Democratic Rep. Sara Jacobs exposes Pete Hegseth's anti-trans hypocrisy during embarrassing House hearing
Keep up with the latest in + news and politics.
Marking National Women Veterans Day, Jacobs, who represents one of the largest military communities in San Diego, opened her remarks by highlighting the exemplary records of three women in uniform: a major responsible for advanced combat training, an aviator with more than 50 combat missions, and an ROTC instructor rated as one of the top noncommissioned officers in her command. All three, she noted, had received the highest marks from their commanding officers in recent months.
Related: This trans Air Force recruit wants to jump out of planes to save others. He's suing Trump to serve
Hegseth applauded their records—until Jacobs revealed they are transgender women.
"I would commend the major, the aviator, and the instructor for their service," Hegseth said.
'You are actually kicking out these three highly qualified service members solely because of their identity,' Jacobs explained. 'You are the one injecting culture wars into the military, and it's at the detriment of our military readiness and national security.'
Seemingly caught off guard, Hegseth responded dismissively. 'These are men who think they're women,' he said, claiming gender dysphoria poses a mental health risk that undermines military performance. Jacobs was quick to shut that down. 'These are women,' she said. 'I'm happy to educate you on trans issues at another time.'
Related: Transgender Army officer Erica Vandal was born into military service. Now, she's suing Trump to stay in
The exchange comes as the Pentagon carries out a sweeping purge of transgender troops under a May 15 directive from Hegseth's office. As of June 6, all service members with a current or prior diagnosis of gender dysphoria face involuntary separation unless they obtain a rare, restrictive, and essentially unobtainable waiver—one that requires them to deny their identity and abstain from accessing any gender-affirming care.
The result has been a wave of forced exits, with troops being discharged under codes commonly used for misconduct—damaging their careers and benefits. Legal and advocacy groups argue that the policy is discriminatory, dangerous, and unfounded.
'There's nothing voluntary about forced separation,' said Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, which is representing transgender people who are suing the government.
Related: Meet the transgender Army lieutenant who is challenging Donald Trump's military ban
As The Advocate has reported, some of those affected include West Point graduate and Bronze Star recipient Maj. Erica Vandal, transgender Navy aviator Cmdr. Emily Shilling, Second Lt. Nicolas Talbott, and Airman Clayton McCallister, a recent basic training graduate who ranked at the top of his class. All are plaintiffs in federal lawsuits against the administration, arguing that the ban violates their constitutional rights and undermines the very readiness the Pentagon claims to protect.
On Thursday, Jacobs zeroed in on the inconsistency in Hegseth's policy: if merit truly mattered, she argued, these troops would be retained—not expelled. 'Wouldn't that show up in their fit reps?' she asked, referring to the fitness reports from commanders that praised their leadership, skill, and service.
Related: 'Lesser-known D-Day' strikes as Pentagon purges transgender patriots serving in the U.S. military
Despite efforts by Senate Democrats led by Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth, a combat veteran who lost both legs in war, to halt the policy before the Pentagon began implementing the separations. Some service members have opted to retire early to protect their benefits. Others are being pushed out against their will.
