A federal judge is considering whether to strike down President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender service members in the U.S. military as defense officials begin removing trans troops from all branches.
District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C. is considering a motion for a preliminary injunction from 20 plaintiffs, including decorated U.S. military service members from across the branches, to block the Trump administration’s executive order effectively banning transgender service members from serving and additional policy guidance from taking effect.
In a disjointed five-hour hearing Wednesday that included a 30-minute break for government lawyers to get up to speed on relevant materials cited in a recent Department of Defense memo, the judge questioned the scope of the federal guidance, scrutinized the data it cited in its orders, and scolded the Justice Department attorneys’ lack of preparedness.
“Standing here today, you do not understand the scope of the ban,” Reyes told them. ’You don’t understand the scope of the symptoms of gender dysphoria … You don’t know the answer to what ‘attempted to transition’ means.”
The hearing revolved around the language of two documents, one of which was a Pentagon memo issued last month that states that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”
At one point, Jason Manion, a lawyer for the government, tried clarifying the scope, saying this policy does not include all transgender people.
But the judge then cited a Defense Department post on X from February 27: “Transgender troops are disqualified from service without an exemption.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also shared the post from his official account.
“Do you think you can say one thing in public … and say another thing in court? This wasn’t some off-the-cuff remark at a cocktail party,” Reyes said.
The judge asked if he was using “loose language” but Manion argued Hegseth was using “shorthand.”
“I’m not going to speculate that he was just being sloppy when he said that. I’m going to take him at his word,” the judge said.
Reyes then asked government attorneys about the literature review and studies cited in the February 26 Pentagon memo. The government lawyer said he hadn’t read these materials. No one on the government’s legal team was prepared to answer questions about the relevant studies, Justice Department attorney Jason Lynch confessed. On February 19, Reyes warned Lynch that the studies were going to be important in her analysis, she said.
She then gave a 30-minute break for government lawyers to review the report and literature review.
Reyes also suggested officials “cherrypicked” parts of a study cited in Hegseth’s memo and “ignored” the context, noting that the memo didn’t compare non-transgender service members.“We can’t say anything about whether this data is meaningful without any point of comparison,” the judge said, calling the data used in the memo “meaningless.”
“I wouldn’t say it’s meaningless, it’s some data,” the government attorney argued.
The study showed a group of trans people were deployed longer than a comparison group of non-transgender service members who were diagnosed with depression, the judge said.
“This will tell us that [trans service members] are actually better suited to stay in service,” Reyes said. Those with gender dysphoria suffer more suicidal ideation not for biological reasons, but because they face more stigma and discrimination, the judge later said, pointing to findings from a 2025 literature review.
The government also appeared to undermine its own argument that trans service members disrupt unit cohesion. The plaintiffs cited former military officials who said they had not seen any such examples. Lead plaintiff Nicholas Talbott, “like every other service member, has been deemed physically and mentally fit for duty, has no accommodation, has had no issues with deployability, and has more service awards than you and I have books in our library,” Reyes said.
She pressed government attorneys whether she should defer to Hegseth, who, at the time he issued Trump’s anti-trans policy, “had been the Secretary of Defense for about 30 days and had no prior military history other than, I think, he had an early deployment before his television career?”
Each of the plaintiffs’ service records are “remarkable,” the judge said. “You’re going to get rid of all these very qualified people who the military has spent millions of dollars into training specialized jobs for no other reason than they have had gender dysphoria or they transition,” she said.
Tuesday’s hearing follows a series of memos that outline a categorical ban on trans people serving in any capacity following Trump’s executive order commanding the Pentagon to remove them and prevent trans recruits from joining.
Jennifer Levi, an attorney for the plaintiffs, explained they were asking for an injunction because these directives “question their integrity.” Levi added: “What service members rest upon is other people’s faith and confidence and belief in them, and that to continue to serve under an order that deems them unfit for service because of who they are and irreparably harms them in multiple ways.”
Tuesday’s hearing follows a series of memos — as well as internal Defense Department guidance and public relations talking points revealed in court documents — that outline a categorical ban on trans people serving in any capacity following Trump’s executive order commanding the Pentagon to remove them and prevent trans recruits from joining.
Trump’s order — one of several that explicitly removes federal recognition of trans people — claims that the “adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.”
“A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member,” the order states.
That language came under fire during a two-day hearing last month, when Reyes grilled government lawyers over the “demeaning” language in Trump’s order that suggests trans people are incapable of service. During the hearing’s second day, she suggested that, taken together, Trump’s executive orders against trans people “scream animus,” or motivated by prejudice.
