Trump administration tells federal judge to ignore Pete Hegseth’s anti-trans posts

The Trump administration wants a federal judge to disregard social media statements by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon when determining whether its transgender military ban is constitutional. At the same time, President Donald Trump’s media company sells faster access to his social media posts for as much as $100,000 a month.

The argument appears in a four-page Justice Department filing submitted Tuesday in Talbott v. United States, the federal lawsuit challenging the administration’s efforts to remove transgender people from military service.

Government attorneys notified U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia Ana Reyes that they intend to seek summary judgment on all five claims, arguing the court should rule for the administration without a trial. They also challenged Reyes’ previous consideration of statements made by government officials outside the written policy.

Related: ‘High T’ Pete Hegseth hurls anti-trans slur at Iowa State Fair campaign stop while Iran war rages on

“The Supreme Court has held that courts should not look outside the operative terms of a policy—as this Court did with respect to certain social media posts—in assessing the basis on which a policy classifies,” the Justice Department wrote.

The government cited the Supreme Court’s June 30 decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J., involving transgender participation in school sports, to support its position.

But the social media statements at issue were not casual political commentary. They came from officials responsible for implementing the policy, and Hegseth repeatedly described the administration’s effort as an exclusion of transgender people, rather than a restriction based solely on medical conditions.

On February 27, 2025, the Pentagon’s official X account announced, “Transgender service members are disqualified from service without an exemption.” Hegseth reposted the statement through his official account.

In her March ruling temporarily blocking the ban, Reyes rejected the government’s explanation that Hegseth had used “transgender” merely as shorthand for people diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

Related: Hegseth attacks transgender service members in speech: 'No more dudes in dresses. We're done with that s**t'

“Seriously?” Reyes wrote, emphasizing that these were official government accounts announcing military policy.

Hegseth’s subsequent statements were even more explicit.

On April 20, Hegseth wrote on X, “Your agenda is illegals, trans & DEI — all of which are no longer allowed @ DoD.”

Four days later, he attacked Reyes, calling her “a rogue judge” and declaring there were “Zero readiness reasons for trans troops.”

Following a Supreme Court order allowing enforcement of the ban while litigation continued, Hegseth posted on May 8, “After a SCOTUS victory for @POTUS, TRANS is out at the DOD.”

His rhetoric extended beyond social media. During a May 6 speech at Special Operations Forces Week, Hegseth declared, “No more dudes in dresses, we’re done with that shit.”

Those statements were subsequently cited in federal court proceedings as evidence that the policy targeted transgender people as a group. In her March ruling, issued before Hegseth’s later posts, Reyes had already described the policy as “soaked in animus and dripping with pretext.”

Now the Justice Department argues that courts should evaluate whom a policy classifies based on its operative language rather than officials’ public statements.

The administration maintains that the restrictions concern gender dysphoria and related medical interventions, not transgender identity. Its Tuesday filing again cites military readiness, worldwide deployability, unit cohesion, discipline, and costs as justifications.

Related: Judge in trans military ban case demands Pentagon explain Hegseth’s testosterone double standard

The military is already pushing plaintiffs out

As The Advocate reported last week, Army Reserve 2nd Lt. Nicolas Talbott, the lead plaintiff, drove nearly two hours to his Ohio unit to receive paperwork initiating his involuntary separation.

A fellow lieutenant and close friend handed him the documents while his battalion commander participated by video.

“It’s like I’ve been teetering on the edge of a cliff for a while now, and finally somebody came along and pushed me over the edge,” Talbott told The Advocate.

An October 7 court filing identified six plaintiffs facing separation proceedings, including Army service members Jackie Gross and Beck Simpson and Navy service members Samuel Ahearn and Austin Converse.

Navy Lt. Clara Winchell appeared before a board of inquiry September 23. Although the board found her disqualified under Trump’s policy, it concluded that her exemplary military record otherwise warranted retention. It recommended postponing her separation.

The proceedings have continued despite a June appellate ruling protecting currently serving plaintiffs. The Justice Department sought to delay the formal mandate implementing that decision while pursuing Supreme Court review, leaving those protections unenforced.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have asked the appeals court to issue its mandate immediately.

Related: Pete Hegseth’s Pentagon has started kicking trans troops out of the military, DOJ says

Hegseth’s testosterone program raises another question

The government’s renewed reliance on military costs also returns attention to a separate Pentagon initiative Reyes has already ordered attorneys to explain.

In July, Hegseth announced a testosterone screening and treatment program for service members, promoting hormone replacement therapy as a way to improve military health and readiness.

Reyes took judicial notice of Hegseth’s announcement, made in a social media video, and ordered the parties to address its medical, logistical, and financial implications.

Among her questions was why testosterone treatment could be considered beneficial for some service members while ongoing hormone therapy helped justify excluding transgender troops.

The Pentagon previously reported spending approximately $52 million on gender dysphoria-related care over nearly a decade, averaging about $5.2 million annually. Reyes compared that with roughly $41 million spent on Viagra in 2023 alone, describing transgender medical spending as “not even a rounding error” in the Pentagon’s budget.

The department temporarily withdrew its initial testosterone guidance in September before issuing revised instructions for screening male troops age 30 and older.

Tuesday’s filing again cites military costs but does not address Reyes’ questions about the testosterone program.

Presidential social media posts are also a business

The Justice Department’s position comes amid a separate legal controversy over Trump’s treatment of his own social media statements.

In August, Trump Media & Technology Group launched Truth API, offering paying subscribers faster access to Truth Social posts, including the president’s potentially market-moving announcements.

According to Reuters, subscriptions cost up to $100,000 per month, with discounted rates of about $60,000 for longer commitments. The advantage can be measured in milliseconds, which could be valuable to high-frequency financial traders.

Trump holds a substantial ownership interest in the company through a trust.

Wednesday’s hearing

Reyes will hold a status conference Wednesday at 1:30 p.m. in Washington, D.C.

Discovery is scheduled to close November 2, with trial set for January 4.