Judge hopes to rule next week on Trump order banning trans troops
At the end of a daylong hearing in Washington, D.C., U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes said it is her 'strong hope' that she will issue a decision next Tuesday or Wednesday. Reyes acknowledged that her ruling probably won't be the 'last stop in this train's journey,' given the near-certainty of an appeal.
'I just have to do the best I can with the evidence in front of me,' she said.
Reyes spent most of Wednesday's hearing peppering a government attorney with questions about a new Defense Department policy that presumptively disqualifies people with gender dysphoria from military service.
Gender dysphoria is the distress that a person feels because their assigned gender and gender identity don't match. The medical condition has been linked to depression and suicidal thoughts.
The new policy stems from a Jan. 27 executive order by President Donald Trump that claims the sexual identity of transgender service members 'conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one's personal life.'
Roughly 2,000 transgender people serve in the military, but they represent less than 1% of the total number of active-duty service members.
Reyes frequently sounded skeptical of the administration's motives and rationale as she challenged Justice Department attorney Jason Manion to defend the order and policy. She called it a 'Don't Tell' policy, a reference to the military's outdated 'don't ask, don't tell' policy against LGBTQ service members.
'They have to essentially be in hiding while in service,' Reyes said of transgender troops.
The judge said the Defense Department has spent roughly $5.2 million annually over the past decade to provide medical care to treat gender dysphoria — a miniscule percentage of the military's multibillion dollar budget. As a point of comparison, Reyes noted that the military spends around $42 million per year on medication treating erectile dysfunction.
'It's not even a rounding error, right?' she asked.
'If it's a cost per service member, it does matter,' Manion said.
The plaintiffs who sued to block Trump's order include an Army Reserves platoon leader from Pennsylvania, an Army major who was awarded a Bronze Star for service in Afghanistan and a Sailor of the Year award winner serving in the Navy. Their attorneys contend that Trump's order violates transgender people's rights to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.
Government lawyers argue that military officials have broad discretion to decide how to assign and deploy service members without judicial interference.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
4 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Robert A. Pape: To prevent nuclear war in the Middle East, America needs to change its nuclear doctrine
The world is moving closer to the brink of nuclear war in alarming ways that are more dangerous and harder to anticipate than during the Cold War. The famous 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis was a harrowing near miss, but today's nuclear dangers are more complex. This is due to a variety of factors, particularly coming together in the Middle East: increasing tensions across the region, growing risks of nuclear proliferation, and now perils of surprise military attack during crises involving states with nuclear weapons or on the cusp of nuclear weapons. Israel's recent 12-day war against Iran is a harbinger of potentially growing nuclear dangers to come. For the first time in history, two nuclear armed states — Israel and the United States — bombed a state, Iran, with a major nuclear program that many believe is on the threshold of acquiring all the physical and technical capacities necessary to produce nuclear weapons within a matter of months. For sure, the 12-day war involved a series of attacks and counterattacks that were terrifying to live through, and there was great relief when they came to an end. However, the future is even more concerning. First, Israeli and American bombing did not obliterate Iran's nuclear program, as President Donald Trump astonishingly declared before he received bomb damage assessments. As is now widely agreed among U.S. defense intelligence, Israeli intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan did not eliminate Iran's stockpiles of highly enriched uranium. Although uncertainly remains about Iran's next steps, there is little doubt that Iran could attempt to produce a 'crude' bomb in a matter of months. And it is important to understand, a 'crude' bomb means a Hiroshima-style weapon that could lead to the deaths of 80,000 people from the immediate effects of the blast. Second, future information about Iran's nuclear program is fraught with high degrees of uncertainty. From the beginning, Iran has allowed IAEA inspectors to have tremendous access to monitor its nuclear enrichment program. True, these inspections have fluctuated over time and have never been as fully comprehensive as many would have liked. However, for decades, the quarterly IAEA reports have been crucial for high confidence assessments about the scale of Iran's enrichment program and whether vast amounts of enriched uranium have not been siphoned off to develop nuclear weapons. Now, Iran has reportedly banned IAEA inspectors from its nuclear facilities, and the fear and suspicion about a surprise nuclear breakout will grow over time. Third, and most important, the 12-day war shows that the fear of surprise attack is now fully justified. It is important to recall that the war started June 13 with a stunning, Pearl Harbor-like surprise attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear