Federal appeals court rules that Trump’s trans military ban appears discriminatory

A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., said Monday that the Trump administration’s transgender military policy appears motivated by "the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group," delivering some of the strongest appellate criticism yet of a cornerstone of President Donald Trump’s campaign against transgender rights.

Writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Robert Wilkins concluded that key portions of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's policy likely violate the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection because they appear rooted in hostility toward transgender people rather than legitimate military concerns.

"The sharp contrast to the Mattis Policy ... appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender," wrote Wilkins, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

"As such, at this preliminary stage, I conclude that the Hegseth Policy is both arbitrary and based upon animus."

The remarks came in a fractured ruling that partially upheld and partially narrowed an injunction against the policy. The court preserved protections for the named transgender plaintiffs currently serving in the military while allowing enforcement of portions of the policy affecting prospective recruits.

But the most striking aspect of the 107-page opinion was Wilkins' repeated focus on what he described as evidence that the administration's policy targets transgender identity itself.

The judge opened his opinion by recounting language used by Trump and Hegseth to justify the policy.

In January 2025, Trump declared that people "expressing a false 'gender identity' divergent from an individual's sex" could not satisfy the standards required for military service. Hegseth later asserted that people with gender dysphoria lacked the "honesty, humility, and integrity" required of service members.

Wilkins noted that the government offered no evidence supporting those claims.

"In this litigation, the government has not attempted to defend or provide any factual basis for these disparaging characterizations of American citizens," he wrote. The government also did not dispute that the transgender plaintiffs currently serving in the military had served honorably and collectively earned more than 80 commendations.

The administration has argued that the policy concerns gender dysphoria, a medical condition, and is designed to promote military readiness, cohesion, and deployability.

Wilkins rejected that characterization as incomplete.

"The record shows that the purpose of the Hegseth Policy is to target applicants and servicemembers who express what the Administration believes is a 'false gender identity,'" he wrote, adding that the policy extends well beyond people currently experiencing gender dysphoria.

The opinion highlights several provisions that Wilkins found difficult to justify.

Among them are rules disqualifying people with any history of gender dysphoria, even if they have been free of symptoms for years or were diagnosed as children. The policy also appears to prevent waivers for anyone who has ever "attempted to transition," a provision Wilkins said could encompass people who socially transitioned by using different pronouns or clothing.

"The government has not told us what legitimate interest it has in preventing a woman from joining (or remaining in) the military because she used he/him or they/them pronouns at some point during her lifetime, and I cannot think of one," he wrote.

Wilkins repeatedly contrasted the Hegseth policy with the transgender military policy implemented during Trump's first term under then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.

While the Mattis policy imposed restrictions, it allowed many transgender troops to remain in service and accommodated service members who had already transitioned. The current policy abandons those protections. "From all of the circumstances," Wilkins wrote, "it is clear that the Hegseth Policy was based, at least in part, on an intent to exclude persons from the military due to their gender identity."

The opinion echoes findings made by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, who blocked the policy in March.

Reyes wrote that the military ban was "soaked in animus and dripping with pretext," finding that the administration had failed to show that transgender service members undermine military readiness or effectiveness. Wilkins highlighted that conclusion and devoted substantial portions of his opinion to discussing the evidence supporting it.

The ruling was not a complete victory for the plaintiffs. Wilkins joined Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, in concluding that the district court went too far by extending preliminary relief to people seeking to join the military. Wilkins said courts should be more cautious before compelling the military to admit new personnel based on a preliminary ruling.

Still, the opinion leaves the administration facing a potentially significant obstacle as the litigation moves forward.

The ruling arrives just weeks after the plaintiffs asked Reyes to certify the case as a class action, extending protections beyond the original plaintiffs to thousands of transgender service members and applicants affected by the policy.

The administration is expected to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court. But Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said the appeals court's focus on animus could make that more difficult.

"It's the most narrow ground that the court could have ruled on," Minter told The Advocate. "It avoids the question of whether heightened scrutiny applies either to sex discrimination or transgender discrimination. So the court is saying that even if there is no heightened scrutiny here, this is a policy just so clearly based on animus."

Minter said that the approach closely tracks existing Supreme Court precedent and could help insulate the ruling from emergency intervention by the justices.

"That's not breaking any new ground," he said. "That is really consistent with existing Supreme Court case law."

Although the court narrowed the injunction as it relates to prospective recruits, Minter emphasized that the ruling preserves protections for transgender troops currently serving in the military. "The court affirmed on the currently serving plaintiffs based on animus and affirmed the injunction," he said. "It protects all the currently serving folks."

The opinion arrived on the first day of Pride Month, a timing Minter called meaningful.

"What encouraging timing," he said. "All is not lost in the courts. There are still many judges and many courts who recognize the injustice of singling out people and treating them differently just because they're transgender or part of the LGBTQ+ community."