines. "Why is that highly unlikely right now it’s extended?” she asked. “Why is it a burden on you all to extend it a few more days?"
The hearing ended with Reyes ordering the lawyers to come up with a solution and timeline. “You all defendants are the ones putting a time pressure on the DC circuit. Not me and not Ms. Levi,” Reyes said, emphasizing that she wanted to avoid creating a rushed situation for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The plaintiffs’ legal team, including Jennifer Levi from GLAD Law, expressed a willingness to work toward a fair resolution, stressing the importance of an orderly process. “We are open to working out a reasonable solution that minimizes the burden on the court and the appeals process,” Levi said.
Reyes gave the parties until 3 p.m. Friday to finalize the next steps, promising a written ruling to follow.
Ultimately, Reyes issued a minute order reinstating the stay on the injunction. She ordered the Justice Department to file any guidance concerning the March 26 separation date by 6:30 p.m. EDT on Friday to the public docket. Reyes also gave plaintiffs until 10 a.m. EDT on Tuesday to file their opposition to the government’s motion. She specified that if any transgender service member is negatively affected before the stay is lifted, that individual could file a temporary restraining order, which she would consider expeditiously.
Editor's note: This story has been updated with additional reporting.