sites. Israel's bolt-from-the-blue strike occurred without warning and while Iranian negotiators were preparing to meet with their American counterparts just days later. Given these events, Israel, the United States and Iran now face the specter of one of the most terrifying scenarios for nuclear war: the 'reciprocal fear of surprise attack.' That's a situation in which both sides of a potential conflict fear being attacked first, leading them to consider — and possibly launch — a preemptive strike to avoid being caught off guard. The most worrisome aspect is that striking first in these circumstances has an element of rationality. If one side thinks the other is preparing for a surprise attack, then attacking first, even if it carries risks, may be the best way to reduce one's own losses. Of course, nuclear war is so horrible that the reciprocal fear of surprise attack may never lead to an actual outbreak of war. If so, then the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would not be a problem in the first place. Alas, we need to take this danger seriously. What can be done? Although there are no perfect solutions to the reciprocal fear of surprise attack, there is one step that would significantly matter: For the United States, Iran and Israel to declare that they would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a crisis involving Iran. The general idea of 'no first use' pledges, as they are called, arose during the Cold War, but the United States has never been willing to make such a promise. At the time, this was thought of in the context of the U.S., Europe and Soviet contest in which America needed the implicit threat of the first use of nuclear weapons to offset the Soviet conventional military threat to U.S. nonnuclear European allies. The Middle East is clearly different. America's main ally, Israel, is a powerful nuclear weapons state and so does not rely on U.S. nuclear weapons to deter attacks on its homeland. For the United States, Israel and Iran to agree a limited no-first-use policy would not end the tensions over Iran's nuclear program. However, it would energize negotiations and avoid some of the worst ways that a nuclear war could inadvertently occur. The Nobel Laureate Assembly to Prevent Nuclear War taking place at the University of Chicago recently was a perfect place to begin a national conversation about the value of adapting U.S. nuclear doctrine to today's realities in the Middle East. If this assembly of the most brilliant minds on the planet could recommend this historic step in which the U.S., Iran and Israel each pledge they would not be the first to use nuclear weapons in the dispute involving Iran's nuclear program, this would be a meaningful step toward preventing nuclear war in one of the most dangerous regions in the world.
The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump administration turns hostile on Aspen Security Forum
The Trump administration's last-minute snub of the Aspen Security Forum this week betrays a growing animosity between the U.S. government and wider national security community. The Pentagon on Monday pulled senior Defense Department officials from the annual event —only a day before the start of the four-day summit in Colorado — claiming the bipartisan gathering 'promotes the evil of globalism, disdain for our great country, and hatred for the President of the United States.' The strong wording has alarmed some experts and former government officials, who see a growing tendency for the administration to cut off anyone who criticizes or so much as offers an alternative view to that of the current U.S. government — putting up a barrier between them and the decision makers. 'The Trump administration doesn't like dissent, I think that's pretty clear. And they don't like dissenting views at conferences,' a Republican political strategist and frequent forum attendee told The Hill. 'Causing a stir about perceived criticism of the Trump administration makes people afraid to cross them and lose access to the administration. They might be cut off from people who are implementing policies.' But the shunning of events on the national security and foreign policy circuit does no favors for the administration's national security goals, experts say, as they lend a platform to potentially different viewpoints that could be useful for Washington. Case in point, those that gathered at the mountain retreat were described as 'bewildered' by the decision due to the forum's well-known bipartisan agenda, with several former Trump administration officials slated to speak, according to the political strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. 'It was a surprise because most of us were traveling to the conference when the announcement occurred,' they said. 'I think most people who attend the event frequently never viewed it as being partisan or anti-Trump. So it was bewildering and I think a little bit concerning.' The Aspen Security Forum, described as the 'premier national security and foreign policy conference,' is among the most high-profile such events and for years has attracted Republican and Democratic administration officials, business leaders, and analysts. During Trump's first term, several top officials including then-CIA chief and later Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attended the forum. This year's lineup included Mark Esper, an acting defense secretary in Trump's first term, Condoleezza Rice, a former national security advisor and secretary of state under President George W. Bush, and David Petraeus, the short-lived CIA director under President Obama. Speakers covered a range of issues that included the U.S. strategy on