Transgender service members challenge President Trump’s military ban in federal court, sparking a heated debate on military readiness and equal rights.
At a Glance
- Six transgender active duty service members filed a lawsuit against President Trump’s Executive Order
- The order bans transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military
- Plaintiffs argue the ban violates equal protection and is based on animus against transgender individuals
- The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia
- The case examines military service eligibility rules and the balance between inclusivity and unit cohesion
Legal Challenge to Trump’s Executive Order
Six transgender active duty service members and two former service members have filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s Executive Order banning transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military. The legal challenge, lodged in Washington, D.C.’s federal court, argues that the ban constitutes discrimination based on sex and transgender identity, thereby violating the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
The Executive Order, titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” reinstates a previous policy from Trump’s first term and reverses a 2021 order by President Joe Biden that allowed transgender people to serve openly. The administration asserts that the order aims to protect military effectiveness and unit cohesion, restricting transition-related medical care and barring certain facility access based on actual sex at birth.
— Dr. Kiran J Patel (@kiranpatel1977) January 27, 2025
Plaintiffs’ Arguments and Military Service
The plaintiffs, who include decorated service members such as a Sailor of the Year honoree and a Bronze Star recipient, contend that the ban unnecessarily obstructs their service. They argue that being transgender does not affect their ability to serve effectively and that they have already met all military standards.
“There’s nothing about being transgender that makes me better or worse than any other soldier I serve alongside. We are all here because we are committed to our country, and we are passionate, willing, and able to serve effectively,” Army Capt. Gordon Herrero said.
The lawsuit highlights that the plaintiffs have demonstrated their capability and met military standards during their service. Transgender individuals have been serving openly for four years, which the plaintiffs argue demonstrates their ability to meet military requirements effectively.
Legal Basis and Implications
The legal team filing the lawsuit previously fought against Trump’s initial ban on transgender troops. They argue that the Executive Order violates equal protection and is based on animus against a specific group. The Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, strengthens the current challenge by recognizing discrimination based on transgender status as sex discrimination.
“The law is very clear that the government can’t base policies on disapproval of particular groups of people. That’s animus. And animus-based laws are presumed to be invalid and unconstitutional,” Shannon Minter, a legal expert, said.
The Pentagon has stated it will implement the Executive Order as directed, without commenting on the ongoing litigation. This legal dispute examines the military’s service eligibility rules, emphasizing the tension between fostering inclusivity and maintaining unit cohesion.
Broader Implications and Responses
The lawsuit has broader implications beyond military service. Trump also issued an Executive Order targeting “gender ideology,” recognizing only two sexes and affecting passport applications for sex-marker changes. This has sparked additional controversy and debate about transgender rights in various sectors of society.
“The pursuit of military excellence cannot be diluted to accommodate political agendas or other ideologies harmful to unit cohesion,” the administration stated.