Federal judge blocks Trump's transgender military ban

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has blocked the Trump administration’s ban on transgender military service members, issuing a preliminary injunction Tuesday that halts the policy from taking effect.

Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate's email newsletter.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes ruled Tuesday in Talbott v. Trump that the administration’s policy likely violates the constitutional rights of transgender service members, finding that the government failed to provide evidence that banning them serves a legitimate military purpose. In fact, she said, the policy was "soaked in animus and dripping with pretext.”

Related: Federal judge dismantles Trump's trans military ban in explosive hearing

“The ban at bottom invokes derogatory language to target a vulnerable group in violation of the Fifth Amendment,” she wrote.

The case was brought by GLAD Law and the National Center for Lesbian Rights on behalf of 20 transgender people who are serving or who were preparing to serve in the armed services. The decision marks a significant setback for the Trump administration’s efforts to remove transgender troops from service.

Reyes concluded that the administration’s policy, implemented through Executive Order 14183, likely violates constitutional protections and ordered the Department of Defense to maintain the preexisting policies that allowed transgender individuals to serve openly.

In a 79-page opinion, Reyes said it was not only unconstitutional but “a solution in search of a problem.”

Reyes dismantled the administration’s justification for the ban, which she said relied on “overbroad generalizations” and “egregiously misquotes studies and ignores data supporting service by transgender persons.” The judge further noted that the policy was based on “derogatory generalizations” about transgender troops, branding them as “weak, dishonorable, undisciplined, boastful, selfish liars who are mentally and physically unfit to serve.”

Related: Pentagon says it will start kicking transgender people out of military this month

“Being kicked around like a football by whatever team has possession is the opposite of meaningful political power,” Reyes wrote, pointing to the shifting policies between administrations that have repeatedly upended the lives and careers of transgender service members.

The Trump administration had argued that the ban was necessary for “military readiness, unit cohesion, and cost reduction.” Reyes rejected that argument outright, writing that “not one of these supports a finding that the discriminatory means employed (banning transgender persons from serving) are substantially related to the achievement of the Ban’s objectives.”

She also questioned the government’s claim that the ban was about cost savings, noting that the military spends nearly eight times more on Viagra than it does on transgender health care.

“For example, Viagra cost the DoD $41,000,000 in 2023 alone—nearly eight times what the DoD spends on transgender medical care each year,” she wrote.

Related: Trump administration admits to judge it doesn’t know how many troops are trans—or why it’s banning them

“The same medications (hormone therapies) and surgeries (mastectomies, hysterectomies, genital reconstruction) that Defendants claim are too costly are provided to non-transgender service members," Reyes wrote. "But the Hegseth Policy does not ban those treatments. So why pay for hormone therapy for some servicemembers but not others? Because the Policy clearly targets transgender medical care costs. It rests on irrational prejudice.”

In her ruling, Reyes also compared the ban to previous discriminatory policies struck down by the courts, noting that “the Military Ban, like past efforts to exclude marginalized groups, rests on irrational prejudice.”

Reyes emphasized that the Constitution does not allow the government to legislate away a group’s fundamental rights based on hostility toward them. “When ‘sincere, personal opposition [to a group of people] becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied,’” she wrote, citing Obergefell v. Hodges.

Reyes did not ignore the broader context of Trump’s sweeping anti-transgender policies. She noted that the administration’s ban on transgender troops was one piece of a larger effort to erase transgender people from public life.

“The flurry of government actions directed at transgender persons—denying them everything from necessary medical care to access to homeless shelters—must give pause to any court asked to consider whether one such order under review furthers a legitimate government interest free of animus"

Related: Pentagon’s so-called waiver for trans troops is a cruel hoax

She concluded her opinion by invoking a famous quote about military service: “This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.” Reyes added, "The Court extends its appreciation to every current servicemember and veteran. Thank you."

The injunction prevents the ban from taking effect while the case proceeds.

The court’s order stops Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other top military officials from enforcing the ban, which sought to expel transgender service members and bar new recruits. Reyes directed the Pentagon to notify all military branches of the ruling by March 21 at 5 p.m. and file confirmation with the court by 6 p.m. that same day. The ruling maintains policies that existed before Trump’s order, including Department of Defense instructions permitting transgender service and medical access.

The injunction follows a tense five-hour hearing last week in which Reyes repeatedly grilled Justice Department attorney Jason Manion over the administration’s claims. On Wednesday, Manion, appearing unprepared, struggled to respond as Reyes accused the administration of “cherry-picking” studies and misrepresenting data to justify the ban. The judge also highlighted contradictions in the Pentagon’s rationale, including its assertion that gender-affirming medical care is too complex for deployment while other ongoing medical treatments, such as insulin use, are routinely accommodated.

Reyes gave the government’s team until Monday to file any additional declarations, particularly from Hegseth, regarding the scope of the military’s ban on transgender service members. She had questioned whether Hegseth had animus toward the trans community when he amplified a tweet about the ban. The DOJ argued that he didn’t mean what he said and that he was using “shorthand.” Reyes told Manion he should get Hegseth to swear to that in court documents.

On Monday, the government notified the court that it would not submit any additional declarations to justify the ban, opting instead to stand by its previous opposition brief. The government argued that the policy targets the medical condition of gender dysphoria rather than transgender identity, but Reyes previously called that distinction meaningless given the ban’s sweeping impact. The Pentagon had given transgender people in the military until March 26 to voluntarily quit or be involuntarily removed after March 28.

Lead attorneys in the case, GLAD Law senior director of transgender and queer rights Jennifer Levi and NCLR legal director Shannon Minter, welcomed the ruling as a crucial victory for transgender servicemembers.

“Today's decisive ruling speaks volumes,” Levi said in a statement. “The Court's unambiguous factual findings lay bare how this ban specifically targets and undermines our courageous service members who have committed themselves to defending our nation. Given the Court's clear-eyed assessment, we are confident this ruling will stand strong on appeal.”

Minter emphasized the urgency of the court’s action.

“The court acted quickly today to shield our troops from the harmful effects of this irrational ban. It would have ended careers of dedicated transgender servicemembers and created personnel gaps, leaving others to fill critical roles. The ban's harmful impact and rushed implementation show that it was motivated by prejudice,” he said. “Our plaintiffs include lifelong military personnel who served in combat in Afghanistan, come from multi-generation military families, and have received honors like the Bronze Star. This ban is unjustifiable and attacks brave servicemembers, recruits, and families who sacrifice so much for our country.”

Levi and Minter, both transgender themselves, have spent more than three decades litigating landmark LGBTQ+ cases. They led the legal fight in 2017 against the previous transgender military ban in Doe v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump, securing a nationwide preliminary injunction that blocked that ban as well.

"The President has the power—indeed the obligation—to ensure military readiness. At times, however, leaders have used concern for military readiness to deny marginalized persons the privilege of serving," Minter told The Advocate. “[Fill in the blank] is not fully capable and will hinder combat effectiveness; [fill in the blank] will disrupt unit cohesion and so diminish military effectiveness; allowing [fill in the blank] to serve will undermine training, make it impossible to recruit successfully, and disrupt military order. First, minorities, then women in combat, then gays filled in that blank. Today, however, our military is stronger and our Nation is safer for the millions of such blanks (and all other persons) who serve."

The order is set to take effect at 10:01 a.m. on March 21 unless a higher court intervenes. The Justice Department is expected to appeal.

Editor's note: This story is developing and has been updated with additional reporting.