Taiwan, Russia's war in Ukraine, NATO, and how Trump's tariffs will affect Washington's alliances. More than a dozen pulled administration officials were set to appear on several panels, including Navy Secretary John Phelan. But the Pentagon suddenly declared they would not attend and would not do so moving forward as 'their values do not align with the values of the DoD,' according to spokesperson Sean Parnell. Only one administration official ended up attending the conference and they were not associated with the Pentagon: Adam Boehler, Trump's special envoy for hostage release. Even without the defense officials in attendance, panelists praised a number of Trump's recent moves, including his decision to offer lethal aid for Ukraine, the U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and prompting NATO countries to foot more of the bill when it comes to defense spending. National security elites also appeared resigned that the norms and conventions that sprang up following World War II — which have dictated U.S. use of military force and how Washington addresses long-held partners and alliances — are now upended thanks to Trump. 'We have to recognize that we're probably not going back to exactly that system,' Rice, a co-chair of the Aspen Strategy Group, said at the closing panel of the summit. Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution think tank, said he wasn't doing any hand-wringing over Trump's 11th hour snub, and was viewing the official pullout as just the new norm for at least the next three years. 'If they want to have a little bit of a culture war over this particular forum, I'm just going to view it as a reminder of how they view the world, as opposed to a major problem,' O'Hanlon said, referring to the administration's isolationist tendencies. 'They'll be willing to just hold a grudge if they decide you've slighted them or you're not of their worldview. And that's just the way it's going to be,' he added. O'Hanlon noted that as long as administration officials appear at some similar forums and are willing to engage, he doesn't see an issue. But should they stop attending any such events moving forward, that's a cause for concern. 'If they just occasionally feel a slight from somebody and pull out of this or that, that's one thing. If they stop being willing to engage in any kind of forum, unless you somehow prove that you're a complete MAGA Republican, that would be much more concerning.' Aspen organizers, meanwhile, have made clear their invitation to the Trump officials remains open. The political strategists said the organizers were more concerned about ensuring that there's a presence of government officials going forward at the event. 'This is a major security forum, it's an open exchange of ideas, and they made it very clear throughout the event that the officials are invited back anytime in the future,' they said. 'I think there's a hope that that they will come back next year.'
The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
DOJ rocked by wave of Trump firings
The Justice Department has been rocked by a wave of recent firings, a sign the administration is not done culling the ranks of career officials as it seeks to shape the department under a second Trump term. Maurene Comey, a New York-based federal prosecutor and the daughter of the former FBI director, was fired Wednesday without explanation. And news broke this week that the Justice Department also fired immigration court Judge Jennifer Peyton, who served as head of the Chicago immigration court system, shortly after the jurist gave a tour to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. Those firings come on the heels of the dismissal of at least 20 staffers who worked under special counsel Jack Smith, a group that includes not only attorneys but also support staff and even U.S. Marshals. Attorney General Pam Bondi last week also fired the top career ethics official at the department, Joseph Tirrell, the latest in a string of ethics officials pushed out under President Trump. 'Every time I think we're at some point when the firings are over, there's another wave. So I would predict we'll see more,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 'It's more dedicated career professionals being given walking papers when they really deserve to be elevated and empowered. And to fire the ethics attorney, I think, speaks volumes about where she's taking the department,' Blumenthal said. Justice Connection, a network of the department's alumni dedicated to protecting 'colleagues who are under attack,' estimate that more than 200 employees have been terminated at DOJ, a figure that includes firings at the FBI and other agencies, as well as prosecutors that worked on the cases of Jan. 6 rioters at the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. 'The senseless terminations at the Justice Department are growing exponentially. The very institution created to enforce the law is trampling over the civil service laws enacted by Congress. It's shameful, and it's devastating the workforce,' Stacey Young, executive director and founder of the group, said in a statement to The Hill 'DOJ leadership is making clear the ability to keep your job is not tied to your performance, your expertise, or your commitment to uphold and defend the Constitution. Those who remain at the department are now worried about how to uphold their professional ethical standards when it seems that their willingness to do whatever they are ordered matters more than any other aspect of their work.' The Justice Department declined to comment on personnel matters. Many of the attorneys that were fired have received brief letters saying they were terminated under the authority of the second article of the constitution, the one that establishes the presidency. A letter from Comey to her colleagues referenced the guiding ethos of the Justice Department: to pursue cases 'without fear or favor.' 