A federal judge blocked President Donald Trump from banning transgender people from the armed forces while a lawsuit proceeds, comparing his directive to past discriminatory bans on other minority groups.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes spares thousands of service members from facing imminent dismissal. It’s also the latest legal setback for a slew of Trump executive orders, which seek to unilaterally reshape the government, cut federal spending and curb immigration at breakneck speed. Judges have repeatedly held that the plaintiffs are likely to win on claims that Trump’s actions have violated federal law or infringed on Congress’ power.

Reyes issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday in Washington barring enforcement of Trump’s ban on trans troops until the case is resolved, undercutting a Pentagon plan to begin discharging transgender service members later this month. The military had already begun voluntary removals with a financial incentive.

“The President has the power — indeed the obligation — to ensure military readiness,” the judge wrote. “At times, however, leaders have used concern for military readiness to deny marginalized persons the privilege of serving.” She added that her injunction was necessary “to uphold the equal protection rights that the military defends every day.”

‘Irreparable harm’

The judge said her long-term court order was warranted because the government failed to demonstrate that it will be harmed by the status quo during litigation, while the plaintiffs showed evidence they’d suffer “irreparable harm” without an injunction.

“Indeed, the cruel irony is that thousands of transgender service members have sacrificed — some risking their lives — to ensure for others the very equal protection rights the Military Ban seeks to deny them,” Reyes said.

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit, one of about 150 filed in response to executive orders Trump signed since taking office, has already led to a clash between the Justice Department and Reyes. Last month, Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff sent a letter to the chief judge of the US Court of Appeals for DC Circuit to complain about the Reyes’ conduct, accusing her of bias during court hearings.

The suit was filed by almost two dozen active duty transgender service members and trans individuals who are seeking to enlist. They argued the court needed to intervene because the military was already beginning to discharge trans service members who refuse to agree to ultimatums stemming from the ban.

The executive order signed by Trump on Jan. 27 is part of his broader effort to scrap legal protections granted in recent years to trans Americans, including active duty, access to bathrooms and sports teams. Transgender minors and advocacy groups have sued Trump to invalidate his broad ban on gender-affirming care for people under 19.

Earlier administrations removed barriers to service by transgender troops after determining that they could serve effectively and without undermining military readiness.

Trump’s order calls into question those earlier findings, suggesting they were part of an effort to assert “radical gender ideology.” The order says that maintaining “high standards for troop readiness” is inconsistent with the “medical, surgical and mental constraints” on people with gender dysphoria, a condition that trans people are often diagnosed with.

“Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, 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,” Trump’s order said.

‘Military judgment’

The Justice Department said in a filing earlier this month that judiciary rules call for judges to be “highly deferential” to military decision-making. The government said the situation isn’t any different from the military’s practice of rejecting service by individuals with mental health conditions.

“In any context other than the one at issue in this case, DoD’s professional military judgment about the risks of allowing individuals with physical or emotional impairments to serve in the military would be virtually unquestionable,” the U.S. said.

However, the judge wrote that U.S. leaders for years had argued that “(Fill in the blank) is not fully capable and will hinder combat effectiveness; (fill in the blank) will disrupt unit cohesion and so diminish military effectiveness allowing (fill in the blank) to serve will undermine training, make it impossible to recruit successfully, and disrupt military order.”

“First minorities, then women in combat, then gays filled in that blank,” she said. “Today, however, our military is stronger and our Nation is safer for the millions of such blanks (and all other persons) who serve.”

In arguing for the court to intervene quickly, the plaintiffs earlier cited the experiences of a transgender female trainee named Miriam Perelson, who was stationed at a base in South Carolina. According to the filing, Perelson was told that she would be “administratively separated” after she rejected an ultimatum “that she must be classified and treated as a man,” meaning she’d bunk with men and use male latrines.

The case is Talbott v. Trump, 25-cv-240, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington).

_____

©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.