In a striking blow to progressive challenges, a D.C. Circuit panel has upheld Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s controversial military transgender ban, the Hill reported.
A 2-1 ruling on Tuesday dissolved an administrative stay, clearing the path for Hegseth’s policy to exclude servicemembers whose gender identity differs from their birth-assigned sex, following years of legal battles and a Supreme Court nod in May.
The saga began with the Trump administration’s executive order, directing military leaders to restrict transgender individuals from service, citing readiness and deployability concerns.
This policy faced immediate pushback, with District Court Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, slapping an injunction on it in March, arguing against its fairness.
However, the D.C. Circuit panel countered that the lower court failed to grant Hegseth the deference owed to military judgments, a stance bolstered by prior Supreme Court approval.
Government attorneys defending Hegseth pointed to the Mattis Policy, crafted under former Defense Secretary James Mattis, which prioritized a lethal, ready force through phased restrictions on transgender troops.
Adding weight to the argument, the Trump administration leaned on a 2021 study estimating that up to 40 percent of those diagnosed with gender dysphoria could be non-deployable due to mental health challenges within two years of diagnosis.
A 2025 literature review further noted that transgender individuals face significantly higher rates of psychiatric diagnoses, including mood and anxiety disorders, with suicide attempt rates far exceeding those of others.
While these stats are sobering, one wonders if they’re being wielded more as a shield than a sword—does readiness truly hinge on exclusion, or is this a cultural skirmish dressed in data?
In the majority opinion, Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao defended the policy, stating, “The Hegseth Policy likely does not violate equal protection.”
They added, “We doubt that the policy triggers any form of heightened scrutiny,” arguing that judicial restraint is paramount when military decisions are at stake, especially with Supreme Court precedent on their side.
Contrast that with the dissent from Judge Cornelia Pillard, who lamented, “The majority’s decision makes it all but inevitable that thousands of qualified servicemembers will lose careers they have built over decades.”
Pillard didn’t hold back, charging that the policy repays dedicated service with “detriment and derision,” a poignant jab at what she sees as a cold, calculated dismissal of loyalty.
Her words sting with truth for many, yet the counterargument remains: can the military afford to prioritize individual feelings over collective readiness, especially when data suggests real operational risks?
Ultimately, this ruling isn’t just a legal win for Hegseth; it’s a signal that the judiciary may continue to defer to military expertise over progressive ideals, leaving transgender servicemembers in a precarious spot as the policy takes hold.
