A federal court has granted a preliminary injunction blocking implementation of President Trump’s executive order targeting transgender military service members. The 79-page opinion details the lengthy records of service and commendation of the trans plaintiffs, and notes the order’s distinct lack of evidence to support a ban.
The preliminary injunction was issued in the legal challenge Talbott v. Trump, brought by LGBTQ legal groups GLAD Law and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. They are representing six active service members, two people actively seeking enlistment, and an additional 12 plaintiffs who joined the case since the filing on January 28th.
The court order detailed the transgender military members’ skills, service, and honors earned:
- “Together they have provided over 130 years of military service. They have served in roles ranging from Senior Military Science Instructor to Artillery Platoon Commander to Intelligence Analyst to Satellite Operator to Operations Research Analyst to Naval Flight Officer to Weapons Officer.”
- “They have deployed around the globe, from Afghanistan to Poland to Korea to Iraq to Kuwait to the USS Ronald Reagan and USS George W. Bush. One is presently deployed to an active combat zone.”
- “They have earned more than 80 commendations including: a Bronze Star; two Global War on Terrorism Service Medals; two Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medals; numerous Meritorious Service Medals; numerous Commendation Medals; Air and Space Outstanding Unit Awards; and the Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal, among many others. “
- “Plaintiffs’ service records alone are Exhibit A for the proposition that transgender persons can have the warrior ethos, physical and mental health, selflessness, honor, integrity, and discipline to ensure military excellence. Defendants [Trump Department of Justice lawyers] Agree”
The ruling noted the lack of evidence to support a ban on transgender military service in the executive order or in the followup memo by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth:
- “President Trump issued EO14183 seven days after taking office. No one knows what he relied on, if anything.”
- “There is no evidence that they consulted with uniformed military leaders before doing so. Neither document contains any analysis nor cites any data.”
- “EO14183 and the Hegseth Policy provide nothing to support Defendants’ view that transgender military service is inconsistent with military readiness.”
The Court ruled the order violates the equal protection clause of The U.S. Constitution, promotes discrimination based on transgender status and sex, and “is soaked in animus.”
U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes continued: “Its language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact.”
“Thousands of transgender servicemembers have sacrificed—some risking their lives—to ensure for others the very equal protection rights the Military Ban seeks to deny them.”
The opinion supported its claim of administration animus with examples of the Trump administration’s targeting of transgender people writ large:
- “Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the Military Ban is motivated by animus and is not tailored to meet its stated goals. But, as they say, there is more, for the Military Ban does not stand alone.”
- Executive orders disparaging transgender identity, attempting to block access to health care and education, accurate passports, and censorship on federal websites of accurate terms to describe transgender people including on health agency sites, a “stop bullying” site, the site to protect missing and exploited children, and the National Park Service’s site for the Stonewall National Monument.
- “The flurry of government actions directed at transgender persons—denying them everything from necessary medical care to access to homeless shelters—must give pause to any court asked to consider whether one such order under review furthers a legitimate government interest free of animus.”
We’re grateful our plaintiffs, and all transgender members of the military, are protected from this egregious ban.
“A federal judge blocked the Trump administration on Tuesday from banning transgender people from serving in the military.
www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/u…
— National Center for Lesbian Rights (@nclrights.bsky.social) March 19, 2025 at 1:22 PM
“We’re grateful our plaintiffs, and all transgender members of the military, are protected from this egregious ban,” the National Center for Lesbian Rights stated in a post on Bluesky.
“When you put on the uniform, differences fall away and what matters is your ability to do the job,” said Nicolas Talbott, Second Lieutenant, Army, whose name is on the lawsuit challenging the order.
“My being transgender has no bearing on my dedication to the mission, my commitment to my unit, or my ability to perform my duties in accordance with the high standards expected of me and every servicemember,” Lt. Talbott said.
“I’ve spent more than half my life in the Army, including combat in Afghanistan,” said Kate Cole, Sergeant First Class, Army. “Removing qualified transgender soldiers like me means an exodus of experienced personnel who fill key positions and can’t be easily replaced, putting the burden on our fellow soldiers left behind. That’s just wrong — and it destabilizes our armed forces.”
“This ruling shows the Trump administration’s discriminatory attempt to bar transgender Americans from serving in the military is unconstitutional and does nothing to make our country safer and stronger,” GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis said.
“Transgender military members are already serving capably and honorably, having met the required rigorous health and readiness standards,” Ellis continued. “The current ‘commander in chief’ and his staff continue to threaten our national defense with this baseless disinformation campaign against their fellow Americans. Transgender troops should continue to serve despite this politically-motivated and harmful sideshow.”
Research shows that Trump’s previous ban on trans service had a negative impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, and national security. 56 generals, admirals, and other leaders from every service branch condemned Trump’s previous attempt to bar open service, noting it would “degrade readiness even more than the failed ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy.”
“The Court’s opinion is long, but its premise is simple,” the opinion summed up.
“In the self-evident truth that ‘all people are created equal,’ all means all. Nothing more. And certainly nothing less.”
The Court is giving the government until March 21, 2025, at 10:00 am eastern, to file for an emergency stay.
“The Court extends its appreciation to every current servicemember and veteran. Thank you.”