On Tuesday, March 18, a federal judge blocked an executive order signed by US President Donald Trump banning trans people from military service.

Signed on January 27, Trump’s order mandated the Defense Department to update its requirements within 60 days, banning trans people from serving in the military. The President claimed the armed forces have been “afflicted with radical gender ideology to appease activists”.

US judge Ana Reyes, in Washington DC, ruled that Trump’s order is likely in violation of trans people’s constitutional rights. This preliminary injunction will prevent the ban from taking effect while the case proceeds in court.

The case was brought before the court by GLAD Law and the National Center for Lesbian Rights on behalf of 20 trans people who are serving or preparing to serve in the armed forces. The plaintiffs who sued include an Army major who was awarded a Bronze Star for service in Afghanistan, an Army Reserves platoon leader from Pennsylvania and a Sailor of the Year award winner serving in the Navy.

In the 79-page opinion, Judge Reyes stated that Trump’s trans military ban was not only unconstitutional but “a solution in search of a problem.”

“The cruel irony is that thousands of transgender servicemembers have sacrificed—some risking their lives—to ensure for others the very equal protection rights the military ban seeks to deny them,” Reyes wrote.

The judge stated that the administration’s justification for the ban relies on “overbroad generalizations” and “egregiously misquotes studies and ignores data supporting service by transgender persons.”

“Being kicked around like a football by whatever team has possession is the opposite of meaningful political power,” Reyes wrote, referring to how the ban was reinstated after being removed by the Biden administration.

Questioning the government’s claim that the ban was imposed due to cost savings, the judge referenced how the military spends nearly eight times more on Viagra than it does on trans healthcare. “For example, Viagra cost the DoD $41,000,000 in 2023 alone—nearly eight times what the DoD spends on transgender medical care each year,” she wrote.

“The same medications (hormone therapies) and surgeries (mastectomies, hysterectomies, genital reconstruction) that Defendants claim are too costly are provided to non-transgender service members,” Reyes added.

“But the Hegseth Policy does not ban those treatments. So why pay for hormone therapy for some servicemembers but not others? Because the Policy clearly targets transgender medical care costs.”

Comparing the ban to previous discriminatory policies, Reyes wrote that “the Military Ban, like past efforts to exclude marginalized groups, rests on irrational prejudice.”

Referencing the broader context of Trump’s anti-trans executive orders, Reyes wrote: “The flurry of government actions directed at transgender persons—denying them everything from necessary medical care to access to homeless shelters—must give pause to any court asked to consider whether one such order under review furthers a legitimate government interest free of animus.”

Speaking after the ruling, one of the active-duty service members named as plaintiffs, Nicolas Talbott, said he had been holding his breath as he waited for the decision. “This is such a sigh of relief,” he said. “This is all I’ve ever wanted to do. This is my dream job, and I finally have it. And I was so terrified that I was about to lose it.”