Judge Makes Decision on Lifting Injunction Banning Transgenders From the Military

A federal judge has once again blocked efforts to restrict transgender enlistment in the military, despite updated guidance and a pending appeal from the Trump administration. The case now heads to a higher court as questions about judicial overreach grow louder.

Key Facts:

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes denied the Trump administration’s motion to enforce a ban on transgender enlistment.
The policy, aimed at restricting individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria, was set to take effect on March 26.
Reyes is a Biden appointee based in Washington, D.C., and issued the decision on March 21.
The Department of Justice has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The administration argued the policy targets a medical condition, not transgender individuals as a class.

The Rest of The Story:

Judge Ana Reyes refused to lift an injunction that blocks the Department of Defense from denying enlistment to transgender individuals.

The Trump administration had introduced new policy guidance on March 21, clarifying the ban applies to individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria—a condition recognized in medical literature.

The government argued the rule was based on medical readiness and deployability concerns, likening the restriction to those placed on individuals with bipolar disorder or eating disorders.

Reyes, however, rejected that reasoning, claiming the policy unfairly targets transgender people since only they can be diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

Though acknowledging the new guidance, Reyes maintained her original stance, stating the defense presented no fundamentally new arguments.

She extended the injunction and welcomed the administration’s appeal, claiming public debate over the matter was healthy and even patriotic.

Washington DC based Federal judge, Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, has just denied President Trumps efforts to ban transgender people from joining the military, which the Dept of Defense was set to enforce on Friday.

Trumps DOJ says her military ban is misconduct.

How can these… pic.twitter.com/WC6plWvgVr

— 🇺🇸ProudArmyBrat (@leslibless) March 27, 2025

Commentary:

This ruling is a clear overstep by an unelected federal judge who is inserting personal ideology into military readiness decisions.

Judge Reyes, appointed by President Biden, has no business overriding the judgment of military leaders or the executive branch.

The Department of Defense has a duty to ensure our armed forces are fully capable, ready to deploy, and not burdened by medical conditions that compromise performance.

Gender dysphoria, like any serious medical issue, must be evaluated from a readiness standpoint—not as a political talking point.

It’s absurd to suggest that regulating enlistment standards based on medical diagnoses equates to discrimination.

Our military excludes people for a wide range of physical and mental health conditions.

This is not new.

The only difference here is that the topic touches a politically charged identity group.

Judge Reyes’s logic—that because only transgender people can have gender dysphoria, the policy must be discriminatory—would unravel much of our military’s health-based screening.

It’s a dangerous precedent that favors feelings over facts.

Congress must step in and stop this judicial activism.

Federal judges should not be allowed to issue sweeping injunctions that override national security decisions.

District courts were never meant to function as policy-making bodies for the armed forces.

This decision undermines military leadership and opens the door for courts to dictate troop readiness policies.

It’s yet another reason why judicial restraint must be restored through legislative action.

Strip district courts of the power to issue nationwide injunctions before more damage is done.

The Bottom Line:

A single federal judge has once again blocked a Trump-era military policy based on medical standards, citing concerns over discrimination.

The administration is appealing, but this case reflects a broader problem—federal courts inserting themselves into military command decisions.

The armed forces must be allowed to set standards that protect readiness and effectiveness.

Congress needs to act quickly to prevent further judicial interference in national defense policy.