'I thought I had to prove that trans people could serve,' McCallister told The Advocate last week. 'But we've already proven that, over and over. The military just doesn't want to see it.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
29 minutes ago
- USA Today
How Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is standing out from her liberal colleagues
From the Supreme Court's mahogany bench, the newest justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, has sparred with Amy Coney Barrett and other voices of the right. Moneyed interests and power are among her targets. WASHINGTON − After Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett announced from the court's mahogany bench last month that lower court judges had gone too far in pausing President Donald Trump's changes to birthright citizenship, the court's liberals got their turn. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the most senior of the three justices appointed by Democratic presidents, read parts of the trio's joint dissent for about twice as long as Barrett had described the conservative majority's opinion. She even added a line that doesn't appear in the written version. 'The other shoe has dropped on presidential immunity,' Sotomayor said, referencing the court's landmark 2024 decision limiting when presidents can be prosecuted for actions they take in office. But it was a separate written dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson that reverberated the most, in large part because of Barrett's scathing reaction to it. 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,' Barrett wrote. More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. Jackson's words repeatedly drew attention It wasn't the first time in recent months that Jackson's words drew attention. In a case about air pollution rules, Jackson said the case "gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens.' When her conservative colleagues gave Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration, Jackson said the court was sending a 'troubling message" that it's departing from basic legal standards for the Trump administration. Speaking at a judge's conference in May, Jackson condemned the attacks Trump and his allies were making on judges who ruled against his policies. Her warning that the 'threats and harassment' could undermine the Constitution and the rule of law was stronger than concerns expressed by Sotomayor and by Chief Justice John Roberts. And during the eight months that the justices heard cases, Jackson – the court's newest member in an institution that reveres seniority – once again spoke by far the most. 'I definitely do think Justice Jackson really prioritizes developing her own jurisprudence and thoughts and voice,' said Brian Burgess, a partner at the law firm Goodwin who clerked for Sotomayor. 'I can see Justice Jackson evolving into someone that wants to speak directly to the public to express the concerns of that side of the court.' A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story Jackson spoke up early and often Nominated by President Joe Biden in 2022 to succeed Justice Stephen Breyer, Jackson wasted no time being heard. During her first two weeks on the court, she spoke more than twice as many words as any of her colleagues. When asked about her volubility, Jackson has said she became used to operating solo on the bench during her eight years as a federal trial court judge. She hasn't shown many signs of adjusting. Since October, Jackson spoke 50% more words on the bench than Sotomayor who was the next talkative, according to statistics compiled by Adam Feldman and Jake S. Truscott for the Empirical SCOTUS blog. 'She's the only one that has ever done what she's doing in terms of total volume of speech in her first few terms,' said Feldman, a lawyer and political scientist. `She wanted me my voice.' Jackson has been working on her communications skills since elementary school when her mother enrolled her in a public speaking program. 'She wanted me to get out there and use my voice,' Jackson said during an appearance at the Kennedy Center last year to talk about her memoir. And it's not just her voice. Jackson wrote more – either opinions, concurrences or dissents – this term than anyone except Justice Clarence Thomas, according to Empirical SCOTUS blog. Steve Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, said he is going to add her dissent in the air pollution case to his course on federal courts. 'She is calling things as she sees them,' Vladeck said on the liberal Strict Scrutiny podcast. Jackson went further than her liberal colleagues Jackson went further in that case, and in some others, than her liberal colleagues. Sotomayor wrote her own dissent of the majority's ruling that fuel producers can challenge California emissions standards under a federal air pollution law. And Kagan was in the 7-2 majority. In fact, Kagan was in the majority more often this term than all but Roberts, Barrett and Justice Brett Kavanaugh – the three conservatives who often control the direction of the court. Jackson was in the majority the least often. 'You see Justice Kagan really shifting away from Justices Sotomayor and Jackson,' legal analyst Sarah Isgur said on the podcast Advisory Opinion where she dissects the court with fellow conservatives. Different ways of being influential Burgess, the former Sotomayor clerk, disputed that. He said the times Kagan voted against both Sotomayor and Jackson were not high-profile defections. For example, in the air pollution case, Burgess suspects Kagan agreed with Jackson that the court should not have heard the fuel producers' appeal in part because their underlying complaint was likely to be addressed by the Trump administration. But once they took the case, the justices decided the legal issue in a way that didn't break a lot of new ground, he said. 'I think she seems to be more interested in coalition building and finding ways to eke out wins,' Burgess said of Kagan's overall style. 