'Our focus was really on acting 'without favor.' That is, making sure people with access, money, and power were not treated differently than anyone else; and making sure this office remained separate from politics and focused only on the facts and the law,' Comey said in the memo, adding, 'but we have entered a new phase where 'without fear' may be the challenge.' In the case of Peyton, Durbin said he sees a direct line between the tour she gave him – something he called a routine oversight visit – and her termination. 'Judge Peyton took time to show me the court and explain its functions. Soon after, she received an email from Department of Justice political appointees. The email claimed that immigration judges should not directly communicate with members of Congress and congressional staff and required all communications from congressional offices to be forwarded to headquarters for review and response,' Durbin said in a Tuesday email. 'Judge Peyton was fired soon after. Her abrupt termination is an abuse of power by the Administration to punish a non-political judge simply for doing her job.' On Smith's team, the recent firings make for at least 37 staffers who have been dismissed, according to Reuters. And on the ethics front, beyond Terrill, Jeffrey Ragsdale, the head of the Office of Professional Responsibility, which reviews the conduct of attorneys in the department, was fired in March. Brad Weinsheimer, another top ethics official, resigned after he was reassigned to a new working group focused on cracking down on sanctuary cities. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), also a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he sees two primary patterns. 'This is Pam Bondi attempting to go after all the president's perceived political enemies, to go after dedicated prosecutors who brought cases successfully to conviction. It's also part of the broader effort to completely rewrite history about Jan. 6,' he told The Hill, adding that he expects more firing of those 'deemed insufficiently pro-MAGA.' He then listed a string of officials inside and outside of DOJ that have been fired under Trump, including the heads of the Office of the Special Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics. 'They seem to be doing everything they can to eviscerate any kind of watchdog or ethical oversight – clearly part of a pattern of trying to eliminate all accountability,' said Schiff, who sent a letter to Bondi this week asking for more details on Terrill's firings and plans to comply with ethics guidelines at the department. Beyond the firings, many Justice Department lawyers have left the department of their own accord, with several sharing with The Hill they feared being asked to do something illegal or would be forced to defend unlawful actions. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the result is a culture of fear at the Justice Department. 'The Department of Justice is now a joke. When you look at the history of a once storied and legendary department, Pam Bondi has defined her job as doing whatever Donald Trump wants. She's completely sycophantic and subservient. And there may be some lawyers still left in the building who are trying to do their jobs in an honest way consistent with professional ethics, but everything has been supported, subordinated to the political will of Donald Trump,' he told The Hill. 'It's a tough thing for the real lawyers who are still there, and they express a lot of fear and anxiety about where the DOJ is going.' He added that some Republican colleagues, largely former prosecutors, have privately expressed concern over the firings. 'I have had Republican colleagues who were former federal prosecutors telling me privately that they are absolutely appalled that United States assistant attorneys are being fired because they worked on the January 6 case,' Raskin said. 'Think about the implications of that. People are being fired for doing their jobs well, and their job was bringing cases against people who violently assaulted federal police officers,' he said. But that concern was not publicly shared by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the chair of the panel. 'I have confidence in President Trump, confidence in his team at the Justice Department, if that's what they think is in the best interest of fulfilling their mission, that's their call,' he told The Hill. 'I don't know this particulars about each individual, but if that's what the attorney general believes is in the best interest of the Justice Department's mission, that's fine.' Comey and Terrill both addressed morale in letters to their colleagues. Comey said unjustified firings mean 'fear may seep into the decisions of those who remain.' 'Do not let that happen. Fear is the tool of a tyrant, wielded to suppress independent thought. Instead of fear, let this moment fuel the fire that already burns at the heart of this place. A fire of righteous indignation at abuses of power. Of commitment to seek justice for victims. Of dedication to truth above all else,' she wrote. Terrill, too, hinted at a call to action from colleagues. 'I believe in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. – 'the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice,'' he wrote in a post on LinkedIn that included his brief termination notice. 'I also believe that Edmund Burke is right and that 'the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.'
