Federal Judge Scrutinizes Trump-Era Transgender Military Ban, Cites Misleading Use of Data
A federal judge is weighing whether to halt the Trump administration’s restrictions on transgender service members, expressing deep skepticism towards the Defense Department’s justifications for the policy. During a nearly five-hour hearing, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes sharply criticized the administration’s lawyers for what she perceived as a misrepresentation of studies used to support the ban.
Reyes, a 2023 appointee by President Joe Biden, challenged the administration’s legal team directly, questioning the integrity of their approach to the data. "Do you agree that you can’t just pick and choose sentences from a study, right?" she asked, signaling her concern that the administration was cherry-picking information to fit a predetermined conclusion.
The judge’s scrutiny extended beyond individual sentences to the broader context of the studies cited by the Defense Department. Reyes accused the administration of wanting her to disregard the underlying motivations behind the misleading characterization of research. She pointedly asked why anyone would so misleadingly characterize a study other than to arrive at a preordained conclusion.
Previously, Reyes had voiced similar concerns regarding the lack of context surrounding the military’s figures on medical expenditures for transgender service members. When she questioned the validity of the data, the government’s attorney pushed back, accusing the judge of "second-guessing" the professional judgment of military leaders.
Reyes stood her ground, asserting that she had never encountered such "derogatory language towards a group of people in an executive order and a policy." She was specifically referring to the executive order signed by then-President Donald Trump, which stated that "adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle."
This executive order led to the implementation of policies barring transgender individuals from joining the military, halting funding for certain hormonal treatments and sex reassignment surgeries, and initiating the removal of transgender service members from the armed forces. While waivers are possible to remain in the military, they are limited to those who "has never attempted to transition to any sex other than their sex and who adheres to standards associated with their sex as defined by the administration."
The Justice Department has argued that courts should defer to the military’s expertise in assessing the cost-benefit analysis of allowing service members with gender dysphoria, the psychological distress experienced when a person’s assigned sex and gender identity do not align, to serve.
However, Judge Reyes remained unconvinced by the government’s arguments and the studies presented by the Pentagon. She specifically challenged the relevance of a 2021 study that found 40% of transgender service members were non-deployable at some point during a one-year period. Reyes pointed out that the study lacked a comparison to the deployment rate of all service members, rendering the 40% figure meaningless in isolation.
She further noted that the same report also concluded that transgender service members were deployed more often than cisgender service members diagnosed with depression. "This is your main support," she stated. "This is, in fact, the main piece of study that you all have to say that we’re concerned about non-deployability rates for transgender troops."
Jason Manion, a Justice Department attorney, defended the 40% figure as relevant and argued that Reyes should not second-guess the professional judgment of military leaders. Reyes countered by pointing out that the very same studies were used by the previous administration to justify making it easier for transgender individuals to serve in the military. She asked the government which set of military leaders she was supposed to defer to.
Manion argued that the current military leaders had the authority to make a "predictive judgment," emphasizing that under legal precedent, courts should defer to the military without reassessing the evidence.
The government has been unable to provide a specific estimate of the number of people who would be affected by the Trump policy. Instead, the Justice Department referenced a 2016 Rand Corporation estimate that suggested between 1,320 and 6,630 of the 1.3 million active-duty service members were transgender.
The lawsuit challenging the policy was brought by several individuals, including an Army major who received a Bronze Star for service in Afghanistan, an Army captain who had been invited to teach at West Point, and a petty officer whose double mastectomy was abruptly canceled shortly before the surgery was scheduled to begin.
The Pentagon initially began accepting transgender troops in June 2016. However, Trump banned transgender service members during his first term. Although judges initially blocked his order in four separate lawsuits, the Supreme Court eventually cleared the way for a revised policy in January 2019. This policy barred transgender individuals from enlisting, participating in Reserve Officers Training Corps, or attending military academies.
President Biden overturned Trump’s order during his first week in office. However, Trump reversed Biden’s order, effectively reinstating a ban on transgender service members, leading to the current lawsuit filed by a group of service members and recruits seeking to block Trump’s mandate. Judge Reyes is expected to make a decision on whether to put the policy on hold while it is being challenged by next week. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future of transgender service members in the United States military.