'That's one way to be influential. Another way to be influential is to try to stake out different views and hope that history comes along to your position over time.' Attack on `pure textualism' In one of Jackson's strong dissents, in a case about whether the Americans with Disabilities Act protected a disabled retiree whose health benefits were reduced, Sotomayor was on board – except for a footnote. In that lengthy paragraph, Jackson criticized her conservative colleagues' use of 'pure textualism' as 'certainly somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority's desired outcome.' 'She's saying what I think so many of us have been thinking,' Vladeck said on the podcast. He wondered whether Sotomayor didn't sign onto that footnote because she didn't agree with it or because she wanted to 'let Jackson have it for herself and not take credit for what really is an unusually strong accusation of methodological manipulation by one of the justices.' `With deep disillusionment, I dissent.' Strong accusations flew in both directions about the court's ruling limiting the ability of judges to pause Trump's policies. In her solo dissent, Jackson called the majority's 'legalese' a smokescreen obscuring a 'basic question of enormous legal and practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?' 'The very institution our founding charter charges with the duty to ensure universal adherence to the law now requires judges to shrug and turn their backs to intermittent lawlessness,' she wrote. 'With deep disillusionment, I dissent.' Barrett said there's no dispute that presidents must obey the law. 'But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation – in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so,' she wrote. Jackson, Barrett said, would 'do well to heed her own admonition' that everyone from the president on down is bound by the law. 'That goes for judges too,' she wrote. A focus on real-world impact and individual rights Legal commentator David Lat said Barrett's response departed from her usual 'rather restrained rhetoric.' In a Substack article, Lat noted that Barrett once described herself as a 'one jalapeño gal' compared to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom Barrett clerked, who had a 'five jalapeño' style. Feldman said it's possible that Jackson's willingness to vocalize her disagreements with her conservative colleagues is getting under their skins. In a February article about how Barrett and Jackson are shaping the future of constitutional law, Feldman said the two sharp legal minds approach cases from strikingly different angles on how the law should function and who it should protect. Barrett prioritizes legal precision and institutional boundaries while Jackson focuses on real-world impact and individual rights, he wrote. When people look back at the Trump case, he told USA TODAY, they will be talking about Jackson's dissent. 'That's probably the one from the term,' he said, 'that will last the longest.'
Newsweek
6 hours ago
- Newsweek
New York Times Responds After Zohran Mamdani Story Stirs Liberal Backlash
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Patrick Healy, assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust at The New York Times, posted a lengthy thread on X, formerly Twitter, explaining the newspaper's controversial story on mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani's 2009 application to Columbia University. On Thursday, the Times published a report citing hacked Columbia documents that revealed the New York Democratic mayoral nominee identified as "Black or African American" on his college application. Mamdani, who is of South Asian heritage, was born in Uganda, where his family had lived for approximately a century, according to the article. Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani speaks during a rally at the Hotel & Gaming Trades Council headquarters in New York on July 2. Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani speaks during a rally at the Hotel & Gaming Trades Council headquarters in New York on July 2. Associated Press The decision to publish the Mamdani story, which was acquired via hacked information from a source, sparked liberal backlash on social media. Healy, in an 11-post thread, said in part, "Times journalists for decades have done deep reporting on major party nominees for New York's mayor to provide insight, context and texture about their priorities, history and evolution. Our reporting helps readers better understand how candidates think and what they believe." Why It Matters Mamdani, 33, is a New York state assemblyman who was born in Uganda to Indian parents. He has lived in New York City since age 7 and became a U.S. citizen in 2018. In the lead-up to New York City's 2025 Democratic mayoral primary, the Times editorial board issued a pointed critique of candidate Mamdani. While the news outlet had previously announced it would cease endorsing candidates outside presidential races, the board's editorial effectively served as an anti-endorsement. They questioned Mamdani's qualifications, citing his limited experience in managing large organizations and likening his progressive agenda to an intensified version of former Mayor Bill de Blasio's policies. Despite acknowledging concerns about Democratic challenger and former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's ethics, the board suggested he would be a more suitable choice than Mamdani. In the primary, Mamdani faced challenges garnering support from Black voters, a demographic that largely favored Cuomo. Polls indicated that Cuomo led Mamdani among Black voters by a significant margin, with one survey showing the former governor at 59 percent support compared to Mamdani's 26 percent. The political upstart will now take on New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who is Black, and running as an independent. Cuomo is also staying in the race, for now, as he mulls an independent or third-party run. What To Know The Times granted anonymity to the individual, who goes by the name Crémieux on Substack and X. The source who provided the hacked materials is described in the report as a person "who opposes affirmative action and writes often about I.Q. and race." In 