DC federal judge probes DOJ for answers on Trump trans military ban in wild hearing
A federal judge in D.C. has continued to question the Justice Department lawyers regarding the Trump administration’s attempt to restrict or ban transgender U.S. service members in the military. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, appointed by President Biden, probed the lawyers with hypothetical scenarios and references to video games during the second day of oral arguments.
The focus of the questioning was on a Jan. 27 executive order signed by President Trump, which instructed the Defense Department to update its guidance on “trans-identifying medical standards for military service” and to “rescind guidance inconsistent with military readiness.” However, the executive order lacked clarity on how the Pentagon should implement the ban on what Trump referred to as “radical gender ideology.”
Judge Reyes peppered the Justice Department lawyers with questions about the discriminatory nature of the administration’s recent actions against transgender individuals. She even posed a hypothetical question about what Jesus would think of revoking transgender persons’ access to homeless shelters, to which the lawyers had no response.
The back-and-forth between the judge and the lawyers highlighted the lack of concrete details in the executive order and the government’s inability to provide clear answers to the court’s inquiries. The Justice Department described the order as a “pause” rather than a ban, allowing the Defense Department time to align its policies with Trump’s directive.
Despite the administration’s assertion that the order is not discriminatory, Judge Reyes expressed her displeasure with what she called “unadulterated animus” towards transgender service members. She questioned how the executive order would enhance national security and military readiness, given its vague directives.
In a sarcastic tone, Judge Reyes raised a hypothetical scenario where she, as Secretary of Defense, mandated Miss Pac-Man machines in every military unit as a way to let off steam. She questioned whether such a policy would align with the 30-day timeline set by the executive order, highlighting the absurdity of the lack of specificity in the directive.
The court has scheduled a hearing on March 3 to consider the implications of the executive order on transgender service members. Judge Reyes has made it clear that she will not rule on the matter until the Trump administration provides more detailed information on how the policy will be implemented and its potential impact on service members.
Overall, the second day of oral arguments underscored the confusion and ambiguity surrounding the administration’s attempt to restrict transgender individuals from serving in the military. Judge Reyes’s probing questions and skepticism towards the executive order reflect the need for clarity and transparency in policies affecting transgender service members.
