In a heated Washington D.C. District Court hearing, Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, strongly questioned Department of Justice lawyer Jason Lynch, representing the Defense Department, regarding former President Trump's executive order banning transgender individuals from military service. Judge Reyes focused on the language used in the order, questioning whether characterizing transgender service members, some of whom have received medals for their bravery, as dishonest and immodest constitutes discriminatory animus.
The judge expressed outrage at the order, characterizing it as "unadulterated animus" against individuals who have served the country. Lynch argued the order wasn't a ban but a temporary pause while the Defense secretary aligns policy with the executive order. Judge Reyes pressed Lynch on whether Trump himself would consider it a ban, pointing to Trump’s past references to the order as a “transgender ban.”
The executive order, signed on January 27 by Trump, cited "radical gender ideology" as detrimental to military service and unit cohesion. It also stated that adopting a gender identity inconsistent with biological sex conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable lifestyle. Judge Reyes challenged this premise, questioning the government's stance on whether being transgender is an ideology or an immutable characteristic and asserting the existence of more than two genders, citing various intersex examples.
Following a recent tweet from the U.S. Army barring transgender individuals from joining and halting gender transition procedures for service members, Judge Reyes referenced a case where a transgender service member's surgery was interrupted mid-procedure due to the new policy. She also mentioned another instance where a service member was ordered to return to base mid-trip to obtain a medically necessary procedure, under threat of being considered AWOL.
Two LGBTQ legal organizations are representing six current transgender service members and two prospective enlistees in a lawsuit challenging the ban, which affects an estimated 9,000 to 14,000 individuals. One plaintiff, Army Reserve 2nd Lt. Nicolas Talbott, a 31-year-old transgender man, shared his experience of excelling in basic training and officer candidate school, emphasizing that his presence caused no disruption. Talbott’s lawyer, Shannon Minter, argued that the ban violates the equal protection clause, as transgender service members meet the same standards as others.
Minter refuted claims that surgeries and hormone treatments interfere with deployment cycles, stating that transgender individuals must have transitioned and been stable for 18 months before enlisting. He emphasized the short recovery times for surgeries and the minimal impact of hormone therapy on deployability. Talbott expressed his personal disappointment at the potential loss of his dream to serve as an Army officer and the broader impact on national security due to the loss of talented individuals.
A Gallup poll shows declining public support for transgender individuals in the military, with 58% in favor compared to higher percentages in previous years. Judge Reyes concluded the hearing by asking Lynch to imagine being in a foxhole with a decorated transgender service member, prompting Lynch to acknowledge that gender identity would likely be irrelevant in such a situation.