2024, the Times, along with other prominent national publications, didn't publish hacked information it had acquired about Donald Trump's campaign from an alleged Iranian hacking operation. During last year's presidential campaign, the Times, along with other publications, were given a leaked dossier on JD Vance, then-Republican vice presidential nominee, compiled by the Trump campaign. But the paper chose not to publish its contents. That decision stood in contrast to its approach in 2016, when the Times reported on hacked campaign emails from John Podesta, who was serving as Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman at the time. Franklin Leonard, film/TV producer and liberal cultural commentator, wrote on X, "So apparently the New York Times now considers hacked information as legitimately reportable. (Also this story is explicitly designed to isolate Mamdani from the Black community based on his too smart for his own good decisions as an 18 year old. And he didn't even get in.)" The Tennessee Holler, a progressive news outlet, wrote on X, "So the @nytimes tried to slime Zohran using hacked materials given to them by an admitted race scientist/eugenicist who they kept anonymous even though he is publicly known — about races he checked on an application to a school he didn't get into? Pathetic. A scandal in itself." The post by Healy of the Times continued, "On sourcing, we work to give readers context, including in this case the initial source's online alias, as a way to learn more about the person, who was effectively an intermediary. The ultimate source was Columbia admissions data and Mr. Mamdani, who confirmed our reporting." He added, "We heard from readers who wanted more detail about this initial source. That's fair feedback. We printed his online alias so readers could learn more about the person. The purpose of this story was to help illuminate the thinking and background of a major mayoral candidate." "Sometimes sources have their own motives or obtain information using means we wouldn't, like Trump's taxes, Wikileaks or Edward Snowden. It's important to share what we can about sourcing, but we always independently assess newsworthiness and factual accuracy before publishing." What Zohran Mamdani Told The New York Times Mamdani told the Times he does not identify as Black or African American, but as "an American who was born in Africa." The Democratic socialist explained that his responses on the college application were meant to reflect the complexity of his heritage within the constraints of the available options, not to seek any advantage in the admissions process. He was ultimately not accepted to Columbia. "Most college applications don't have a box for Indian-Ugandans, so I checked multiple boxes trying to capture the fullness of my background," Mamdani told the Times. The application offered space for students to provide "more specific information where relevant," Mamdani said, and that he used that section to write in "Ugandan." "Even though these boxes are constraining, I wanted my college application to reflect who I was," he added to the outlet. What Happens Next New York City voters will return to the polls on November 4 to decide the city's next mayor. The outcome of this race will determine the city's trajectory on pressing issues, including housing, public safety and affordability. As Adams and Cuomo campaign as independents, the contest is expected to draw national attention and shape the political landscape for upcoming elections.
Politico
9 hours ago
- Politico
Trump signs his tax and spending cut bill at the White House July 4 picnic
'America's winning, winning, winning like never before,' Trump said, noting last month's bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear program, which he said the flyover was meant to honor. 'Promises made, promises kept and we've kept them.' The White House was hung with red, white and blue bunting for the regular Fourth of July festivities. The United States Marine Band played patriotic marches — and, in a typical Trumpian touch, tunes by 1980s pop icons Chaka Khan and Huey Lewis. The two separate flyovers bookended Trump's appearance and the band playing the national anthem. Democrats assailed the package as a giveaway to the rich that will rob millions more lower-income people of their health insurance, food assistance and financial stability. 'I never thought that I'd be on the House floor saying that this is a crime scene,' Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said during a record-breaking speech that delayed the bill's passage by eight-plus hours. 'It's a crime scene, going after the health, and the safety, and the well-being of the American people.' The legislation extends Trump's 2017 multitrillion-dollar tax cuts and cuts Medicaid and food stamps by $1.2 trillion. It provides for a massive increase in immigration enforcement. Congress' nonpartisan scorekeeper projects that nearly 12 million more people will lose health insurance under the law. The legislation passed the House on a largely party-line vote Thursday, culminating a monthslong push by the GOP to cram most of its legislative priorities into a single budget bill that could be enacted without Senate Democrats being able to block it indefinitely by filibustering. It passed by a single vote in the Senate, where North Carolina Republican Thom Tillis announced he would not run for reelection after incurring Trump's wrath in opposing it. Vice President JD Vance had to cast the tie-breaking vote. In the House, where two Republicans voted against it, one, conservative maverick Tom Massie of Kentucky, has also become a target of Trump's well-funded political operation. The legislation amounts to a repudiation of the agendas of the past two Democratic presidents, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, in rolling back Obama's Medicaid expansion under his signature health law and Biden's tax credits for renewable energy. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the package will add $3.3 trillion to the deficit over the decade and 11.8 million more people will go without health coverage.
