Common sense just scored a win in D.C. as a federal appeals court cleared the path for the Trump administration to enforce a policy discharging transgender service members.
A three-judge panel from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision on Tuesday, granted a stay that reinstates War Secretary Pete Hegseth’s policy, Newsmax reported. This move overturns a lower court’s block on the policy while the case awaits full appellate argument next month.
The majority opinion, penned by Trump-appointed Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, argued that the district court judge failed to respect military expertise. They asserted that Pentagon data on readiness and costs justified the policy’s potential to withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Back in January, President Trump issued an executive order framing gender dysphoria as a barrier to military standards of readiness and cohesion. The order, which led to Hegseth’s policy in February, bars those with a history or symptoms of gender dysphoria from serving, with narrow exceptions.
The Pentagon’s stance leans on studies like a 2021 Defense Department report showing high nondeployability rates among transgender personnel. Additional data cited by the court pointed to elevated psychiatric risks and over $52 million in related care costs over nearly a decade.
Judges Katsas and Rao emphasized that military decisions on medical standards deserve substantial deference. They tied the policy to legitimate government goals, dismissing claims of bias despite sharp language in Trump’s order.
Judge Nina Pillard, dissenting, challenged the policy as a blanket exclusion lacking evidence of actual harm to military effectiveness. She flagged a directive forcing transgender troops into separation hearings under biological sex standards as particularly punitive.
The human toll of this ruling weighs heavily on active-duty members facing discharge. Legal groups like GLAD Law and the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, representing six service members, vow to fight on.
Shannon Minter of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights told Newsmax, “This stay declined to halt the unjust discharge process now threatening thousands of transgender service members.” His words paint a grim picture, but the data-driven rationale from the Pentagon holds firm against emotional appeals.
Let’s cut through the fog: the Pentagon claims this is about deployability and fiscal responsibility, not personal vendettas. Yet, forcing troops to conform to outdated uniform rules at hearings smells like a jab at identity rather than a focus on capability.
The majority’s nod to Supreme Court precedents suggests a steep climb for opponents when the full D.C. Circuit hears arguments on Jan. 22. Their reliance on cold, hard stats over accusations of animus signals where judicial priorities lie.
A War Department spokesperson declined to comment on ongoing litigation to Newsmax. That silence leaves the public parsing through legal briefs and executive orders for clarity on what’s next.
This ruling lands as a gut check for those who value both military strength and individual dignity. It’s tough to argue against readiness metrics, but the personal cost to loyal service members can’t be ignored.
Minter added to Newsmax that the full court still has a shot to “protect our troops and their families by upholding Judge Reyes’ decision.” His hope clashes with a judicial trend favoring deference to military judgment over progressive social policies.
As this legal battle unfolds, thousands of transgender troops remain in limbo, their service hanging on the thread of appellate outcomes. The nation watches, weighing the price of uniformity against the principle of equal sacrifice.