By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Private Policy and Terms of Use.
Judge Ana Reyes; Justice Department attorney Jason Manion
Judge Ana Reyes accused Department of Justice attorneys of being unprepared.
A federal judge sharply questioned the Trump administration’s justification for banning transgender Americans from military service during a heated, five-hour hearing in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, highlighting contradictions, gaps, and inadequate preparation in the government’s arguments.
Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate's email newsletter.
U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes, appointed by former President Joe Biden as the first LGBTQ+ judge on the D.C. District Court, pressed the Trump Justice Department attorney Jason Manion — a Federalist Society-affiliated lawyer and former special counsel to Republican Sen.Ted Cruz of Texas—on the administration’s claims that transgender service members pose medical or readiness risks. Manion stumbled through the entire hearing, appearing flatfooted, while plaintiffs’ attorneys, including GLAD Law’s Jennifer Levi and the National Center for Lesbian Rights’ Shannon Minter, spoke for less than five minutes in a session that began at 10:30 a.m. and concluded at 5 p.m.
Related:Pentagon’s so-called waiver for trans troops is a cruel hoax
Reyes, who pointed out that the government has admitted that it doesn’t even track service members by gender identity, accused the administration of “cherry-picking” and “egregiously misquoting” scientific evidence, noting the government’s fundamental misunderstanding of reports used to defend the policy. She criticized the administration’s data interpretation, pointing out that the government’s own studies revealed transgender service members have lower rates of disability incidents compared to cisgender counterparts serving with conditions like depression. Highlighting a critical contradiction, she pointed out how service members who require insulin or other hormone therapies deploy routinely, yet similar treatments for transgender personnel were inexplicably considered too complicated.
Related:BREAKING: Pentagon’s waiver for transgender troops forces them to deny their identities, court filing shows
When Manion admitted he hadn’t read the studies cited in the Pentagon’s memo, Reyes, eyebrows raised and grimacing, paused proceedings for a 30-minute recess, firmly instructing government attorneys, “Get out the studies. We’re going to go over them.”
Following the recess, Reyes methodically dissected the government’s justification. She spotlighted research indicating that transgender individuals receiving gender-affirming care experience “literally no regrets” and “very high levels of satisfaction.” The judge further dismissed the government’s assertion that transgender people could obtain waivers to continue serving, calling the waiver process practically impossible. “They are just living,” Reyes remarked, emphasizing that transgender people lead productive and happy lives yet are forced by the policy to deny their identities.
Reyes also challenged Manion on the Pentagon’s claims regarding transgender troops’ mental fitness and readiness. Reyes called out Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's public statements that labeled transgender troops as lacking "integrity," "humility," and a "warrior ethos." When Manion attempted to downplay these statements as mere "shorthand," Reyes sharply responded, "Do you think you can say one thing in public and another thing in court?" She then demanded Manion secure a written retraction from Hegseth clarifying his public statements by Monday.
Reyes also dismantled the administration's argument around suicide risks among transgender personnel. She clarified that transgender individuals are not inherently prone to higher suicide rates due to biology but rather due to societal discrimination and stigmatization. "The answer to suicide ideation caused by discrimination is not further discrimination," Reyes said.
Additionally, she questioned the government's rationale regarding medical costs, noting the military spends approximately $42 million annually on the erectile dysfunction medication Viagra but only $52 million on gender dysphoria treatments over a decade. "It's not even a rounding error, right?" Reyes asked pointedly.
The courtroom was filled with the 12 plaintiffs and roughly two dozen supporters, including plaintiffs’ spouses and LGBTQ+ community members, showing quiet solidarity during the intense exchanges.
Related:Trump administration says trans service members have until March 26 to quit Air Force
Among the plaintiffs was Clayton McCallister, a 24-year-old Air Force recruit from Knoxville, Tenn., who aspired to become a Pararescue operator in the U.S. Air Force — a highly demanding military role. After more than a year of intense training and successful enlistment in January, McCallister was abruptly informed in February that his March deployment was indefinitely delayed due to the executive order. This sudden reversal threw his family into uncertainty. McCallister had resigned from his civilian job, expecting to support his wife and their newly adopted daughter on his military salary.
After the hearing, McCallister said to The Advocate, “It’s important to me just to be here and to be a part of it. I’m standing here with a lot of people that have a lot more experience than I do, and I’m just grateful to the legal team and everyone that’s put their story out there to help the fight.” He described military service as his “dream” and emphasized, “I just want to go out there and serve my country and help other people and do something that’s something bigger than me.” McCallister added, “Anyone willing and able and capable of doing that should be allowed to.”
Related:Trump administration admits to judge it doesn’t know how many troops are trans—or why it’s banning them
Nick Talbott, a 31-year-old second lieutenant in the Army Reserve who traveled in from Ohio, shared similar frustrations. Talbott, the lead plaintiff, fought nearly a decade of shifting transgender policies before finally enlisting last March, graduating from Officer Candidate School with honors. Talbott told The Advocate he medically requires only a simple hormone injection every two weeks, which he has administered himself for over a decade. Talbot said that those of his fellow cisgender service members who know him support him. "They say they don't understand what all the controversy is about," he said.
After the hearing, Talbott shared that he was hopeful. “I never want to speculate on anything before we have an actual decision from the court, but I am remaining cautiously optimistic based on everything that I’ve heard today,” Talbott said. “I think that the judge is incredibly thorough in everything that she does, and I appreciate that level of detail she’s putting into this.” Reflecting on his lifelong aspiration to serve, Talbott explained, “I remember being a little kid playing army on the playground. I remember [the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks]. And then I remember going to college and specializing in global security and my professor telling me I have a real talent for the subject, and very strongly suggesting to me that the military would be the most appropriate place for me to explore that talent.”
Talbott continued, “I can’t even describe how much I enjoy my time in uniform, being around other military people. There’s just something about the culture, the day-to-day life, and every little thing about the military; it just feels at home for me.” He added, “If the court does issue an injunction, it’ll be a huge sigh of relief, but the fight will not be over.”
Reyes pressed government attorneys, including Manion, on identifying any other medical condition similarly targeted for broad military exclusion. She dismissed comparisons to soldiers who refused COVID-19 vaccinations, highlighting the fundamental difference in targeting a specific group versus a broadly applied health requirement.
Reyes also expressed skepticism about Hegseth’s expertise, pointing out he had been secretary of Defense for only about 30 days with limited military experience beyond an early deployment and subsequent television career on Fox News.
The plaintiffs argued that the Pentagon’s policy directly violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection rights, irreparably harming transgender troops, disrupting unit cohesion, and weakening military effectiveness. Levi, attorney for the plaintiffs, told Reyes the directives “question their integrity” and cause irreparable harm because “what service members rest upon is other people’s faith and confidence and belief in them.”
The Pentagon has announced that transgender service members have until March 26 to resign voluntarily. Reyes announced she would issue her ruling on the preliminary injunction by March 18 or 19.
