CITIZENS NEWS

Biden-appointed judge blocks Trump’s transgender military ban

By isabelle // 2025-03-19

• U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes temporarily blocked Trump’s ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, citing potential constitutional violations.
• The ruling challenges Trump’s executive order, which cited concerns over military readiness, medical costs, and morale.
• Critics argue the decision represents judicial overreach, encroaching on presidential authority as commander-in-chief.
• The injunction stems from a lawsuit filed by transgender service members and advocacy groups, claiming the ban violates equal protection rights.
• The legal battle highlights ongoing tensions between the judiciary and executive branch over military policy and social issues.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, has temporarily halted President Donald Trump’s executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military. The preliminary injunction, issued in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, blocks the Pentagon from enforcing the ban, which Trump signed on January 27, citing concerns over military readiness, medical costs, and morale. The ruling marks another instance of the judiciary challenging Trump administration policies, despite longstanding deference to the executive branch on military matters. Judge Reyes’ decision comes as part of a broader trend of federal judges intervening in Trump administration policies, particularly those related to social issues. In her 79-page ruling, Reyes argued that the ban likely violates the constitutional rights of transgender service members under the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection clause. She also invoked a quote from the musical Hamilton to underscore her point, writing, “Women were ‘included in the sequel’ when passage of the Nineteenth Amendment granted them the right to vote in 1920.” Critics, however, argue that Reyes’ ruling represents judicial overreach, encroaching on the President’s constitutional authority as commander-in-chief. “District court judges have now decided they are in command of the Armed Forces…is there no end to this madness?” wrote Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, on X.

Military readiness and morale at stake

Trump’s executive order emphasized that “expressing a false ‘gender identity’ divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.” The order cited concerns about the impact of hormone treatments, surgeries, and recovery periods on military readiness, as well as the potential for increased medical costs and disruptions to unit cohesion. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reinforced these concerns in a February policy, stating that individuals with gender dysphoria are “incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.” Supporters of the ban argue that the military’s primary mission is to defend the nation, not to serve as a platform for social experimentation, and accommodating transgender service members could divert resources and attention away from core military objectives.

A contentious legal battle

The injunction stems from a lawsuit filed by six active-duty transgender service members and two individuals seeking to enlist, represented by advocacy groups such as the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLAD Law. The plaintiffs argue that the ban stigmatizes transgender individuals and denies them equal protection under the law. Government lawyers, however, maintain that military officials have broad discretion to determine personnel policies without judicial interference. They point to a 2016 Department of Defense policy under President Obama that allowed transgender individuals to serve openly, which was later reversed during Trump’s presidency. The Supreme Court permitted the ban to take effect in 2019, but President Biden rescinded it upon taking office in 2021. Judge Reyes’ ruling highlights the ongoing tension between the judiciary and the executive branch, particularly in matters of military policy. While she acknowledged the importance of checks and balances, her decision undermines the President’s constitutional authority and sets a dangerous precedent for judicial activism. As the legal battle continues, the debate over transgender military service remains deeply polarizing. For now, the injunction allows transgender individuals to continue serving, but the broader questions about military readiness, executive authority, and the role of the judiciary remain unresolved. Sources for this article include: TheNationalPulse.com FoxNews.com ZeroHedge.com

military Trump conspiracy transgender big government Gender identity deep state lawsuit bias biased coup resist identity politics traitors outrage left cult gender wars acivist judges